Category: Abortion

The question of our title is similar to other questions that have been asked. Can a Christian be a lawyer? Or, can a Christian tend bar?

Those questions speak of the morality of the two occupations. While I believe that a Christian could certainly practice law, there are certain types of lawyers who seem, if they do their job successfully, to violate Christian morality.

However, when I ask the question, “Can a Christian be President?” I am not so concerned with the ethics of the job; rather, I am referring to the electability of a Christian. I am convinced that one who truly holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ would be considered an extremist, and would have no chance of being elected to the highest office in America.

Continue reading “In The News: Can A Christian Be President” →

AOTS Number 76

Too many in our permissive society twist the concept of liberty to mean a liscense to do whatever they want. As Christians, we must become slaves to Christ, and be responsible in our actions.

To listen to this Podcast, click here .

To subscribe to the AOTS feed, click here .

I recently came across a rather bizarre note concerning attempts being made in Austria to have a chimpanzee declared legally “human” for the purpose of legally protecting him from laboratory experiments.

The report states that “Animal rights activists and leading experts in several biological fields including primatology and anthropology are joining forces to uphold a case going before an Austrian court which seeks a declaration of ‘human status’ for a 26-year-old chimpanzee.” The activists want the chimpanzee, named Hiasl, to have a legal guardian appointed over him. Since only humans have the right to a legal guardian, they have to convince the court that Hiasl is, in fact, human.

Continue reading “Is the Chimp Human?” →

SAO PAULO (Reuters) – Supermodel Gisele Bundchen stepped into the debate over birth control and sexual behavior in Brazil on Tuesday, saying Church opposition to condom use was ridiculous and women should have the right to choose on abortion.

Gisele is idolized by many young women in Brazil, the world’s largest Roman Catholic country, where debate over sexual issues has intensified around a visit by Pope Benedict last month.

The Pope stressed the Church’s firm opposition to abortion and contraception and railed against sex outside of marriage.

The Brazilian beauty, one of the world’s top models, told Folha de S.Paulo newspaper in an interview that when the Church made its laws centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins.

“Today no one is a virgin when they get married … show me someone who’s a virgin!” she said.

Asked about abortion, she said a woman should have the right to choose what is best for her.

“If she thinks she doesn’t have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?”

Analysis:

There is a great deal interesting about this article. Notice first of all Gisele’s statement that “when the Church made its law centuries ago, women were expected to be virgins.” In fact, it has only been a few decades since women stopped being expected to be virgins. And by the way, it was not the Church that determined that women should be virgins, but rather God, as revealed in His word! “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

Second, note that Gisele is “idolized” by many young women in Brazil. It is interesting how much influence and authority that the world places upon a model — a person whose job is to don the most scandalous of outfits (fashion models exhibit no modesty), and pose for pictures. There is obviously no premium on intelligence, and the lifestyle of a top fashion model is one characterized by debauchery and excess, and yet she is idolized and mimicked by millions of women! Note in contrast the true beauty of the godly woman, “Rather let it [adornment] be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:4).

Third, if a woman doesn’t have the money to have a child, or the emotional condition to raise a child, then why in the world is she engaging in activity that will cause her to conceive a child. In effect, Gisele is saying that a woman (and man) should have the right to act in inappropriate, immoral and immature ways, and not have to pay any consequence for the sin. Rather … kill the innocent, unborn child!

While it is not common today for people to remain sexually pure until marriage, and those who do are considered peculiar, it remains that God intends such faithfulness from His children. Gisele is wrong, and it is a shame she is listened to by so many. She is not wrong because the Catholic church says so, or the pope, she is wrong because the Holy Spirit says so!

Steve Chabot, a republican congressman from Ohio, drafted a federal law banning partial birth abortions. The measure was passed by congress, and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. The law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional and was defeated in six lower courts before the Supreme Court reversed those decisions, upholding the constitutionality of the law in a 5-4 vote on April 18th.

Moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the ruling. He wrote that even more common abortion techniques have the unfortunate power to “devalue human life”, and indicated that partial birth abortion, (a procedure where the fetus is almost fully removed from the birth canal before scissors are used to pierce the skull and a vacuum is used to destroy the fetus’ brain), “implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.”

Continue reading “In The News: Partial Birth Abortion Banned!” →

President George W. Bush may have cited his moral stance in vetoing a bill that would have expanded embryonic stem-cell research on Wednesday but the issue transcends traditional divisions over abortion rights.

Strongly conservative Republicans who oppose abortion such as Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch have backed broader federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for years, and more conservatives have come on board recently, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee.

The embryos at issue come from fertility clinics, where eggs and sperm are united in lab dishes. But many more are made than can ever be implanted in mothers’ wombs, and the leftovers are discarded.

The bill vetoed by Bush would have allowed federal taxpayer money to be used to do research on those embryos donated by the parents. It is not illegal to use private funds to do so, although some conservatives, such as Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, would also seek to ban this research.

The stem cells are taken from a ball of cells known as a blastocyst, which develops five to seven days after conception. These embryonic stem cells are pluripotent — meaning they can differentiate into all the types of cells that make up an animal, including a human being, but do not form placenta and cannot become a fetus.

Bush, an opponent of abortion, used his first veto as president to block the bill on Wednesday, saying destroying embryos for medical research “crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.”

Many people who disapprove of abortion say they do not disapprove of experimenting on these embryos, which would otherwise be discarded.

“It’s very difficult to justify abandoning 7,000 to 20,000 in vitro eggs as medical waste,” Hatch told reporters recently.

REUTERS / Peter Macdiarmid

Analysis:

It is not uncommon for advocates of stem cell research to blur the lines regarding what constitutes life. In reality, man has no right to establish such arbitrary distinctions. From conception, an embryo is an independent, living organism. If it is not human, then what is it?

Understood in this light, the immoral nature of the aforementioned arguments becomes clear. For example, stem cell advocates are arguing that since we are going to throw living humans into the trash anyway, instead we ought to kill them through human experimentation.

Stem cell advocates are actually claiming to have the moral high road in this debate. Note the following quote from later in the article, “It is immoral for our families, neighbors and friends to be held hostage to chronic diseases when their treatments are within our scientific grasp,” June Walker, president of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, said in a statement. In reality, the call is for the sacrifice of innocent and vulnerable human beings to benefit others in society. The fact that stem cell advocates are unwilling to admit to the humanness of the embryos does not change the fact of their humanity. To sacrifice one segment of society in preference to another is barbaric, and without any moral justification.

“And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Luke 1:41).

President Bush gave Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito a broadcast boost Saturday, calling for a simple up-or-down Senate confirmation vote despite a blocking effort by some Democrats.

A final vote on whether to make the conservative federal appellate judge the nation’s 110th Supreme Court justice is scheduled for Tuesday unless opponents win an uphill battle to impose a filibuster.

“The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito’s nomination,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “Throughout its 216-year history, the Senate has held an up-or-down vote on every Supreme Court nominee with majority Senate support.”

The president spoke as liberals led by Sens. Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, D-Mass., worked to deprive supporters of the 60 votes needed to limit debate. They faced resistance from some fellow Democrats as well as solid Republican opposition to the stalling tactic.

Alito, a former federal prosecutor and Reagan administration lawyer, would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She is the court’s first female justice and the swing vote on several 5-4 rulings that maintained abortion rights, preserved affirmative action and limited the application of the death penalty.

Washington AP
USAToday.com

Analysis:

Those who have been following the confirmation hearings for the President’s nomination to the Supreme Court are aware that opponents to Judge Alito’s confirmation are most concerned with his views on abortion.

Pro-abortion advocates are afraid that the Supreme Court’s Roe V Wade decision of 1973, granting women the right to abortion, may be revisited by a more conservative court in the future. They wanted Alito on record saying that the decision is “settled law”, to pressure him to uphold the spirit of the decision as other cases are presented to the court. To his credit, Alito refused to do so, and it looks like his confirmation is imminent.

The departure of the senate from the traditional decorum and bipartisanship of previous confirmations shows just how important this is to pro-abortion advocates. Abortion rights remains a litmus test for many in America, even today.

The Bible clearly reveals that abortion is sinful, as it affirms that a fetus is human life. Here the words of the Psalmist, “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:13-14).

Two-thirds of Americans, including half of conservative Christians, approve of stem cell research that destroys human embryos, according to a recent survey. The poll, sponsored by the Genetics and Public Policy Center, also revealed an American public that is concerned about protecting human embryos but even more supportive of research that results in their destruction.

Only those classified as “fundamentalist/evangelical” failed to achieve at least 55% approval for embryonic research-and 50% of fundamentalists/evangelicals supported ESCR, with 9% strongly approving and 41% approving.

The survey results, released Oct. 13, came as debate continues over the federal government’s role in stem cell research. There are efforts in Congress to liberalize funds for destructive embryonic stem cell research. The House of Representatives approved such a measure earlier this year. The Senate appears to have a majority in favor of that bill but has yet to vote on it…

…So far, embryonic stem cells have produced no treatments for human beings, while non-embryonic stem cells have provided therapies for at least 65 ailments, according to Do No Harm, a coalition promoting ethics in research. These include spinal cord injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis and sickle cell anemia. Taking stem cells from non-embryonic sources – such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood – does not harm the donor.

Baptist Press, via Pulpit Helps

Analysis:

First, the fact that a majority of Americans favor embryonic stem cell research does not make it right. Men have through the ages differed in their ethics with the Almighty.

Second, the fact that so many Americans are in favor of embryonic stem cell research indicates just how ungodly is the nation in which we live. The interesting note that while Americans agree with the need of protecting embryos, they more strongly agree with ESCR, indicates a disturbing ability to rationalize away killing. In effect, they are saying that human life (in the form of an embryo) is worth sacrificing if the benefits to humanity is sufficient. Not to be too alarmist in our rhetoric, but that is exactly the rationale used by the Nazi’s for their human experimentation during World War II. Further, if we are willing to sacrifice some humans (embryos) for the “greater good”, what will keep us from later including the handicapped, the very young, the sick or the elderly?

Third, the fact that even 50% of “fundamentalist/evangelicals” are in favor of ESCR is an indication of just how pervasive societal influences can be. And, Christians are not immune to such ungodliness either. Remember the troubles in the Corinthian church due to the ungodliness in the community surrounding them? Remember God’s exhortation to, “Come out from among them and be separate… Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:17).

A human fetus is unlikely to feel pain until the final months of pregnancy, according to a new medical report that is bound to stir up the public debate over abortion.

“Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus,” write the researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

This consciousness is created by nerve connections between the thalamus and the cerebral cortex of the brain — and these connections do not begin to develop before the 23rd week and possibly not until the 30th week after gestation, say the researchers. That means “functional pain perception . . . does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.”

The report, in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association, is being published just as anti-abortion groups are pushing for fetal pain laws. The U.S. Congress and several states are considering legislation that would require doctors to tell women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after conception that a fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia for the fetus.

via Globeandmail.com

Analysis:

I have often stated that there is an extreme amount of illogical thought being expressed by supposedly educated people on the issue of abortion, as our society debates the ethicality of the practice.

For example, the primary issue regarding the ethicality of abortion is the question, “Is the fetus human?” An ability to feel pain has absolutely nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus. To illustrate, we could use the example of a quadriplegic. Whether by injury or deformity, some individuals do not have the ability to feel pain. For some, such an inability covers the entirety of their body. In their case, it is because of a disconnect between their brain and nerves. If the scientists who produced the aforementioned study are to be believed, in the fetus it is because the brain has not sufficiently developed to process the “noxious stimulus” as painful. Regardless, the same state exists. So, do we proclaim the quadriplegic non-human, and reserve the right to extinguish their life? The absurdity is obvious.

What is more absurd is the logic of the proposed law concerning giving fetus’s beyond 20 weeks in development an anesthetic before abortion. It says, in effect, “We are going to kill the child, but don’t want the child to suffer unnecessarily during the killing.”

The fetus is alive. Further, it’s not an animal (though treated as such in this law, as it calls for the “putting down” of a fetus in the same “humane” way that is done with pets). A question to pro-abortion advocates… “What is it?” The only answer… It is a human being!

Promising but still unproven new approaches to creating human embryonic stem cells have suddenly jeopardized what once seemed to be certain Senate passage of a bill to loosen President Bush’s four-year-old restrictions on human embryo research.

The techniques are enticing to many conservative activists and scientists because they could yield medically valuable human embryonic stem cells without the creation or destruction of embryos.

Embryonic stem cells are coveted because they have the capacity to become virtually every kind of body tissue and perhaps repair ailing organs, but they are controversial because days-old human embryos must be destroyed to retrieve them.

”The new science that may involve embryo research but not require destruction of an embryo is tremendously exciting,” Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said recently. ”It would get you outside of the boundaries of the ethical constraints.”

Ceci Connolly and Rick Weiss
Washington Post

Analysis:

We have written about the morality of stem cell research in the past. While there is some evidence that the research can benefit and potentially cure some individuals suffering from paralysis and a number of other diseases, the process of extracting stem cells from human embryos results in the destruction of the embryo.

Continue reading “Stem Cell Legislation at Risk” →

Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, noted that the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He praised O’Connor for her role in lifting state sodomy laws, “Which confirmed that the principle of individual liberty extended to gay and lesbian families.”

“Justice O’Connor’s retirement is a clarion call to every American that our rights are in grave dangers,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “The loss of [ her ] moderate voice is a serious threat to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, to women’s right and to protections for racial, ethnic and religious minorities.”

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called O’Connor’s retiring “a sad day for the Supreme Court and for America.” He urged the President “to honor the advice and consent role the Constitution gives the Senate” through a meaningful interaction with that body.

Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, expressed her shock and fear “about the direct impact Justice O’Connor’s retirement will have on each of our lives. Despite her very conservative philosophy, she has been a powerful swing vote on critical reproductive, women’s and LGBT issues.”

Some groups are even taking action in response to the resignation. The state and local chapters of the National Organization for Women ( NOW ) planned to stage rallies July 5 throughout Illinois to call for the nomination and confirmation of fair justices on the Supreme Court. Terry Cosgrove of Personal PAC, an Illinois pro-abortion group, added that concerned citizens should contact President Bush and urge him to select a nominee who will protect abortion rights and Roe v. Wade. Cosgrove also suggested contacting U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama and ask them to support only a nominee who believes Roe should stand.

by Bob Roehr 2005-07-06

Analysis:

The news that Sandra Day O’Connor will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court has panicked social liberals who now have to contend with two new, potentially conservative appointments before President Bush’s second term as President expires. The above article appeared in the Windy City Times, which bills itself as “The Voice of Chicago’s Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Trans Community Since 1985.”

It is doubtful that any individual picked by the President will please the ungodly. However, it would be a shame if Bush bowed to pressure, and appointed someone who would not protect the family, and the morals upon which this country was founded and has thrived for over two centuries.

We should pray to God for Bush, as our country’s leader, as per 2 Timothy 2:1-2, “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.”

For Catholics to take a “pro-choice” view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The “choice” in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.

The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.

Continue reading “No Such Thing as Separation of Church and Politics” →

Below is an exchange from last Friday night’s presidential debate between Senator John Kerry and President George Bush. In the exchange we have a statement from the moderator, a question from a citizen, and the beginning portion of Kerry’s response to the question:

GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.

Analysis:

Actually, there is more reason to respect those who take the position that a fetus is not human, than the position stated by Senator Kerry and his ilk, as related in the quote.

Continue reading “Senator Kerry on Abortion” →

A few mornings ago I was listening to a radio talk show, where a discussion was being held regarding the ethics of fetal research. A man had written a book, apparently defending the use of fetal tissue harvested from aborted fetuses, for research and medicinal purposes. It is believed that the injection of certain cells of a fetus can be beneficial in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Continue reading “Murder and Human Experimentation” →

Since the medical practice of abortion was legalized in this country in 1973, literally millions of women have undergone the procedure to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Depending upon who you talk to, the legalization of this particular surgery is either a landmark victory for the rights of women in the country, or the greatest sign of the immorality and decay of our nation.

There is very little gray area regarding this procedure, and rightfully so. Your perceptions regarding abortion depend mainly upon one simple question, Is abortion murder? If you believe it to be murder, then there is absolutely no justification for abortion. If you believe it to be a medical procedure that results in the simple removal of fetal tissue, then you have no more qualms at the practice than you would the removal of your appendix. Continue reading “Is Abortion Sinful?” →