This week I received an "urgent" email regarding the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which is set to be reviewed by the US Congress Jan 21-22, 2009. The letter itself can be seen at the “Snopes” site at this link. Snopes downplays the urgencey but is ambiguous regarding actual ramifications. At best, it seems to imply that most of the outcome of the law will be determined in the aftermath. Another site, National Right to Life, states this is quite a serious bill, more far reaching than the Roe V. Wade decision. In any event, the act was proposed by pro abortionists, who apparently believe the present laws are too restrictive.
In the recent US presidential debates, the president elect was asked, “When do you believe human life begins?” The president elect wryly answered “That question is above my pay grade.” To some, the abortion issue is no big deal, while to others the issue always seems to be an urgent priority. I believe the reason it is such a controversial issue is because it cuts to the heart of what we believe as human beings about the meaning of life in general. The “abortion on demand" issue asks the question “Should a woman have the right to terminate a life simply because she wants to?” This begs the question “Does the fetus itself have any rights?” which begs a further question "When does life begin?” To me these questions, though seemingly complex, all come down to more basic and fundamental questions, which all rest in a person’s worldview. The reason there is great polarity, I believe, is because the issue is seen through the lens of the two main contrasting worldviews.
Two Contrasting Views
One worldview is atheistic and materialistic. A person who does not believe there is an intelligent Creator would probably live his or her life based a philosophy of relativism and Skinner’s “situational ethics.” This boils down to the notion that there is no absolute truth, which implies there is no higher meaning in life. All sentimentalism aside, to such a person there is really no difference between humans, animals or a bag of fertilizer. And functionally, life is just a dog eat dog world, social Darwinism. It’s a world view where one is morally free to simply live for oneself. What is the need for altruism and love if there is no meaning in life? In this world view, even love ultimately is self centered, though there may be creative imagination involved. If there is no higher meaning in life, it seems the only real point of doing good things for other people is simply to feel good about oneself. In this worldview, any kind of abortion is no problem on any terms simply if any woman wants it.
Another worldview offers that there is an intelligent Creator (not just an abstract "force"). This Creator created all life, including humans, with meaning and purpose. The physical reality of life coincides with inherent, eternal principles that reflect the identity of the Creator. To agree with these eternal principles is to live in harmony with the Creator and thus find meaning, happiness and a full life. Actions aren't seen as neatly compartmentalized. To break these principles is to bring upon oneself and one’s society heart ache, pain and self destruction. According to the Biblical view, human life is precious and sacred because we are created in God’s image. This idea colors all of life. Sex, the gift of pleasure and creation, is also sacred and seen as a precious gift for a lifetime partner. Marriage is seen as an example of unity with God. The lifelong commitment between two people lasts through the ups and downs of the relationship. The gift of human life, as received by the couple, begins at conception. (Jeremiah 1.5, Psalms 139) and for this reason abortion is considered to be the taking of an innocent life, something not good.
In the first example, abortion means very little. It’s seen as a practical, pragmatic way of avoiding a difficult life for a parent who may simply want to enjoy sexual freedom or continue a career. But is it really so simple? Norma McCorvey, who is the “Jane Roe” of Roe V. Wade, said was exploited by the abortion agenda. She said she never did have the abortion and was deceptively used by the abortion lawyers to overturn state abortion laws accross the country. Ultimately she has become an outspoken anti-abortionist. “McCorvey said her mind was changed by one particular client who came in. The woman was nearly full-term and seeking and abortion when McCorvey questioned her as to why it had taken her so long to come to the decision. The woman replied that she was pregnant with a girl and had decided she wanted a boy instead. McCorvey said that two weeks after the procedure, “I could feel she had some kind of torment, but I didn’t know what it was called.”
A “Meaningful Life”
In the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision, the court ruled that states could restrict abortions only during the final three months of pregnancy because only then was the fetus capable of “meaningful life” outside the womb. For me, I have to wonder, who do these “medical experts” and judges think they are to decide for the rest of us under what conditions a human life is a “meaningful life?" If it's ok to take a fetus' life for the sake of convenience, what does that say about the elderly and homeless? According to that logic, it would be better to simply end their lives and end their loneliness and suffering for the convenience of society. The abortion question confronts us with serious questions about life that are not above any person's "pay grade." On the contrary, each one of us needs to hash out our beliefs and come to terms with what we believe and why. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, had some revealing quotes:
- "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923).
- "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." - Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, Linda Gordon quoting Sanger (…More quotes at this link)
Those who promote eugenics are not just racist atheists, but often hard core New Age environmentalists whose spiritual beliefs regard saving “Mother Earth" as the highest prioirty. If saving Mother Earth, or Gaia is the highest priority, then using people in undeveloped countries in population control experiments is considered ok. The World Order agenda is steeped in the New Age and has the reduction of population as a high priority.
- "Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution," - logo of SIE Conference 1921
- “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs” - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
- “Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet,” - David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth (quote link)
- “Just as the human body uses a fever to fight off an infection, Gaia is raising her temperature to expel a harmful parasite – humans.” The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock, father of The Gaia Theory
The film clip at this link is from “Endgame.” There are 5 parts you can view regarding eugenics. According to the theme, “The eugenics movement never went away, it simply re-packaged itself to be more palatable to an increasingly skeptical public.” In the abortion clinic "Jane Roe" was confronted by the ugly ramifications of her worldview and it radically changed her life. Through that epiphany she became a believer in Jesus Christ and testifies that she has found a truly meaningful life. What does your worldview really imply? Perhaps the subject of abortion has given some clues.
(Photo Fetus II courtesy of Amir)