Infanticide: The New Abortion

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."

Matthew 2:16-18 (referring to the Massacre of the Innocents, when Herod the Great ordered the slaying of all young male children in the village of Bethlehem after the birth of Christ)

A few days ago I read an article that made me literally sick to my stomach--and genuinely frightened for the future of mankind. In the early 21st century, Western "civilization" seems to be reaching levels of depravity not seen since the hideous Nazi regime of the 1930s and 40s. I didn't live in Germany back then, but I've read enough about it to understand something of the moral wasteland that produced such demented monsters as Adolf Hitler and Dr. Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death" at Auschwitz--and that it's in the process of happening again today, on a global scale.

The very title of the article, published February 23 in the Journal of Medical Ethics, makes the blood run cold: After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live? The authors, medical "ethicists" Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Austrailia and Dr. Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, take the position that in circumstances in which the abortion of a fetus would be legal, what is termed "after-birth abortion" should also be permissible, even where the newborn is perfectly healthy. In other words, whenever it's all right to kill a fetus, it should be all right to kill a newborn baby. Consider this chilling explanation in the authors' own words:

A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.

Such an issue arises, for example, when an abnormality has not been detected during pregnancy or occurs during delivery. Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion.

[. . .]

[While] people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy . . . [n]onetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Failing to bring a new person into existence cannot be compared with the wrong caused by procuring the death of an existing person. The reason is that, unlike the case of death of an existing person, failing to bring a new person into existence does not prevent anyone from accomplishing any of her future aims. . . . If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.

The authors reason that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to that of a fetus--on which abortions in the traditional sense are performed--rather than that of an older child, because neither a fetus or a newborn can be considered a "person" in any “morally relevant sense." This is why they believe the practice they advocate is better described as "after-birth abortion" than as "infanticide."

To Giubilini and Minerva, not all human beings--which apparently they acknowledge fetuses and newborns to be, at least in a genetic sense--can be considered "persons" entitled to rights. They explain as follows:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

To the authors of this paper, an individual's own ability to understand the value of a different situation--which depends on some level of consciousness and mental development on his or her part--determines personhood. They reject any argument that as “potential persons” fetuses and newborns have a right to reach that potential, stating that such a right is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because . . . merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.” The overriding interests of "real people" likewise should control the choice of adoption, the authors suggest, stating that if the mother were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else, then "after-birth abortion" should be considered an acceptable alternative. Giubilini and Minerva therefore conclude that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

Responding to widespread criticism and outrage over its publication of the article, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics stated that

[T]he novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favor of infanticide . . . but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands . . . The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.

What the editor finds disturbing is "[n]ot that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement."

It seems that the authors of this paper, as well as the editor of the journal in which it was published, have unwittingly done the pro-life movement an inestimable service. This cold, dispassionate argument for the legalization of infanticide lays bare the sterile, inhumane reasoning that leads directly from a justification for the indiscriminate termination of prenatal life to the brazen murder of newborn babies--and perhaps to the utilitarian killing of older children or even adults who, for various reasons, are incapable of forming personal "aims" or of appreciating the difference between their current life situation and any other, including death. This is the alarm that pro-life advocates have been sounding for years, and they now have this paper to show as Exhibit A in support of their position. Moreover, the journal editor's indignation at the understandable outrage prompted by a naked argument for infanticide clearly shows how twisted are his and the authors' priorities, and how morally bankrupt are those who would frankly advance such an idea.

At the core of Giubilini and Minerva's argument for infanticide, as well as that for justifications of abortion "on demand," is a concept of the universe in which there is no God by whose creation, law, and love human life is endowed with value. For adherents to this view, being genetically "human" and having the "potential" for a full and independent existence cannot be accepted as the source of value entitling one to a right to life, as that might impinge on another's freedom to terminate a pregnancy. So, a higher level of humanity--"personhood"--must be posited as the crucial point at which one gains sufficient dignity to enjoy any right to continue living (does this not echo the "human/subhuman" dichotomy upon which Nazis and slave owners rested their theories of racial superiority?) Giubilini and Minerva define personhood in this sense as the "self-consciousness" that enables an individual to appreciate life (or to distinguish it from oblivion) and to formulate and pursue personal "aims" or goals. Any other source of value, they suggest, is merely an irrational and impermissible "projection" of others' subjective values onto that individual. This is an entirely "me-centric" measurement of humanity, as it is devoid of any thought that a higher (that is, Divinely-established) set of values, transcending the individual, society, or even mankind generally, might apply. If the individual-- the first level of "me"--is incapable of self-consciousness and self-actualization, the theory goes, it has no moral significance and may be casually destroyed at the whim of its parent or the community that would otherwise be responsible for it--the next and highest level of "me." Again, in this view, life has no value beyond its usefulness to itself or to the community. This is true for both fetuses and newborns, as neither has developed the level of consciousness and independent will that constitutes "personhood."

This paper makes crystal clear that abortion and infanticide are barely-separated steps along one continuum of soul-less, anti-human utilitarianism. And its views actually threaten millions of lives today--indeed, in the Netherlands and Belgium, the killing of terminally ill and disabled newborns, as well as euthanasia generally (the next step along the continuum) are already practiced. If the views of Giubilini and Minerva gain traction in the American medical ethics community, such horrors could well become the norm here, and soon.

The moral shortcomings and terrible implications of this paper are almost beyond counting, but here a few of the most important:

First, the authors do not address the question of the age at which an infant should be considered a "person," nor do they suggest any way to reliably determine when a particular newborn has reached this magic moment. Are we to trust the subjective judgment of those who feel "burdened" by the child, or of those who work for them, and have a vested interest in being rid of it?

Second, not only disabled or terminally ill newborns, but also perfectly healthy babies who haven't yet developed to the point of "personhood," would come within the class of those who can be killed with impunity. In fact, the authors' definition of "personhood" would render expendable anyone, young or old, who never developed or has lost meaningful self-awareness and self-direction, including many of profoundly retarded and Down's Syndrome children, the severely brain-damaged, late-stage Alzheimer's sufferers, and persistently comatose patients. To Giubilini and Minerva they are not people and have no value or right to live, and should therefore be disposed of so as not to burden others.

Third, and especially in connection with the point just discussed above, one commentator asks:

[I]f babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life,” then why is it only their parents who are entitled to kill them? Shouldn't they be fair game for anyone? In particular, as the authors note, the state has a legitimate interest in the cost of dealing with disabilities. So does the state have a right to mandate an “after-birth abortion?” If not, why not?

If the state can promote or compel infanticide and homicide of the insensate, directly or indirectly through incentives or regulation, the practice can be used for population control, eugenics, scientific experimentation, or to ration and manage the expenses of health care and public welfare, among other government purposes--just as in Nazi Germany a few decades ago; just as in communist China today. Is this the kind of society that any feeling human being would want to live in?

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, sums up the matter eloquently:

This article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is a clear signal of just how much ground has been lost to the Culture of Death. A culture that grows accustomed to death in the womb will soon contemplate killing in the nursery. The very fact that this article was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is an indication of the peril we face.

The only sane response to this argument is the affirmation of the objective moral status of the human being at every point of development, from fertilization until natural death. Anything less than the affirmation of full humanity puts every single human being at risk of being designated as not “a person in the morally relevant sense.”

Let us pray that "after-birth abortion" never gains acceptance and becomes another, larger-scale Massacre of the Innocents.

Here's to the Lifers

Last week marked one of the most important "anniversaries" in America: on January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade declared unconstitutional, on "privacy" grounds, most state laws restricting the practice of abortion (here's my post from last year marking that anniversary). Every day of every year since, while the lives of millions of unborn children were being snuffed out unnecessarily, other millions of people have selflessly given of their time, energy, and money to resist this tide of death, most of them quietly and anonymously. I call them "lifers," and they all deserve a thankful salute.

Several hundred thousand of them (not so quietly!) from around the country and the world descended on the nation's capital last Monday for the March of Life 2012, to commemorate and mourn the continuing genocide of the unborn, but also to joyfully declare their devotion to life, Divine Love, and the cause of their tiny, helpless brothers and sisters. If you weren't there, you have to view photographs of the march and its participants--see some excellent galleries here and especially here--to get a sense of the high spirit and optimism of this gathering. What's especially exciting is that, from all appearances, the vast majority of those marching were YOUNG people in their 20s and even teens! This gives so much hope for a future in which NO child is thrown away, in which everyone recognizes that no matter how troublesome its life might be to its natural parents, there is a family who wants and will love and care for that child, and that the parents will get all the support they need to make that possible. That tide of hope won't be stopped by the mainstream media ignoring the movement, nor by all the hate, obscenities, and intimidation that can be hurled by "pro-choice" advocates.

Quieter and less visible, but perhaps even more heroic, are the countless thousands of people who work daily on the "front lines" of the pro-life movement in crisis pregnancy centers (sometimes called "pregnancy resource centers") around the country, counseling young parents about the realities of abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth, as well as providing pregnancy testing, sonograms, adoption information, and other supportive services. Working face-to-face with people in crisis or with chronic personal, social, and economic problems, every day, can be incredibly difficult, draining, and sometimes discouraging. But CPC workers' positive experiences with parents who have made heroic choices and turned their lives around, thanks to God and the workers' help, keeps them at this selfless task. My own beloved sister is one of them, working at the Jacksonville, Florida Women's Help Center. Please consider donating some of your own time and/or money to this noble cause.

Then there are those who organize and work for hundreds of pro-life and related advocacy organizations in this country and around the world (here is a comprehensive list of many of them), that heighten public awareness of the issues and help drive political change to promote life. You might not be aware that the fight for life is going on not just in the United States, but in many countries overseas. One organization that's caught my eye recently is Youth Defence (on the Web and Facebook), which is devoted to educating people, helping mothers, lobbying, and campaigning to keep Ireland abortion-free. The movement to protect the unborn would probably not have nearly the numbers and influence it enjoys today without the efforts of organizations like these.

How about the thousands of clergy from a host of churches and denominations that give so much of their time, energy, and guidance to parental counseling and pro-life efforts? And let's not forget the many ordinary, anonymous people who brave the elements, and even risk arrest and prosecution, to keep peaceful vigil near abortion clinics to pray for expectant mothers and encourage them to give their babies a chance.

Finally, I'd like to share with you one of the most beautiful and inspirational videos I've ever seen, called the Miracle of Life. It presents, in less than four minutes, the complete scientific case as well as the Biblical foundation for the origin of human life at conception. I guess producers of videos like this are likewise "lifers" who deserve our hearty thanks and support!

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee . . .
~ Jeremiah 1:5

Born Yesterday?

Born Yesterday is a comedy written and first staged on Broadway in the 1940s (and successfully put to film a couple of times since then), about ignorance and corruption in our nation's capital--what a timely (if not so funny) subject! Apparently, "born yesterday" is also what our current representatives in Washington think we common citizens were.

This past weekend I posted about the supposedly "historic"--yet utterly ridiculous--deal between Congressional Republican and Democrat leaders, which averted a federal government shutdown by cutting $38.5 billion from the budget for the remainder of fiscal 2011. A fact not widely noted when the deal was struck was that that amounted to all of about 1 percent of total federal expenditures for the year (as one commentator noted, "If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut."), and left travesties like ObamaCare and abortion factory Planned Parenthood fully funded with our tax money. Final details of the agreement had yet to be put to paper and voted on by the end of this week.

Those details finally emerged yesterday, and show that the budget deal was not only weak and a disappointment, but an almost complete sham and a brazen insult to the intelligence of the American people. According to a story from the Associated Press, "[t]he historic $38 billion in budget cuts resulting from at-times hostile bargaining between Congress and the Obama White House were accomplished in large part by pruning money left over from previous years, using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Barack Obama had targeted anyway."

The details of the agreement reached late Friday night just ahead of a deadline for a partial government shutdown reveal a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially "score" as cuts to pay for spending elsewhere, but often have little to no actual impact on the deficit. As a result of the legerdemain, Obama was able to reverse many of the cuts passed by House Republicans in February when the chamber approved a bill slashing this year's budget by more than $60 billion.
. . .

[T]he cuts that actually will make it into law are far tamer, including cuts to earmarks, unspent census money, leftover federal construction funding, and $2.5 billion from the most recent renewal of highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions set by other legislation. Another $3.5 billion comes from unused spending authority from a program providing health care to children of lower-income families.

About $10 billion of the cuts comes from targeting appropriations accounts previously used by lawmakers for so-called earmarks . . . Republicans had already engineered a ban on earmarks when taking back the House this year.

Republicans also claimed $5 billion in savings by capping payments from a fund awarding compensation to crime victims. Under an arcane bookkeeping rule - used for years by appropriators - placing a cap on spending from the Justice Department crime victims fund allows lawmakers to claim the entire contents of the fund as budget savings. The savings are awarded year after year.

The story notes that in exchange for these illusory "cuts," the White House foiled GOP attempts to block global warming rules by the EPA, new rules governing the Internet, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, and financing for the enforcement new health care regulations.

Another AP story points out that "the budget cuts come after two years of generous increases awarded to domestic accounts when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House," and that:

M]any of the cuts officially unveiled on Tuesday are illusory. Almost $18 billion - just less than half - involve simply mopping up pools of unused money spread across the budget. While still counting as cuts, the money from those pools can be used to shore up day-to-day agency budgets and other programs like health research. Admittedly, those cuts don't reduce the deficit.

In light of the budget deal's transparent emptiness and the tricks out of which it's made, conservatives' criticism of the compromise is growing, and a number of influential members of Congress, including Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), plan to vote against it. Thank the Lord there are a few sensible, honest, and courageous people in Congress. One only wonders about the so-called "leaders" who crafted and supported the deal, especially Speaker of the House John Boehner--what were they thinking? Are they that stupid or that gullible, or are they actually in bed with the Democrats and the Obama administration? How stupid and gullible to they think we common people are? Did they assume we wouldn't notice, or not care?

What's just as disheartening is that so many freshman representatives, elected in November 2010 on a platform of fiscal restraint, have fallen into lockstep with the Republican establishment leadership to support this sham compromise. If your representative is one of them, you should call or email his/her office as soon as possible and loudly voice your displeasure--and keep a weather eye on his/her positions and future voting records in Congress. If they don't do the job you sent them to Washington to do, they should be sent packing in the next election and replaced with someone who, as best you can tell, will. We need representatives who will not just talk the talk of responsible government, but walk the walk--no matter how "radical," "extreme," or even "uncivil" the liberal establishment and media portray them.

We have to make it clear to those in Washington that, no matter what they may think, we weren't Born Yesterday.

A Modest Proposal

As long as we're on the subject of federal funding for Planned Parenthood, let's consider this: instead of "defunding" them, allow the organization all of the taxpayer dollars it gets now, on one condition: they don't perform abortions, and they don't give any money to anyone for the purpose of getting or performing an abortion. The federal government has long conditioned educational, highway, and other types of funding for state and local operations on the recipient's adherence to the government's demands, limitations, and regulations. Why not treat Planned Parenthood in the same way? Think of it: they could dispense all the mammograms, cancer screenings, and condoms they wanted to, as long as they didn't provide or facilitate abortions. No Republican war on women's health! No conspiracy to encourage the spread of STDs among minorities and the inner city poor! And since abortions constitute only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's total health care services, according to its own figures, they should hardly miss the work, right? And (regrettably) there are other abortion providers out there, right?

Somehow I doubt they'd go for this deal either. But would it hurt for some courageous, enterprising Congressperson to submit the bill?

Just sayin'.

Midnight Train to Bankruptcy

By now you've heard about Friday night's Congressional vote on a stopgap measure to continue funding the federal government for another two weeks until an actual budget for the next fiscal year can be crafted and voted on. The measure was purportedly necessary to forestall a "shutdown" of the federal government by midnight--the expiration of the last continuing resolution funding federal government operations--but the vote approving the measure actually passed a few minutes after midnight (the brief interregnum had no appreciable impact).

Among other features, the budget measure "cuts" $38.5 billion from federal expenditures over the remainder of the current fiscal year; prohibits the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia; and omits or sets aside for separate Senate vote provisions to defund Planned Parenthood and portions of Obamacare, and to block EPA global warming rules. The agreement voted on was negotiated by President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). Reid declared the deal "historic."

Only in the annals of meaningless accomplishments. Although Fox News is pitching the deal as a big win for Rep. Boehner and House Republicans, it dissolves into an empty gesture when examined in light of surrounding circumstances. For example, Republicans had included language to deny federal money to put in place Obama's year-old health care law; the deal only requires such a proposal to be voted on by the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it is certain to fall short of the necessary 60 votes. More significantly, MSNBC reports that "Republicans were forced to accept billions of dollars in phantom savings, cutting money that probably wouldn't have been spent anyway."

Some $18 billion of the spending cuts involve cuts to so-called mandatory programs whose budgets run largely on autopilot. To the dismay of budget purists, these cuts often involve phantom savings allowed under the decidedly arcane rules of congressional budgeting. They include mopping up $2.5 billion in unused money from federal highway programs and $5 billion in fudged savings from capping payments from a Justice Department trust fund for crime victims.

Both ideas officially "score" as savings that could be used to pay for spending elsewhere in the day-to-day budgets of domestic agencies. But they have little impact, if any, on the deficit.

Still more telling is the simple, yet devastating, analysis by Andrew Riley of All-American Blogger, who notes a few important facts:

Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000.
Income: $2,170,000,000,000.
New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000.
Amount Cut: $38,500,000,000 – about 1% of the total budget.

It helps me to think about these numbers in terms that I can relate to. Let’s remove nine zeroes from those numbers and pretend this is a monthly household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

Total income for the Jones family this month: $2,170

Amount of money the Jones family spent this month: $3,820

Amount of new debt added to the credit card this month: $1,650

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $14,271 (This represents our national debt)

So last night, the Jones’ sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $38 from their monthly budget. A historic amount.

A $38.5 billion reduction in budgeted federal spending might be the most ever in one fiscal year, in terms of number of dollars, and might have meant something back--not so many years ago--when the budget was several orders of magnitude lower than it is now. But after the successive binges of the Bush and Obama years, it's barely a teaspoon in the Pacific Ocean. That it took such a protracted and bitter political fight to yield such a paltry "savings" suggests that federal spending and total debt may now be impossible to arrest and beyond anyone's effective control, a raging cancer that will eat away at an ever-larger proportion of our nation's current and future wealth until there is none left for it to consume (for a breathtaking graphical depiction of the numbers involved and their explosive growth, see the U.S. National Debt Clock). Is America about to become an impoverished third-world country?

The budget deal's real significance, or lack of it, was summed up by two courageous Congresspersons who voted against it:

Michele Bachmann: “The deal is a disappointment for me and for millions of Americans who expected $100 billion in cuts. ... Instead, we’ve been asked to settle for $39 billion in cuts, even as we continue to fund Planned Parenthood and the implementation of ObamaCare. Sadly, we’re missing the mandate given us by voters last November."

Rand Paul: The CR "does not set us on a path to fixing the spending and debt problems our country is facing. There is not much of a difference between a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $1.6 trillion deficit—both will lead us to a debt crisis that we may not recover from."

The other colossal failure of this measure, as Rep. Bachmann noted, was removal of the rider that would have cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood (PP), the nation's largest single provider of abortion services and which, notes CNSNEWS' Terence P. Jeffrey, performed "332,278 abortions in 2009. That equals an average of 910 abortions per day—or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds." The budget deal does provide for a symbolic vote in the Senate on a stand-alone bill that would specifically prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood, but shortly after the deal was sealed, both the New York Times and the Associated Press reported that this stand-alone defunding measure was certain to lose in the Democrat-dominated Senate. As Mr. Jeffrey points out:

Among the things the House Republican leadership gave up last night on the Planned Parenthood funding question is the leverage they might have had over opponents of the provision had they forced them to choose whether or not they were willing to shut down other government programs just to insure that the nation’s largest abortion provider continued to be funded by U.S. taxpayers.

It looks like they were prepared to do just that, and risk the ensuing political fallout. According to an AP story, "Democrats said they saw a radical agenda against women's health, especially poor and low-income women, and wouldn't allow it, even if it meant shutting down the government." Why weren't their feet held to that fire? It's clear where lie the priorities of Planned Parenthood's defenders--better to deny pay and funding for our troops and federal law enforcement personnel than to force the abortion industry and its supporters to pay their own way. The empty mantra that PP doesn't use federal tax money for abortions because it's against the law doesn't stand the most superficial examination: according to the AP story, PP "receives $363 million in federal funds, [and] . . . the organization's annual budget is $1.1 billion." So, about one-third of its budget is covered by federal tax money, yours and mine, even as it terminates over 300,000 pregnancies a year. It doesn't take a PhD from Barack Obama's alma mater to recognize that, directly or indirectly, federal funding keeps PP in the abortion business. Without it, that organization would have to rely on client fees and private donations. So why don't we make them do just that? I have absolutely no doubt that if he really wanted to, George Soros alone could fund every abortion performed by Planned Parenthood out of his own pocket, with plenty of cash left over to continue manipulating the world economy. Why don't we challenge him and his left-wing billionaire chums to do so? What moral law or political or financial necessity dictates that ordinary working men and women pay for the killing?

This country is clearly on a midnight train to moral and financial bankruptcy, and we needed much more than just the 2010 elections to find enough representatives with courage and common sense to derail it. Every citizen must work hard to identify and support, with time and money, political candidates who will make the hard choices in Washington. We must discuss the issues with our neighbors and encourage them to do the right thing--and be willing to so ourselves, even when it means risk and personal sacrifice. Ultimately, the battle won't be won or lost in Washington at all, but in our homes, workplaces, churches, and our own hearts and minds. If enough individuals work hard and long enough at it, we might be able to derail that train yet.

Life and "Choice"--A Vital Debate

I'm starting to look like a "one-trick pony"--only three posts in five weeks, and they're all about abortion. It turns out that work and home demands keep my from posting much more often than that, but my ongoing discussion of the abortion issue with my son Colin is as important and engaging as anything else in my life right now. I could be wrong, but it seems like the distance between us on this issue is narrowing, and that's a wonderful thing. Maybe we've never been as far apart as either of us thought, since our basic values and principles are much the same even if our fundamental beliefs and approaches to social policy differ. I can't put into words how happy I am that we're able to explore such a difficult subject and still respect, admire, and love each other. If a civil discourse like this could be replicated in society generally, we might find a solution to this knotty problem that satisfied most people. Nevertheless, I think we're kept apart largely by divergent assumptions about why abortions are sought and the effect of limitations on the procedure.

I was encouraged by Colin's statement that abortion "should always be used as an absolute last resort, something to pursue only after all other avenues have been exhausted." Sadly, that's not how things typically happen between pregnancy and abortion. If adoption is regarded as one of these "other avenues," far more more women are opting for the "last resort" of abortion: according to AbortionFacts.com, only four percent of non-marital births are placed for adoption, or about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year as compared to over a million babies aborted annually.

Indeed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health organization, nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred. Clearly, since Roe v. Wade, abortion has not been treated by most women who have had one (or, by almost half, more than one) as a "last resort."

There is also a widespread misconception (if not a knowing deception) among abortion-on-demand proponents that a large portion of, if not most, unintended pregnancies don't result from a deliberate choice on a woman's part to have sexual relations. For example, Colin states that "I think most health and law enforcement officials would wholeheartedly disagree with you that rape-induced pregnancy is rare. Unfortunately, especially in big cities, it is quite common, and that fact alone should be strong enough to keep abortion legalized." However, multiple studies by law enforcement and medical researchers have calculated that, on the average, at most 8 per 1,000 women who are raped or the victims of incest become pregnant in the United States. This is equivalent to 0.8 percent, or less than one percent. Even the most "liberal" estimates place the adult pregnancy rate associated with rape at about 4.7 percent.

Additional information provided by the Guttmacher Institute is revealing. Among the reasons surveyed women gave for having an abortion, three-fourths cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths said they couldn't afford a child; three-fourths said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with a husband or partner. This data suggests that most women seeking abortion are doing so to avoid the expense, burdens, and complexities of bearing and caring for a child.

"Pregnancy often poses a massive threat to the health of the mother, and if abortion were illegal then that mother would have no choice but to risk her own life to carry out the pregnancy, which would surely be a violation of human rights." Pregnancy itself always poses some risk to the mother, but the danger is "massive" only in cases of ectopic or other "defective" pregnancies, or when the mother suffers from an unusual medical condition that is or could become life-threatening due to the increased physical and mental stresses of carrying a child to term (some doctors have observed that abortion is almost never a medical necessity to save a woman's life). As I noted in my earlier posts, relatively few people who consider themselves pro-life would oppose abortion in the very rare cases when it is truly, and professionally certified as, necessary to save the mother from death or life-long physical or mental disability.

As noted in an article by the University of Toronto Students for Life:

Pro-choice advocates tend to appeal to hard cases, which are rare, and then extrapolate to all abortions. “What if a woman was raped? What if a woman’s life is in danger?” These are serious and complex issues — but they account for a small percentage of all abortions. These are bad arguments for all abortions being legal, ethical, or “medically necessary,” and honest pro-choicers know it.

The hard cases are a red herring. The real issue, and what most concerns "pro-choice" advocates, is whether and how to confine abortion to those hard cases--that is, whether access to abortion should be restricted or denied in the overwhelmingly typical case of a woman (or parents; it takes two to tango) who seeks to avoid the unintended (if entirely natural and foreseeable) consequence of a free and deliberate (or careless) act because she (or they) deem it too difficult, painful, burdensome, expensive, or embarrassing to endure. To be sure, some of these situations, as where the mother is a young teenager entirely unprepared to raise a child, might even approach the "hard case" category. In any event, what the pro-life movement seeks is a legal process by which abortion is limited to those situations in which it is a true medical "necessity" or the only reasonable answer under the circumstances, with the burden of proof and justification on the person who seeks to terminate the unborn child's life. Colin and others favoring unrestricted abortion object that "such a process could take weeks or even months to complete, and by that time the baby could be only weeks away from birth." But judicial systems in many states and localities already provide specialized courts for juvenile and other family matters, including expedited hearings and relaxed rules of evidence. Such procedures need not take weeks and months to complete, and the judges who typically preside tend to be highly experienced in domestic matters and know how urgently some matters need to be resolved.

Changing the rules on abortion certainly won't solve all social problems associated with unwanted children, nor would it come without a price. Such a change could put serious strains on court systems, medical resources, adoption and public assistance agencies, and child protective services--and ultimately, taxpayers. And yes, despite all the prenatal support and postnatal adoption resources available, many women will resort to black-market abortion providers rather than follow the law and endure the burdens of childbearing. Ending abortion-on-demand would save many children's lives, but merely changing the law isn't enough to avert a potential host of new problems. Clearly a much greater investment in maternal, child support, and adoption services would be necessary. But a change more fundamental even than this is necessary: a new--or renewed--culture of personal responsibility, sacrifice, commitment, and love; a culture of marriage, and of life. As much as abortion-on-demand has undermined the moral fabric of society, I think it's also a symptom of a breakdown that began years before Roe vs. Wade, as moral relativism, hedonism, materialism, and the state came to replace common decency, religious faith, and the family in American life. Only when we embrace these ideals anew, individually and as a society, can we hope to replace today's culture of selfishness, depravity, and death with one that encourages and supports life. Mothers and children deserve nothing less.

More Thoughts on Life and Roe

I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . . ~ Deut. 30:19

My post of January 30 prompted a thoughtful and well-written comment from one of my most avid readers--my son Colin! In it he makes several points in favor of the "legal right to terminate a fetus." His position is generally in line with that of most defenders of legalized abortion, so I thought a response from one holding a different view might help illuminate the issue--and hopefully touch the heart and change the mind of someone near and dear to me.

First, I'm very glad we agree that to what reasonable extent abortion should be permitted is a decision properly made by state legislatures, not by the federal courts. The central issue turns on such things as when human life begins and at what point an unborn child should enjoy legal protection, as well as on what role the father or a minor mother's parents should play--matters which should weigh in the balance together with the privacy interests of the mother. These are issues of social policy and governance that only democratically elected legislatures are competent to determine. The federal courts have no proper powers or jurisdiction in such matters; they can only apply the Constitution as it is written, and then only to the extent (if at all) it extends to the mother's privacy interest. Necessarily, this is an inadequate and one-sided approach to some of the weightiest issues confronting society. So, if for no other reason, Roe v. Wade should be set aside in favor of allowing the states to resume their traditional authority in "family matters," subject only to federal constitutional oversight to make sure that these legitimate public purposes are rationally served by such limits on abortion as the people decide to impose.

At least as important as the issue of who should decide the permissibility of abortion is whether, or to what extent, it should be permitted at all. And here is where so many part ways. Here is where purely rational social policies collide with fundamental convictions about what human life is, when it begins, and how, if at all, it can be weighed against other interests.

Colin points out that while some people deplorably use abortion as a “backup” method of birth control, “having the legal right to terminate a fetus can be a godsend to people in many different situations.” He may not be aware of how sadly ironic is his choice of words: rather than the coldly clinical phrase “terminate a fetus,” why not just say “kill a child”? And how could “the legal right to kill a child” be a “godsend”? To those of us who believe that an unborn baby is a person, that baby is the “Godsend”--literally--and killing it, at least without any legal showing of necessity, would be an awful crime and the most terrible tragedy.

Here lies the rub: if one believes that a “fetus” is not a person at least until live birth, or “quickening,” or “viability,” or ____ weeks, or some other gestational point selected by the medical or bioethical establishment (and changed by them from time to time according to developments in medicine or the prevailing culture), then it might make sense to relieve the mother, if she so chooses, of the tremendous physical and psychological burden (not to mention the danger to her) of carrying to term what, until that moment, would essentially amount to an inflamed uterus. But if one accepts the proposition that the “fetus” (or embryo, in its more primitive stage of physical formation) is a unique and infinitely precious human being from the moment of conception, then even the direst circumstances facing the mother would not justify its killing without any kind of legal process. In today’s enlightened society, people may not abuse or kill animals with impunity; so, if it were generally recognized that any unborn child is a human being, we wouldn’t countenance its wanton destruction.

This divergence of belief is the very heart of abortion as a social policy issue. Those who want abortion to be freely available generally do not (and cannot, consistently with their own humane principles) accept that a human embryo or fetus is (or could be) a person entitled to as much legal protection as the mother, at least until whatever point the medical and legal professions say that it’s convenient and acceptable to so recognize it. Until that point, they reason, the needs, interests, convenience, or even whims of the mother (or parents) are all that legally matter. Those who oppose the free availability of abortion generally do so because they accept that conception results in the creation of a person whose own life and future, in a humane society where the helpless aren’t forgotten, deserves as much protection as does the mother’s. Without such protection, they reason, countless human lives are casually sacrificed in the interest of whatever is deemed safe, convenient, desirable, or even economical by people who at least had a chance at their own lives and (except in cases of rape or undue influence) a choice how to use their own powers of creation.

Before I get bogged down in discussing whether these fundamental views can ever be reconciled on a legal or political level, let me respond to some of Colin’s specific points as one who believes in human life from conception, and therefore opposes today’s liberal abortion regime. I must confess rather passionate feelings on this issue, as to me there is nothing in all Creation more miraculous, more precious, or more pregnant with hope and promise--nor more helpless and needful of care and protection--than a human child, inside or outside the womb.

A woman is raped, becomes pregnant, and isn't in a situation where she can face 9 grueling months of carrying a baby. This is an awful situation for a woman to be in; fortunately, it's rare, and most proposed restrictive abortion laws would significantly relax restrictions on abortion in this case.

The pregnancy will risk the safety or health of the mother. Every pregnancy involves a significant risk to the mother's safety and health. Unless we're to embrace abortion as a routine safety measure in all pregnancies, it would have to be limited to situations in which carrying the child to term would present an unusually high risk of death or permanent physical or mental disability to the mother. Most proposed restrictive abortion laws that I am aware of would significantly relax restrictions on abortion in this case as well.

The fetus has a severe mental or physical handicap that will inhibit it from ever being able to live a normal life, and the parents aren't emotionally or economically capable to care for a child in that condition. Suggesting abortion as a solution to birth defects or genetic disability breaks my heart. Just imagine the countless millions of precious children afflicted with congenital blindness (e.g., Stevie Wonder) or deafness, Downs' syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, dwarfism, autism, missing limbs, etc. who would never have a chance to have a life at all, let alone a "normal" one--never know laughter, music, beauty, joy, kindness, friendship, love (at least in this world). How do we know whether they would choose life or oblivion if they were allowed a choice? Does anyone have a right to make that choice for them? Anyone who has been close to such a child knows what a tremendous challenge, and what a marvelous blessing, they can be. Should we the “normal” deny ourselves the opportunity for learning and growth that having disabled children among us provides?

A responsible married couple is practicing safe sex, but the condom breaks, the woman becomes pregnant, and the couple can't afford to have a baby at that point in their life. No method of birth control is foolproof, and every “responsible married couple” does, or should, know this. Yet, they take the risk inherent in having relations. That’s not a bad thing, but nevertheless we all need to be responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, as difficult as they may be. In fact, this “planned-against-but-it-happened-anyway” situation is very common. At least two of my own children came along in this way. In the first instance we were just three months into the pregnancy when I lost my job, and we were initially denied insurance coverage for it through my next employer. By any rational measure we couldn’t “afford” to have a baby at that point in our life, but abortion wasn’t remotely thinkable for us, and we had our wonderful Donna anyway--Praise God! (our other unplanned pregnancy, for which we were better prepared, was--Colin himself!)

Indeed: faith, and the loving support of family, friends, and other helpers, are the keys to surmounting the tremendous challenges common to all of these scenarios. Carrying a child through pregnancy and birth, especially in such situations, can certainly be an exhausting, frightening, faith-testing experience. But it’s not impossible; it’s done every day, and monuments for valor should be erected to the mothers and the legions of caregivers who sustain them and their children through that difficult time.

Aside from life-threatening or (perhaps) rape-induced pregnancy, today there is rarely any compelling reason to abort an unborn child when there are so many health and support resources commonly available, so many organizations and people eager to help women in distress, and a range of other life-affirming options, such as adoption. We shouldn’t be treating the unborn as just another disposable item in our throwaway culture. Rather than rationalize and take the quick, (apparently) easy, and self-centered way out, expectant parents can and should dare to be heroes--to be brave, have faith, tough it out, and do what’s right, deep down in their hearts. What greater thing could one do for another person, for themselves, and for the world, than give the gift of life?

As I adverted to earlier, the stand one takes on the issue of abortion boils down, ultimately, to what one believes, at the core of his or her soul, about when human life begins. This is an extensive and evolving subject all by itself, and beyond the scope of one blog post. I only hope that readers will honestly and openly consider all sources of wisdom on this subject, religious as well as scientific, and not jump to a conclusion simply as a means of justifying his or her preferred position on the abortion issue. Personally--and with an increasing body of scientific evidence that essential human life begins at conception--I find the religious basis for this principle compelling. Nothing in the scripture of any faith more poetically or persuasively testifies of it than Psalm 139:

For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Psalm 139:13-16

I must confess to strong emotions on this issue, too, though I think they’re natural and right. In preparing my Roe v. Wade “anniversary” post I wanted to add a few pictures, so I naively ran an image search using the single term "abortion." You can probably guess at the results (bloody, dismembered fetuses, among other indescribable things); I just hadn't thought beforehand about what might come back. Well, what I saw on that screen no human eyes should ever see, because no "human" being should ever do such things to another. Once I realized what I was looking at my soul screamed in agony; I deleted the page as fast as I could, and was on the verge of throwing up. My eyes were full of tears, and I sobbed almost out loud, "God, please MAKE IT STOP! Please don't let this happen again!" I thought of my own children, and of the beautiful grandson I gained just a few months ago--none of whom were really “planned,” none of whom came along at a very “affordable” time for their parents--and realized that those dead and mutilated children I saw could have been them, had we made a different decision.

Given the strong moral case and deep-rooted conviction of many that human life begins at conception--and the undeniable damage that unrestricted abortion inflicts on the mother, the father, and society in general--is it not time to extend a measure of due process to the unborn child and everyone concerned? Many states prescribe court proceedings when someone seeks to end life support for a terminally ill and comatose person who hasn’t left a valid health care proxy or end-of-life directions. Judicial review is mandated for committing to a hospital someone who is alleged to be mentally ill or incompetent. Would it really be an intolerable burden, an outrageous invasion of privacy, to require some showing in court that an abortion is necessary and the only meaningful alternative in the particular case, before a helpless life is snuffed out?

As sensible and right as this seems, the idea is likely to be resisted by those who value personal and sexual freedom above all else, and who believe (or must maintain, in order to preserve abortion’s ethical legitimacy) that a fetus is a mere part or extension of the mother’s body rather than a person with rights. Can a compromise on abortion, acceptable to both belief/value systems, ever be found? Perhaps not. Wherever a democratic assembly of the people is pushed to a decision on what the law should be, one fundamental view or the other is likely to weigh more heavily and result in an abortion law that favors one or the other set of convictions about human life. But if we allow the states to have the autonomy and freedom of action they were meant to enjoy under the Constitution, each of these communities will be able to resolve the abortion issue in a way deemed wisest by a majority of its people--restrictively in, say, North Carolina, and liberally, most likely, in California. In other words, the pro-life cause is also pro-choice! That choice, that opportunity to peacefully resolve the abortion controversy in a way everyone can live with, is the main reason Roe v. Wade should be abandoned.

ADDENDUM: Please check out some marvelous videos on the Manhattan Declaration website, produced by ordinary citizens, that explore various aspects of the abortion issue. If you find some you especially like, you can even post them to Facebook! Also check out the website of the Women’s Health Center in Jacksonville, Florida, where my sister Patti works. Consider making a donation, if you can, to aid their work in helping expectant mothers to give life to their unborn children.

A Matter of "Choice"

Last weekend marked the 38th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which struck down most state-law restrictions on abortion, and recognized that a right to "privacy" distilled from the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman's decision to abort her pregnancy. This past Monday, hundreds of thousands of people from across the nation and the world gathered in the streets of Washington, DC for the 2011 March for Life, demonstrating their commitment to life over legalized killing, and praying for a dramatic change in the law to protect the lives of unborn children. Encouragingly, observers noted an especially high rate of participation by young people.

President Obama marked the milestone with this statement:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

The President's statement reflects the myth that Roe vs. Wade and its progeny somehow affirm the principles of free choice and limited government, things libertarians and conservatives claim to support. In reality, Roe v. Wade represented a profound intrusion of federal government power into matters traditionally within the states' jurisdiction. Worse, by "choosing" personal privacy and convenience above the sanctity of life as fundamental national values, Roe contributed mightily to the development of a culture of selfishness, perversion and death that undermines society itself and the physical and moral health of everyone in it--not least the most helpless and vulnerable class of all, unborn children.

One questionable aspect of the President's statement is the suggestion that "government" has no business getting involved in "private family matters." To many today this idea seems almost self-evident, but in fact it doesn't comport with legal practice in this country now or for most of its history. In fact, America is rife with laws regulating "private family matters" in general and and sexual behavior in particular: laws against bigamy, incest, rape, and sex with children, the helpless, and animals; laws against pornography and sexual exploitation; laws governing marriage, separation, divorce, property division, spousal support, and the custody and support of children; laws against domestic violence and the abuse or neglect of partners, children, and the aged; laws governing medical care and education of children; laws providing for adoption, emancipation, and personal health-care decisionmaking; laws regulating wills and the distribution of property upon death--and so on. Almost all such laws are enacted and administered at the state level, and the regulation of "family matters" has long been regarded as a responsibility primarily of the states. Until the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, state statutes restricting or prohibiting abortion were part of this considerable body of law designed to promote, strengthen, and assist families and to protect children, mothers, the elderly, and other especially vulnerable persons in the domestic sphere. Singly and taken together, these laws "infringe" significantly on personal and family privacy. But they were enacted democratically by the people's elected representatives, and so reflect a deliberate decision by the people to surrender a modicum of privacy and personal freedom for the sake of ensuring our future by protecting children and promoting family life.

Roe v. Wade, however, effectively denied the right of the people to provide for their own children, their families, and their future in this way. Formerly, the citizens of one state could decide democratically, in their own legislatures, that the unborn should be protected from the moment of conception and severely restrict or even prohibit abortion at an early stage of pregnancy, while the people of another state, applying different values, could choose to regulate abortion much more liberally. In Roe v. Wade the United States Supreme Court took away this "choice" and said that the Federal Constitution, as the Supreme Court interpreted it, would decide the limits of what legal protections could and could not be afforded to the unborn. In effect, Roe moved the authority to decide this issue from the the people of the several states, acting democratically through their legislatures, and gave it to the federal courts, acting through Presidentially-appointed judges who serve for life and have the last word on the Constitution's meaning and reach. This assumption of power might be defensible were a right to abortion mentioned in the Constitution, or were such a right a clear and necessary extension of some specific freedom expressly guaranteed in that document. Instead, the right to terminate a pregnancy recognized in Roe was based on a vague right to "privacy" that itself is not mentioned in the Constitution, but was extrapolated from the malleable Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and developed within parameters laid down by other Supreme Court justices in earlier Supreme Court cases. Roe thus made clear that the autocratic Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, rather than the democratic assemblies of the people, will decide whether, and just how, state laws may intrude into "private family matters."

Even more damaging than this loss of choice for the people is Roe's exaltation of the the individual's freedom and convenience over the rights and interests of everyone else affected by the decision to terminate pregnancy--the father, families generally, civilized society, and of course, the unborn child itself. Making the pregnant mother's "choice" paramount above all, even above the life of her own helpless child, would be morally and legally untenable except on the principle that that entity in the mother's womb not a human being at all--at least until what the Supreme Court decides is "viability"--but is just so much medical waste. By elevating personal freedom and self-interest over life and all the duties--and blessings--that go along with it, the Supreme Court energized the growing culture of selfishness, irresponsibility, materialism, promiscuity, and perversion that is now corroding the very foundations of society. Roe gave a green light to the development of a whole industry, funded with billions of (many of them taxpayer) dollars, devoted to the destruction and removal of fetal life. What this has done to the national conscience and soul, not to mention the millions of lives lost to legalized abortion since 1973, is incalculable. It is this culture, and this industry, that leads to things like the "house of horrors" maintained by Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. This is the "freedom of choice" that has forced some health-care professionals to participate in abortions against their will. These are the consequences of the Supreme Court's choice of self over life that have resulted in forty-one percent of all pregnancies in New York City ending in abortion (48 percent in the Bronx alone).

So, while President Obama "chose" to celebrate Roe v. Wade last week, I and millions of others "chose" to mourn--the loss of millions of innocent lives, the loss of a people's honor and soul, the loss of freedom to resist the death culture and of our democratic power in the states to protect unborn life. But we can still choose: to speak out loudly and unashamedly public and private in favor of fetal life, to work and vote for political candidates who do likewise, to lovingly counsel and support expectant mothers in choosing life for their unborn children. Most importantly, promote a culture of marriage and of life in your own home and teach it to your children. We can choose to fight selfishness with love, despair with faith, death with life, every day--for another 38 years or longer, if need be.

The Manhattan Declaration

If you're not already familiar with it, I would like to call your attention to a remarkable document I recently discovered--one that could serve as the foundational manifesto of a grassroots movement to restore the values essential to a truly humane, just, and free American society. It's called The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. Issued in November 2009 over the signatures of more than 100 Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant evangelical leaders, the Declaration is a beautifully and powerfully worded affirmation of our common Christian belief in the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty (the 4700-word Declaration can be read in full here; a 2-page summary of the Declaration in .pdf format can be accessed here).

According to a summary of the Declaration:

Because [these truths] are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The Declaration begins by reviewing the role Christian believers have played, over the the last two millenia, in protecting children, tending the sick, fighting slavery, and promoting democracy, civil rights, and the rule of law (while frankly “acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages . . .”). The drafters then observe:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Issues Regarding Life

The Declaration decries the pervasive “culture of death [which] inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable.” The drafters point out that “the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized” to include initiatives for human embryo-destructive research and its public funding, as well as “an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and ‘voluntary’ euthanasia [which] threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons.” As to abortion, the Declaration states that “we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.” The drafters further declare:

The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Issues Regarding Marriage

In its second major part the Declaration explains that:

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. . . . Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves.

One striking thing about the Declaration is that it doesn’t single out homosexual practice and “same-sex marriage” for condemnation, but deplores heterosexual immorality just as forcefully:

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

In line with this view, the Declaration explains that “[t]he impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture.” The Declaration appeals for all Christians to “love the sinner” and accord respect to those afflicted with homosexuality, even as it hews to the principle that homosexual practice is sinful and that “same-sex marriage” obscures the true meaning and purpose of marriage, thereby weakening family institutions throughout society. The Declaration also counters the suggestion that “gay marriage” is a matter of civil rights:

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

Issues Regarding Religious Liberty

A problem less widely recognized today, even than abortion and homosexuality, is the erosion of freedom of speech and practice for people of faith. The Manhattan Declaration points out:

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well.

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

In the view of atheist activists, secular “humanists,” and leftist intellectuals generally, limits on religious expression are necessary to protect non-believers’ dignity and freedom of “choice,” as well as the host of governmental policies erected to guarantee and promote them, against the “bigotry,” “hatred,” and “repression” necessarily underlying religious (at least, Christian religious) belief. The Declaration notes that in the name of advancing “reproductive rights” and freedom from sexual discrimination, pro-life doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers are increasingly forced to refer for abortions and even to perform or participate in them; social service providers are required to support or accommodate homosexual activities or go out of business; and Christian clergy are subject to prosecution under hate-crime laws for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. At the same time, pressures mount relentlessly to exclude all forms of religious expression from every public forum and institution, from schools and colleges to courthouses to parks, in the name of “separation of church and state.” This anti-religion campaign may be just as dangerous to a free and healthy society as abortion and hetero/homosexual immorality, as it threatens to stamp out all debate on those issues and any chance that the truth and right principles might once more gain acceptance among a majority of Americans.

Acknowledging that even civil disobedience is sometimes necessary to resist laws that are are “gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral,” the Declaration concludes with this ringing assertion:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

The Promise of the Declaration

It’s no surprise that the Manhattan Declaration has been generally scorned and denounced in leftist, anti-religious circles as reactionary, extremist, sexist, racist, and a “blueprint for theocracy.” One would like to hope that an appeal as inspiring and couched in wisdom as the Manhattan Declaration might touch the souls of at least a few in these circles and change their hearts--with God, anything is possible (even with politicians: last week the Kentucky legislature passed by voice vote a resolution to “recognize and honor the efforts of those who have inspired thousands of Kentuckians with the Manhattan Declaration")! The more telling effect of the Declaration, though, should be to embolden the millions of religious Americans--of all ages, races, classes, and denominations--to give clear public witness to their beliefs on the most critical issues facing our nation. In so doing, we can have a decisive influence for good on America’s direction and future. Don’t we owe that to our children and theirs?

At the Manhattan Declaration web site, you can electronically add your signature to those of the almost half-million people (including me!) who have endorsed this inspiring statement of faith and principle. You can also link to the Declaration on your own blog or web site, follow news about it on Facebook and Twitter, and email friends and invite them to read and sign the Declaration.

My summary of the Manhattan Declaration doesn’t begin to do justice to its powerful language and its eloquent statement of the divine source--God’s love--for the ideals it proclaims. So, read the whole Declaration for yourself, today. Then sign it, and add your voice to the crescendo of good that hopefully will come of it.