We are fast approaching 45 million babies lost to abortion in the United States alone, so the gravity of the abortion issue has turned the pro-life movement into a single issue campaign in the minds of many, but it isn't. There are at least five main facets to the movement. How do you stack up?
1.) Abortion
To be sure, the pro-life movement in America started with the abortion issue and it remains the most important facet of the cause. Even in this aspect of the movement, however, some are not sure of their beliefs when the difficult questions are confronted. For example, DNA research and genetic engineering have proven without doubt that we are completely defined as a person at the moment of conception, yet the courts have recently been trying to determine when an unborn baby first feels pain. Others have been noting that brain wave activity first registers at six weeks, as if the development of nerve endings or an EEG pattern defines life. My 7
th grade science teacher was never able to feel physical pain. Does that mean his life was not valuable? Should those with "flat-lined" EEGs automatically be presumed dead? Be careful. A great many have recovered, especially those who receive prompt medical attention.
On the other end of the spectrum, we often hear politicians tell us that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest and when the health of the mother is at risk. Life either exists at the moment of conception or it doesn't, and the advanced state of science in the 21
st century tells us that it does. If conception has therefore occurred, murder is not a moral option. Certainly a mother who has suffered rape or incest cannot morally be expected to raise the child, but the emphasis must be on finding a loving family for that child through adoption, not murdering the defenseless and guiltless baby. Likewise, the recent Congressional hearings on Partial Birth Abortion Ban legislation revealed that there are no longer any medical reasons to kill a baby to save the mother. Our doctors can perform Cesarean sections and even surgery for unborn babies. This argument is totally moot.
The psychological problems a mother (and the father in cases other than rape and incest) may face when an unexpected child is first discovered cannot be discounted. Not only may they be emotionally and financially unprepared, but they may also face an unfortunate stigma associated with adoption: the belief that they are "giving their child up" if they allow the baby to be adopted. I have actually had one director of an adoption clinic tell me that she has received calls from expectant mothers looking for an abortion facility. When she explains that they only handle adoptions, many times the reply is, "Oh no, I could never give my baby up". We obviously need to publicize the fact that adoption is a loving and caring solution. Moreover, these people need help and support, and how we provide enough support for everyone who needs it is a valid subject for political dialogue. How and when we might allow the murder of unborn babies for convenience or as a birth control mechanism is not a valid subject for political discussion. It is morally illicit.
Finally, the subject of stem cell research is front and center nowadays. Europeans have been performing morally acceptable stem cell research for quite some time by using stem cells from bone marrow, hair follicles, umbilical cords, placentas, amniotic fluid and fat cells. In America, where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness reign, we seem to be intent upon conceiving babies in the laboratory and then killing them to harvest their stem cells. We do this even though none of the major advances and miraculous cures you have heard about come from infant stem cells. The stem cells used in successful research have all come from other sources. To date, no one has proven beyond doubt that an infant stem cell can do something that stem cells from other sources cannot. Even if they could, the taking of life simply to harvest stem cells is a terrible crime and cannot be tolerated by anyone who considers themselves to be pro-life.
If you agree with all of the above, you may consider yourself to be 20% Pro-Life.
2.) The Death Penalty
The second situation involves being called to render your civic duty by sitting on a jury. The crime which has been committed is a particularly heinous one. The suspect has been convicted and it is now time for sentencing. As a member of the jury, your primary responsibility is to protect the community by ensuring that this person is never released into society again. The judge has advised you that there are two possibilities: life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. May you morally opt for the death penalty in such a circumstance?
The answer is a big, fat, unequivocal NO. If you have the option for life in prison without the possibility of parole, a valid pro-life philosophy requires that you take it. There are only three States in the Union which have not passed legislation giving juries the option for life without parole — Alaska, New Mexico and Texas — Alaska being the only one of the three which does not allow the death penalty. In all three States, a pro-life stance requires active lobbying for life without parole legislation. History shows that death sentences drop by about half when life without parole is an option. Alaska currently has no way to protect its communities from those who have committed terrible crimes and cannot be rehabilitated. This, too, is morally unacceptable and against the pro-life position since the lives of those in the community are at risk.
Let's pretend for a moment that you are the governor of Texas and you don't have an option for life without parole. How would you feel knowing that you could not safely commute any death row sentence because this option isn't available? The current governor of Texas recently lamented this sad fact. Over 150 people went to the death chamber in Texas while the previous governor — George W. Bush — was in office, and he had no viable options either. Yet in 2003, legislation which would have allowed juries and the governor to opt for life without parole was defeated in the Texas Senate because it was opposed by some prosecutors who feared this option would discourage juries from giving death sentences. YES, that's precisely the point! It is immoral to cause the death of another human being unless it is the only option which will protect the community. A man or woman locked up in a cell for the rest of their lives cannot harm the community. The cost of such incarceration does not enter into the moral argument, although it is not immoral to require prisoners to perform work to defray this cost.
If you agree with points 1 and 2, you may consider yourself to be 40% Pro-Life.
3.) War & Peace
It is immoral to send a person to war without also giving them all available supplies necessary to defend themselves, but there is a more fundamental question to be asked before we ever get to this point, and that is, "When is war justified?".
Let's assume that a particular country possesses some formidable weapons, but none have the range to hit our country. Let us further assume that we do not agree with the policies of this foreign country, but this country has not actually attacked our country. May we or any other country for that matter attack the country in question just because we do not agree with its policies? If we are concerned about waging a just war, then the answer is NO. If everyone did this, chaos would reign, and World War III wouldn't be far off.
As a matter of philosophy, war is not a natural state for mankind. The first reaction of the person on the street particularly when an unjust war is contemplated is to reject the need for it, although constant propaganda can and often does sway opinion. The just war, however, requires much less convincing since an attack is necessary for a war to be considered just.
Think back to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Was propaganda required to get young men to sign up for military duty after the attack. Certainly not! The lines of volunteers were long and sometimes populated by underage boys.
Now think about our more recent history when we concentrated solely on finding Osama bin Laden after 9/11. Were any countries offended by our efforts or were they all supportive? In every case, other countries supported our efforts. Even France supported us then. Were there any negative stories in the press about the war? The answer is no. We had been attacked and we were intent upon bringing the perpetrators to justice. No one objected to our actions in Afghanistan.
Our involvement in Iraq, however, did not meet this criteria and there has been no end to problems and resentment as a result. Our president and others in his administration have constantly had to "sell" us on the necessity of this war. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden — the mastermind behind the actual attack upon America — remains a free man. This should not make sense to any reasonable person. If it makes sense to you, you should ask yourself, "What would Jesus do?".
If a war is to be a just war, we must be attacked before responding. Jesus might not even respond in this instance, so we can consider this to be a minimum requirement. Absent an actual attack, the situation is considered to be in the realm of diplomacy, persuasion and negotiation. This is the pro-life position. How we feel about this must not be dictated by the political party to which we belong. Party leaders can sometimes confuse the situation rather than clarify it. Often times we get confused between support for our troops and support for the underlying war. These are two separate and distinct considerations. It is never unpatriotic to assess the justness of a war to determine if correct action was taken. This is how we learn. It is unpatriotic to be disrespectful to our troops.
It is vitally important to adhere to a just war philosophy if we do not wish international organizations like the United Nations to grow in size and power. The U.N. was created to respond to countries that engage in unjust wars. Unfortunately, the likely long-term effect of America's involvement in Iraq will be increased influence for the U.N. around the world. Sovereign nations which only engage in just wars can actually decrease the power of the U.N. globally, but the converse is equally true.
If you agree with points 1 through 3, you may consider yourself to be 60% Pro-Life.
4.) Euthanasia
While in prison and before he wrote
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler read an American book entitled, "The Passing of the Great Race" by Madison Grant. Hitler called it his "bible". The book advocated improving the human race by segregation, sterilization and even euthanasia. This research was copiously funded in the United States by the Carnegie and Harriman foundations. We Americans must never forget that our country had a hand in determining the awful policies of the Hitler regime and that it took many bullets and many lives to defeat those policies. A resurrection of such philosophies must not be allowed.
The pro-life position on the issue of euthanasia is fairly simple. If overzealous measures are required to keep a person alive, those measures may be discontinued if they are overly burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary or disproportionate to the expected outcome. In this case, death is not the desired outcome, but our inability to prevent death is accepted.
If the only measure required to keep a person alive is the insertion of a feeding tube (all autonomic functions are normal), this tube cannot be removed. Everyone needs food, and intentional starvation cannot be contemplated because the decreased capabilities of a loved one make this person an inconvenience. This is a clear cut case, but when more and more machines are required to keep a person alive, the issue becomes cloudy. So who decides? Often times, we do not have the wherewithal to make such a decision, particularly when a loved one is involved. If the patient in question is cognizant and able to express their opinion, they should make the decision subject to review by their pastor. Whether the patient is cognizant or not, their pastor should be consulted and his decision should be granted more weight even than a doctor's. A doctor does not necessarily consider moral implications when making decisions, but this will be a pastor's prime consideration. There have been cases when the patient wants to be taken off of life support equipment that does not constitute overzealous measures. In these cases, the wishes of the patient cannot be honored.
Likewise, we must ensure that any living Will we may have is not too restrictive in this regard. Wills should simply state that overzealous measures are not to be used to keep us alive and that our pastor is granted the authority to determine when these measures become overzealous. That is the pro-life position.
Direct euthanasia performed for the express purpose of putting an end to the lives of sick, handicapped or dying persons is morally reprehensible. Once again, the removal of overzealous measures used to keep a person alive is not done with the express intent of causing death, but the probability of that outcome is accepted. There have been cases where people continued to breathe, for example, after a respirator has been removed. Additional measures cannot be taken to cause the death of that person.
If you agree with points 1 through 4, you may consider yourself to be 80% Pro-Life.
5.) Voting & Politics
Anyone who uses the power at their disposal in such a way that it leads or empowers others to do wrong becomes responsible for the evil that they have directly or indirectly encouraged. This applies equally to politicians who support a culture of death and to those who vote for them. Whatever you do, make certain that you do not enable or empower a politician who supports abortion by voting for them. This is not only contrary to the pro-life position, it is a grave sin that could lead thousands of others to sin as well.
If you are not aware of a particular politicians' view on abortion (many will not publicly state their position), call their campaign and find out before you vote. This is your responsibility and your duty to the pro-life movement. And I'm not just talking about the high offices of president and governor here. Find out who your Congressmen and Senators are on the State and National level, then grill them and their challengers. These are the people who write the laws that find their way to the desks of our high officials. If these people are pro-life, our high officials will never see the legislation that we don't want. It's that simple.
It's also simple to find out who these people are. Contact information for your national representatives can be found at
Contacting the Congress. In Texas, contact information for your State representatives can be found at
Who Represents Me?. If you live in another State, go to your favorite search engine, type in the name of your state and then the word legislature. Chances are, you'll have all the contact information you need within five minutes.
Many times we hear those in the media tell us that we should not be single issue voters. Fair enough. Under such circumstances a reasonable person would prioritize the relevant issues from the most important to the least important. As of the end of May 2004, 44.75 million babies have been murdered due to abortion in the United States alone. That is more than all of the Americans lost in all of the wars that America has ever fought, from the Revolutionary War onward. And it is not more by a factor of 2, or a factor of 4, or 10 or even 20. It is more by a factor of 37. So this is not the only issue we are concerned with, it is the most important. As noted above, the pro-life movement is also concerned with war, euthanasia and the death penalty, but abortion remains the #1 issue of importance by a very wide margin.
The pro-life position is that it is better not to vote at all than to vote for someone who will perpetuate a culture of death in America, and it is best to vote for someone who is 100% pro-life in their views.
If you agree with all 5 points, you may consider yourself to be 100% Pro-Life.
And if congratulations are in order, I congratulate you!
