145 Sermon Illustrations on Abortion

What The Odds Are...

--The Chances you will eventually die in a car crash: 1 in 125

--Develop a brain tumor: 1 in 25,000

--Die in a fire this year: 1 in 4,000,000

--Win a state lottery jackpot: 1 in 4,000,000 (from Harper Perennial, 1992)

--Chances of your being killed by terrorists overseas: 1 in 650,000

--Chances of your being aborted if you are in the womb of an American woman: 1 in 3.3

(From WHAT ARE THE CHANCES? By Bernard Siskin, Crown, 1989)

Several year ago after I had finished speaking at a conference, a lovely woman came to the platform. She obviously wanted to speak to me and the moment I turned to her, tears welled up in her eyes. We made our way to a room where we could talk privately. It was clear from looking at her that she was sensitive but tortured. She sobbed as she told me the following story.

Years before, she and her fiancé (to whom she was now married) had been youth workers at a large conservative church. They were a well-known couple and had an extraordinary impact on the young people. Everyone looked up to them and admired them tremendously. A few months before they were to be married they began having sexual relations. That left them burdened enough with a sense of guilt and hypocrisy. But then she discovered she was pregnant. “You can't imagine what the implications would have been of admitting this to our church,” she said. “To confess that were preaching one thing and living another would have been intolerable. The congregation was so conservative and had never been touched by any scandal. We felt they wouldn't be able to handle knowing about our situation. Nor could we bear the humiliation.

“So we made the most excruciating decision I have ever made. I had an abortion. My wedding day was the worst day of my entire life. Everyone in the church was smiling at me, thinking me a bride beaming in innocence. But do you know what was going through my head as I walked down the aisle? All I could think to myself was, 'You're a murderer. You were so proud that you couldn't bear the shame and humiliation of being exposed for what you are. But I know what you are and so does God. You have murdered an innocent baby.”

She was sobbing so deeply that she could not speak. As I put my arms around her a thought came to me very strongly. But I was afraid to say it. I knew if it was not from God that it could be very destructive. So I prayed silently for the wisdom to help her.

She continued. “I just can't believe that I could do something so horrible. How could I have murdered an innocent life? How is it possible I could do such a thing? I love my husband; we have four beautiful children. I know the Bible says that God forgives all of our sins. But I can't forgive myself! I've confessed this sin a thousand times, and I still feel such shame and sorrow. The thought that haunts me the most is how could I murder and innocent life?”

I took a deep breath and said what I had been thinking. “I don't know why you are so surprised. This isn't the first time your sin has led to death; it's the second.” She looked at me in utter amazement. “My dear friend,” I continued, “when you look at the cross, all of us show up as crucifiers. Religious or non-religious, good or bad, aborters or nonaborters - all of us are responsible for the death of the only innocent who ever lived. Jesus died for all our sins - past, present, and future. Do you think there are any sins of yours that Jesus didn't have to die for? The very sin of pride that caused you to destroy your child is what killed Christ as well. It does not matter that you weren't there two thousand years ago. We all sent him there. Luther said that we carry his very nails in our pockets. So if you have done it before, then why couldn't you do it again?”

She stopped crying. She looked at me straight in the eyes and said, “You're absolutely right. I have done something even worse than killing my baby. My sin is what drove Jesus to the cross. It doesn't matter that I wasn't there pounding in the nails, I'm still responsible for his death. Do you realize the significance of what you are telling me, Becky? I came to you saying I had done the worst thing imaginable. And you tell me I have done something even worse than that.”

I grimaced because I knew this was true. (I am not sure that my approach would qualify as one of the great counseling techniques!) The she said, “But, Becky, if the cross shows me that I am far worse that I had ever imagined, it also shows me that my evil has been absorbed and forgiven. If the worst thing any human can do is kill God's Son, and that can be forgiven, then how can anything else - even my abortion - not be forgiven?”

I will never forget the look in her eyes as she sat back in awe and quietly said, “Talk about amazing grace.” This time she wept not out of sorrow but from relief and gratitude. I saw a woman literally transformed by a proper understanding of the cross.

____________

told by Rebecca Pippert in HOPE HAS ITS REASONS (1989)

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1301]

"When pigs fly!" That's what people say when they hear a claim they believe to be utterly impossible. And it's what you might say if someone suggested to you that America's most committed secularist and abortion advocate were to admit he was wrong. But that's exactly what happened last week.

On Labor Day weekend, the American Political Science Association (APSA) held its annual convention in Boston. During the panel discussions, political scientists debate important issues. One panel took up this question: Can we debate important moral issues when people proceed from deeply divergent starting points?

Among the panelists were two scholars whose own worldviews could not be further apart: Stanley Fish of Duke University and Robert George of Princeton. Fish, whose liberal views have made him a hero in academic circles, is perhaps the best-known proponent of deconstructionism in America, a philosophy that claims there are no such things as universal truths. By contrast, Robert George is a young, brilliant Princeton political philosopher whose classes are often over-subscribed because of his winsome ways. George is my good friend, and also a conservative Catholic Christian whose worldview is shaped, in his words, by "Scripture and sacred tradition."

Prior to the convention, the panelists exchanged their papers. George's paper focused on Fish's liberal views on abortion. Fish has written that reason is useless in settling disputes, especially controversial ones like abortion. Why? Because different viewpoints make it impossible to find common starting points for debate. There is no truth so all that's left, Fish says, are unarguable assumptions that can be neither proven nor disproven.

For Fish, the abortion debate provided the perfect illustration. As he saw it, the claim that the fetus has a right to life is a purely religious assertion. So, if you're religious, you buy it. If you're not, you don't.

George's answer was, in effect, "Not so fast!" You can defend the right to life without even mentioning religion. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that what's inside the pregnant womb is a distinct and unique person every bit as human as you or I. George made a brilliant case and then sent his paper to Fish in advance of the convention.

During the panel discussion, attended by 200 people, Fish rose to respond to George by saying, amazingly, "Professor George is right, and he is right to correct me."

It was an astonishing admission, and the next sound in the room was that of 200 jaws hitting the floor at once. Fish not only repudiated his previous pro-choice position on abortion; he chastised abortion rights advocates for ignoring what science has to say about the fetus' humanity.

This change of mind has repercussions far beyond ivory towers. It exposes the essential lie that the pro-choicer's advance: That is, that pro-lifers are trying to cram a particular sectarian view down everyone's throat. Not so, as Fish amazingly admitted.

Well, pigs can't really fly -- but we Christians ought to be thrilled by this amazing turnaround. And we ought to be thrilled as well, that there are young and articulate Christian scholars invading the secular bastion. With men like Robby George in the fight, who says we can't win back the hearts and minds of even our secular critics.

________

(c) 1998 Prison Fellowship Ministries, BreakPoint Commentary

Copyright notice: We encourage liberal distribution of these transcripts through email and print. Please do not post on the world wide web or use this content for profit.

SWORD OF THE LORD - August 17, 1991 issue. NEWS of Interest to

Christians - Catholic Archbishop Says Pro-Choice Stand Has "No

Moral Basis"

DENVER (RNS)-Roman Catholic Archbishop J. Francis Stafford

received a standing ovation after he told a Catholic women's

gathering June 5 that there is "no conceivable moral basis for a

pro-choice position" on abortion. His speech drew criticism,

however, from the media, Colorado politicians and a liberal

Catholic group because of its criticism of political leaders who

make a distinction between their personal beliefs on abortion and

their responsiblitites as public officials.

In his address to the annual Archdiocesan Council of Catholic

Women meeting in Fort Morgan, Archbishop Stafford said it is

"logically inconsistent and morally irresponsible" for a public

official to oppose abortion while defending a woman's right to

choose.

What would you do if you had to choose between your life and your baby’s life?

I never really thought I would have to choose. Since college it was always just a hypothetical question to me. Up to that point in my life, I had even heard most pro-life supporters affirm that abortion is always wrong -- with the exception of the mother’s life being in jeopardy. That exception had always troubled me. In college I decided that if I ever had to choose, I’d go with the baby and trust God. I never thought I’d actually have to make that choice.

Fast forward four years and 25 weeks. The dark ultrasound room was quiet. My ultra-normal, 25-week pregnancy was falling to pieces before my eyes. When the doctor finally broke the silence, “Katie, we’re concerned about your baby,” my heart was crushed. My doctor explained that our sweet daughter’s body was badly deformed. Our daughter had no left arm. She had no right leg. Her left leg was badly clubbed and her right arm seemed atrophied. The doctor feared Eve’s brain and organs could not sustain her outside the womb.

Instantly, my heart encountered shock, terror and sorrow like I have never known. They allowed my husband and me to have a moment alone to absorb the news before meeting privately with our doctor to discuss our options.

My heart sunk further as I listened to the doctor’s “medical opinion.” She never said the word “abortion,” but the suggestion had been made perfectly clear. It was posed with such delicate phrases: “My concern is to keep Katie as safe as possible. ... We need to think about what a delivery could mean for Katie.” I could hardly listen; I was consumed with begging God to spare my daughter. Was my doctor really telling me my daughter wasn’t worth saving? As soon as I realized her suggestion, I remembered that I had made this choice long ago.

Suddenly, amidst my sorrow, I knew that God had been preparing me for this moment, in this doctor’s office, for years. I suddenly found myself thankful as I unhesitatingly responded: “I want to save my daughter.”

My choice didn’t make the coming days easier. I had limitless questions of every possible “why” and “how.” I wasn’t mad at God, but I was frustrated. I felt like David when he cried out to God, begging Him to come in and make sense of the mess. I experienced pain that is too deep for words. I know I am not the first, or unfortunately, the last woman to experience sorrow of this nature. It comes in all different shapes and sizes, but ultimately has the same root issue -- the effects of sin had corrupted something that was supposed to be beautiful.

I received a lot of different advice and words of wisdom from many women during those days -- some good advice, some not so good. As I went through my own struggles, I couldn’t help but realize that there were certain truths that applied not only to me, but to every woman who has experienced the pain of something beautiful being affected by a fallen world:

• I learned that I needed to allow grief. Too often, when Christian women hear of another’s difficult challenges, they tend to sugarcoat the situation and essentially discourage grieving. It’s well meaning, but unbiblical (Romans 12:15). Cry out to God, not to undermine or question His Sovereignty, but in order to understand His will. It’s okay to be honest if you don’t understand what He’s doing. There were moments during my pregnancy when I was too weak to read Scripture or even pray. The only things I had to offer my Savior were my tears (Romans 8:26). Those moments alone with the Lord are still some of the most intimate moments I’ve ever experienced. I needed to be able to grieve through my pain to reach a deeper level of intimacy with the Lord. That intimacy then enabled me to be able to trust Him regardless of the storm (Psalm 34:18).

• I learned to accept that while sin may cause evil, nothing my baby did was sinful. Neither the man of John 9 nor his parents had caused his blindness, although he was blind as a consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. This difference is so crucial! No one grieves the effects of sin for their children more than God the Father. Yet He worked through the Fall to transform us into His daughters and heirs of the promise (Romans 8:17). For me, that means I can weep guilt-free with my daughter when she cries because of her differences. It means I can confidently teach her that God is powerful enough to take any effect of the Fall and display His glorious work through it (John 9:3).

• I learned the importance of depending entirely on God’s strength. Shortly after I delivered my daughter, I received a sweet note from a wise woman. She told me she would be praying for me as I discovered God’s strength for my journey. I simply couldn’t phrase it any better. Throughout the pregnancy my husband read Psalm 91 out loud to me. I started to visualize myself as a wounded and weak soldier, too tired to go on and ready for death but suddenly finding myself completely covered under God’s impenetrable shelter. Nothing about me had changed; I was still weak and ready to die. The only thing that had changed was that Someone was protecting me from the continual onslaught. I wasn’t being strong at all; I knew that for sure. Instead, I was learning to discover just how powerful God’s strength is. When I realized how limited my strength was, I was able to fully learn what it means to hide in the cleft of the rock.

There’s no way I could have known in college the emotional and spiritual battle that choosing life would entail. But I’m incredibly thankful that God is sovereign and helped strengthen me for the challenge, years before I knew I needed it.

We had a difficult pregnancy that entailed bi-weekly ultrasounds, lots of blood work, prayers and tears. After 37 weeks, our beautiful, healthy daughter was born. She is still missing two limbs, but her arm isn’t atrophied at all. The children’s hospital has been correcting her foot since she was four weeks old, and she just got her first prosthetic leg! She’s also unbelievably cute and smart with eyes as blue as the ocean.

I know we still have trials ahead of us. Eventually she will realize she’s different and will weep because of it. My prayer is that she will persevere because of the same truths I have come to embrace. Our fallen world hurts, but God is more powerful and is a shelter like no other.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #12189]

Recently, Lisa and Jack Nash announced that their new baby, aptly named Adam, had been conceived solely to be a donor of cells for his older sister. The story of how and why Adam Nash came into the world is the story of how even the best of intentions can result in the worst of evils.

The story begins when the Nash's oldest daughter, Molly, was diagnosed with Fanconi anemia -- a hereditary and always fatal form of the disease. Doctors determined that the best hope for Molly was a cell transplant, from a relative whose cells matched Molly's, but without anemia.

Since they had no other children, the Nashes decided to have one to save Molly. But unlike the California couple who gave birth to a child to provide their daughter with a bone marrow transplant a few years ago, the Nashes weren't taking any chances. Any child conceived naturally would be unlikely to provide Molly with the cells she needed.

So, by in-vitro fertilization, they produced fifteen embryos, which they sent to a genetic testing facility. Only one of the embryos had the right genetic material. It was implanted in Mrs. Nash, who, in August, gave birth to Adam. Two weeks ago, Adam's stem cells were taken from his umbilical cord and implanted in his sister.

Naturally, the Nashes are pleased at the outcome of what they call an "awesome" and "monumental" experience. But thoughtful Christians should respond differently to what has happened here.

Despite all the celebration and the medical justification, the fact remains that Adam was, in the words of columnist Ellen Goodman, "conceived ... not just to be a son, but a medical treatment."

Instead of being an end, with all the God-given dignity that implies, Adam was a means -- valuable only insofar as he carried the right genetic material. And if he hadn't, he would have been rejected -- like the other fourteen discarded embryos.

What's more, the technology and the worldview that made Adam possible can't -- and won't -- be limited to noble purposes like preserving life. We're fast approaching a world where kids will be seen to exist merely to enhance their parents' sense of fulfillment. And even if they aren't conceived as merely a source of spare parts, they will still -- through genetic manipulation -- be made to embody their parents' ideas of an ideal child. Parents creating the personality of their kids fits our narcissistic culture, but it is dehumanizing in the extreme.

Now, nobody should doubt that, as soon as technology permits, parents will be screening embryos for desirable and undesirable genetic traits. In this kind of world, as technology critic Jeremy Rifkin puts it, "children are the ultimate shopping experience."

If our culture is to avoid sliding even further down the slippery slope of manipulating life, Christians will have to be knowledgeable and courageous. We need to be knowledgeable about where these technologies are leading and courageous enough to stand against the accusations that we're hopeless reactionaries.

It's not easy to say "Not so fast!" when the subject is a sick child. But if the "cure" takes humanity to places like this, we've got to say "Stop!" If Christians don't deliver this message, who will?

In the end, loving our neighbor means telling them that the pathway paved with good intentions also leads to hell.

For further reading:

Goodman, Ellen. "A Blessed Event -- At What Price?" The Boston Globe, 8 October 2000.

Rifkin, Jeremy. "On The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World." Mars Hill Audio Journal 34 (September/October 1998).

Weiss, Rick. "Test-tube Baby Born to Save Ill Sister." The Washington Post, 3 October 2000.

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Submitted by: Pastor Max Hutto

Email address: max@fbcmc.org

People today find it difficult to believe that the time existed, not that long ago, when America not only allowed slavery, but protected it by law. However a curious parallel exists between the pro-slaver of yesterday and the pro-abortionist of today.

The pro-slaver put forth three main arguments for the retention of slavery

-That the slave was his property and that this gave the owner rights over the slave's body. -That the slave did not have a soul and was therefore not human.

-That government had no business interfering.

The pro-abortionist uses the same arguments:

-A woman has the right to dispose of the child within her because her body is her property.

-The fetus isn't human..

-Government has no right to interfere.

It took a civil war last time to make America aware of her sins. What will it take this time?

DAVID CRITCHFIELD, pastor, Oklahoma City

A survey was taken among women getting abortions. Below are the reasons they give for having abortions.*

1% victims of incest or rape

1% fetal abnormalities

4% health problems

50% didn't want to be single parents

66% believed they could not afford a child

77% believed child would interfere with their lives

________

*Total is more than 100% because some women gave more than one reason.

A first pregnancy permanently changes the structure of a woman's breasts. Before she is pregnant, her breasts cannot produce milk, as the gland cells are immature and underdeveloped. When she becomes pregnant, estrogen and other hormones flood her system. This results in rapid growth in size, while the internal structure undergoes dramatic change.

Cells, previously dormant, rapidly grow into a system of branching ducts and gland cells capable of producing milk. Once this growth, change and maturing is complete, there is no further significant change the rest of her life. Once mature, the chance of the breast developing cancer is much less.

When these cells are changing and transitional, they are less stable and have much greater potential of becoming cancerous. If she completes her first pregnancy, this unstable period passes and her gland cells mature and stabilize.

But --- if she interrupts her pregnancy, in its early phase, and 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, she in effect stops the development of the cells at this unstable, transitional phase. It seems apparent that cancerous changes can and do occur more frequently among these transitional cells of a woman who has terminated her pregnancy. If she aborts more than once before completing a pregnancy, her chance for cancer increases even more. A subsequent full term pregnancy helps, but sadly never removes the sharply increased threat of cancer.

There are 1,600,000 abortions each year, 56% are first abortions, 44% second or more [U.S. Figures]. One woman in ten will develop breast cancer, and 25% of them will die.

Women who carry their first baby to term cut their chance for breast cancer almost in half. Women who abort their first pregnancy almost double their chance. With 2 or more abortions, there is a 3-4 fold increase.

A 15 year old American girl has a 10% lifetime risk of breast cancer. If she gets pregnant in her teens and has the baby she reduces her risk to 7.5%. However, if she has an abortion, her risk rises to 15% (assuming she has at least one child in her 20's). If the abortion sterilizes her and/or for other reasons, she never has another pregnancy, her risk rises to 30%. [Brinton LA, Hoover R, Fraumeni IF, Ir. (1983) Brit. J. Cancer. 47:757-62.]

Infonet Digest #591, 2/12/99

Kentucky: Pregnant Inmate to Keep Her Baby

PEWEE VALLEY -- A pregnant inmate at the Kentucky Correctional Institution

for Women has decided to keep her baby after all. Twenty-seven-year-old

Monnie Sloan wanted the state to pay for an abortion, but the state

refused. Sloan is six months pregnant and doctors say she is too far along

to have an abortion. Sloan's lawyer says that the state should be liable

for child support now that his client has decided to keep the baby.

The other day an Oldham County couple said they wanted to adopt her unborn

child. Crestwood resident Kelly Grant says she and her husband had asked

to adopt Sloan's baby. They're were trying to arrange for a private

adoption.

---

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Online

\webpage{http://www.prolife.org/cpcs-online}

| My Source:

| UNKNOWN

|------------------------------

| Author: Carol Everett

|------------------------------

Carol Everett was involved in the abortion industry in the Dallas/ Ft. Worth, Texas, area from 1977 until 1983. As director of four clinics, owner of two, Ms. Everett was responsible for the clinics' daily operation as well as for all employee training programs. Everett, who had an abortion soon after it became legal in 1973, now speaks out on: What I Saw in the Abortion Industry:

Each time I sold an abortion to another woman, I justified my own abortion all over again. I was really quite good at abortion marketing, and soon watched my employer's abortion business more than double. When I realized how profitable the "business" was, I wanted more money.

Because my employer would not give me an equity interest, I negotiated a more lucrative arrangement with the next clinic, I was paid $25.00 for each abortion that was done. The first month we did 45 abortions and the last month in the abortion business, with two clinics open, we did 545 abortions. Multiply 545 times $25.00 and I made $13,625.00 in July, 1983. However, we had much bigger plans. We actually planned to have five clinics, all run out of one yellow page advertising budget and one central telephone counseling center. We wanted to eventually pull patients from a five-state advertising area.

Starting in January, 1982, we had at least one major complication each month. The woman would be loaded into my car (an ambulance outside an abortion clinic is terrible advertising) and transported to a hospital that would protect the doctor and the abortion clinic's reputation. The woman was always told she would have had the complication if she had continued her pregnancy.

Then we had a death. A 32-year-old woman hemorrhaged to death as a result of a cervical laceration. I finally realized, we weren't helping women -- we were destroying them.

Women are told that abortion is a "choice." Abortion is not a choice, but rather a skillfully marketed product sold to a woman at a crisis time in her life. And when she discovers the product is defective, it's too late -- the baby is dead!

As part of her coursework in Persuasive Speech, Afton Dahl had to make a presentation about a controversial issue. Dahl, a sixteen-year-old sophomore at Red Wing High School in Minnesota, chose abortion.

“I think it would be better,” she told her classmates, “to overturn ROE V. WADE.”

Dahl was not just repeating what she heard in her pro-life, Christian home. In fact, her remarks came as a shock to her thoroughly pro-choice mother. But they are a hopeful sign that pro-life arguments have not fallen on deaf ears.

Dahl was not the only person in her class to make a pro-life presentation. As Dahl's teacher, Jillynne Raymond, told the NEW YORK TIMES, the “majority” of her students are pro-life.

This comes as a real surprise in Red Wing, which voted for Al Gore in 2000. One resident described herself as “shocked” at the pro-life sentiment among the town's kids and asked, “Where do these kids come from?”

The answer: They are just kids from Red Wing whose attitudes are consistent with national trends. Among young Americans, support for the pro-choice position has been dropping for the past decade. In 1993, 48 percent of eighteen- to twenty-nine-year-olds polled by the NEW YORK TIMES agreed that “abortion should be generally available to those who want it.” Today, that number is down to 39 percent. A social scientist observed that young people today no longer see abortion as a “rights” issue, but as a “moral, ethical issue.” That's good news.

And not surprisingly, abortion-rights advocates are trying to explain away these findings. Some argue that young women, never having “faced a situation where they couldn't get an abortion,” take the right to abortion for granted. But they're not taking it for granted. They're explicitly rejecting that so-called “right.”

An even more desperate pro-abortion explanation is that the shift is due to sex-ed programs stressing abstinence that “demonize abortion.” In this conspiratorial account, children are being indoctrinated behind their busy parents' backs. As one pro-choice parent told the TIMES, “An anti-choice critter [jumped] out of my son's backpack and [ran] around my house.” Really?

I suppose thinking that he has been brainwashed is easier than admitting that he thinks that you are wrong.

But that is what is happening. When Dahl told her classmates that “the baby's heartbeat starts at around twelve to eighteen days,” she demonstrated that our arguments have taken hold. Likewise, when her classmate said that the abortion issue is “more about the baby's rights than the woman's rights,” we can see that our efforts to shift the terms of the debate have borne fruit.

What's happening in Red Wing and across the country is a reminder to the pro-life side that being in this battle for the long haul pays off. Just because one generation of women regards ROE as sacrosanct does not mean that we cannot reach their children with rational, moral arguments.

What's happening in Red Wing should inspire Christians to take advantage of groups like Stand to Reason (www.str.org), an excellent apologetics ministry specifically equipping kids to understand and defend pro-life arguments -- arguments that are creating a new generation gap, one in which being young means choosing life.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

Elizabeth Hayt, “Surprise, Mom: I'm Anti-Abortion,” NEW YORK TIMES, 30 March 2003 (free registration required). http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/fashion/30GAP.html

Kim Mulford and Barbara S. Rothschild, “Young people shape future of abortion debate,” COURIER-POST (New Jersey), 22 January 2003. http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/january/m012203a.htm

BreakPoint Commentary No. 021126, “Rebels for Life: The New Sexual Revolution.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Rebels+for+Life.htm

Robert B. Bluey, “Youth Attitudes on Abortion Encourage Pro-Life Groups,” CNS NEWS, 4 April 2003. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200304\CUL20030404a.html

Jeffrey Rosen, “Why We'd Be Better Off without ROE: Worst Choice,” NEW REPUBLIC, 24 February 2003. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=rosen022403

Catherine Hickem, L.C.S.W., “Understanding Why Christian Mothers Push Their Daughters Toward Abortion,” Focus on the Family, 24 February 2003. http://www.family.org/pregnancy/general/a0024741.html

Heather Koerner, “College Students Turn Pro-Life,” BOUNDLESS, 23 January 2003. http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a0000703.html

Johannes L. Jacobse, “The New Faithful: A New Great Awakening?”, BREAKPOINT ONLINE, 6 March 2003. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/OnlineFeatures/The+New+Faithful+A+New+Great+Awakening.htm

Colleen Carroll, THE NEW FAITHFUL: WHY YOUNG ADULTS ARE EMBRACING CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY (Loyola Press, 2002).

Rock for Life is committed to offering the truth about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia to America's youth through music and ministry. http://www.rockforlife.org Find more international, national, and local pro-life youth organizations. http://www.prolifeinfo.org/organizations.html

The World Youth Alliance promotes “the dignity of the person at the international level, encouraging solidarity between the developed and developing worlds, building a culture of life.” http://www.worldyouthalliance.org

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13123]

It sounds like the baby shower from hell. As cake and punch are passed around, a doctor runs medical tests on a month-old baby. If he passes the tests, the guests welcome the child to the human community. But if the baby fails -- if he has, say, Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy -- the parents bid him a sad farewell.

And then, the doctor snuffs out his life.

Believe it or not, a Princeton professor thinks parties like these would be a good idea. This is a tragic illustration that the killing of a month-old child -- once absolutely unthinkable -- has become a debatable moral question.

In an article entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong," philosopher Peter Singer writes: "Perhaps, like the ancient Greeks, we should have a ceremony a month after birth, at which the infant is admitted to the community. Before that time," he says, "infants would not be recognized as having the same right to life as older people."

This means that if the child is considered "defective" in some way, the parents would presumably have a different kind of ceremony -- one that ends with child being admitted, not to the human community, but to a grave.

This is morally acceptable, Singer says, because newborns, while indisputably human, are not really persons. They don't become persons, and acquire a right to life, until weeks or even months after birth because they lack "self-awareness."

Extreme beliefs, yes, but Singer is hardly alone in espousing them. As far back as 1972, University of Colorado philosopher Michael Tooley was saying that fetuses and infants are non-persons who "do not have a right to life."

American University philosopher Jeffrey Reiman agrees. He maintains that infants do not "possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them." I could go on and on. But suffice it to say that people who wish to destroy handicapped or just plain unwanted newborns have influential supporters. And they're getting more and more aggressive.

Well, we can't say we weren't warned. In the 1960s, as the abortion movement gained momentum, critics warned that the logic of abortion would lead directly from the womb to the cradle: Babies already born would become the next targets.

These critics have been proven right. Three decades after Roe V. Wade, influential voices are clamoring for out-and-out infanticide.

The reasoning behind it -- that newborns are somehow less than human -- is already seeping into society. Witness the rash of "dumpster babies" -- newborns thrown out by their mothers.

If this nation ever condones infanticide, we will be destroying the very principle that is at the heart of Judeo-Christian concepts of human rights and equality, namely, that it's always wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Florida Congressman Charles Canady is among those trying to prevent this dangerous redefinition. He has introduced a bill called the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act." Now, I know the abortion issue has been around a long time, and people get weary of it. But I urge you to learn more about this bill, and you can do so by visiting our BreakPoint webpage (www.breakpoint.org).

A bill like this is a vital and important protection against those hideous "baby showers" that Peter Singer proposes -- celebrations that end only in death.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The year was 1963.

That's when I was born ... to "perfectly normal" parents at a "perfectly normal" Cleveland hospital.

I would like to say that I was a "perfectly normal," healthy baby, ready to take on the world. But instead, I was born with multiple deformities. My eyes were almost on the sides of my head, and I only had holes where my nose was supposed to be. I had a club foot and was missing all but one toe, if it could be called that. Also, three of my fingers were missing on my right hand. A cleft palate had an opening in my top lip and extended all the way to the right eye. Unfortunately, even one leg was shorter than the other.

The hospital staff, I was told, thought I had too many problems to survive. The doctors, in fact, refused to show me to my parents and, incredulously, even gave my parents forms to sign to "give me up for science."

I can only thank God that my parents had other plans for my life. I belonged to them and to God. They intended to love and accept me just as I was, despite acknowledging that it would be a long, hard road ahead.

At the age of seven months, I began to undergo a very long series of operations. However, the first seven were deemed failures. The surgeons, it seemed, were trying to do too much at once. I, on the other hand, was like a puzzle that needed to be "put together" one piece at a time.

While successive surgeries were a little more successful, my appearance was still far from normal. In fact, very few people knew that I had already had sixteen operations by the time I was ready for third grade.

When I began kindergarten, I was placed in a special-education classroom because my appearance and imperfect speech were not accepted. Aside from being labeled a "special-ed" kid, I endured constant ridicule from other students who called me "stupid," "ugly" and "retarded" because of my looks. I also walked with a limp and had to wear special shoes and braces on my legs. I spent almost every school holiday in the hospital having operations and also missed a lot of school. I wondered if I would ever get out of special classes. My desire to become a "normal" child prompted my parents to pursue tests that would place me back in regular education classrooms. My parents and I worked very hard that summer to get ready for the big test. Finally, I was tested.

I'll never forget the day I waited outside the principal's office while my parents received my test results. The brown door between them and me seemed to loom bigger and bigger as time went by. Time passed in slow motion. I longed to put my ear to the door to hear what was being said.

After an hour passed, my mother finally emerged with a tear streaming down her cheek. I thought, 'Oh, no, another year in special-ed.' But much to my relief, the principal put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Welcome to 3B, young man!" My mom gave me a big hug.

Another milestone in fourth grade was the "miracle" that my parents and I had longed for. I was selected to undergo a very experimental surgery that would resculpt my entire face with bone grafts. The surgery was life-threatening and lasted ten hours. I survived this operation, my eighteenth, which really changed my life. At last, my nose had a shape, my lip was "fixed" and my eyes were very close to being in their normal position.

While I now faced a new chapter in my life from a physical perspective, I hadn't seen the end of my trials.

Within the next few years, my mother developed cancer and died, but not before instilling in me a sense of worth and the determination never to give up.

When other kids called me names, she had prompted, "Don't let those names bother you. Feel sorry for those kids who were not brought up right."

In addition, my parents taught me to be thankful for my blessings, pointing out that other people might have even greater challenges.

Their words eventually impacted my life when I did see people with greater challenges - in hospitals and whenever I did volunteer work with children who were mentally challenged.

As a teenager, I came to realize that my purpose in life was to help others become successful with whatever gifts they were blessed with, despite the things that society might point out as handicaps or shortcomings. In fact, my father advised, "Mike, you would make a great special-ed teacher." I knew what it was like to be a special-ed child.

However, I simply wasn't ready to make teaching my career choice at that point. Instead, I earned a degree in business and went on to become a very successful salesman, spending seven years in retail management. Then, I went on to become a very successful bank employee, spending five years as a loan officer. Still, something in my life was missing.

Despite the fact that I had met and married a special-ed teacher, it took me twelve years to realize that was my calling also and that my dad had been right.

Continuing my college education, pursuing a master's degree in education, I now teach in the same school district as my wife.

My classroom is a kaleidoscope of children with special needs - emotional, physical and mental. My newest career choice is my most challenging yet. I love to see my students' smiling faces when they learn something new, when a few words are spoken and when an award is won in the Special Olympics.

I've now gone through twenty-nine surgeries. While many have brought a lot of pain to my life, the fact that I have survived them all only seems to reiterate to me that God has a purpose for my life, as well as for every other life. I see my purpose being fulfilled one child at a time.

I may not have been a "perfectly normal" healthy baby, but I am ready to take on the world - thanks to God and to people like my mom. The motto she gave me will always be the motto I use in my own classroom: Never give up.

______________________

Michael Biasini (c) 1998, from A 6th Bowl of Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen.

*

California's program to encourage mothers to turn in unwanted babies to hospitals has drawn widespread praise, except from Waste Management Inc., which objects to the state's signs on its Dumpsters - "If we (have to tell people) not to throw babies in Dumpsters, (we) have reached the lowest point we can get to as a society."

Commitment or Abortion

I found out last year that my college-aged son and his girlfriend, who was still in high school, were expecting a baby. The pregnancy was far enough along that hiding it would no longer be possible. While talking to them separately, we discovered to our horror, that they nearly aborted the child. My son said they simply changed their minds, but his girlfriend gave us a clearer picture as to what motivated her to not go through with the procedure. As they walked to the clinic door, one lone protester was standing near by. Looking eye to eye with this mother-to-be, she said, "God wants you to have that baby." That one woman, uttering that one sentence, saved a life. No one knows who she was, but I am eternally thankful for her willingness to stand for what was right, even if it meant standing all alone.

TS: Standing alone is neither easy or popular, whether it's work or in the neighborhood or at a peaceful protest but there are times God calls Christians to do what others are unwilling to do.

(The preacher added, "Please withhold my name if you use this entry.")

#18479

*

Za 10 let klesly potraty na tøetinu

Na pohou tøetinu kledl z aposledních 10 let roèní poèet potratù v ÈR. Od roku 1989 do roku 1999 se snížil poèet umìlých pøerušení tìhotenství ze 107 403 na 37 157, tedy na 25 procent pùvodniho poètu. Staqtistici tento pokles vysvìtlují zmìnami ve spoleènosti po roce 89, kdy se zlepšila nabídka moderních antikonèepèních prostøedkù, stejnì jako tím, že od roku 1992 se za potrat z jíných než zdravotních dùvodù platí. Vyrazný vliv má podle nich i zodpovìdnìjší pøístuúp mladých lidí k založení rodiny.

V roce 1999 bylo evidováno 49 469 potratù u èeských obèanek.

Originally from: DalvRogers@aol.com (DalvRogers)

Originally dated: Tue Mar 3 14:50:33 1998

IBMissions

===================================

Dear Brethren,

Yesterday, March 2, 1998, the Lord gave a great victory here in Gulfport, Mississippi. An abortion clinic located adjacent to the property of Temple Baptist Church for the past six years was foreclosed on, and when it was auctioned off, Temple church was able to buy it with the winning bid of $60,001.

The church prayed against the clinic, picketed, did Jericho-marches around, held prayer vigils, and pursued all legal options for six years, seemingly to no avail. According to a local newspaper this was the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi, and was not licensed as an abortion clinic. A little over a month ago notice was served through our local newspaper that the property was being foreclosed on, and would be put up for auction. A 30-day extension was granted, giving the subject who operated the clinic opportunity to catch up on several months of back payments. The deadline was reached yesterday, March 2. The subject had called in last Friday with the promise that he would be at the Trustee's office on March 2 to redeem the property. The Trustee gave him until 2:30 P.M. to show up, and when he didn't it was promptly auctioned off in favor of Temple Baptist Church. We're praising God for this long-awaited victory over the devil, who "was a murderer from the beginning", over an evil man, and for the lives of the unborn babies that will be saved.

This property will now be dedicated to use by the BEAMS ministry (Bible Education and Missionary Service) of Temple Baptist Church, Bro. Stephen Crane pastor. The BEAMS ministry is directed by Bro. Rene Freret, former pastor of and now missionary service provider of Temple Baptist Church. BEAMS is a Bible and literature service, at present primarily providing complete, hard-backed Bibles, free of charge to missionaries, for new converts. Since June 1 last year over 10,000 Bibles have been sent to missionaries in 37 countries.

A month ago Temple Baptist Church took out a 90-day loan of $60,000 for the purchase of the abortion clinic property. During this past month several churches and individuals have given special offerings to help pay off the loan, totalling so far a little over $25,000. We thank the Lord for this generous response, and look to Him for the full amount.

If you desire to help with a special offering would you make the offering payable to: Temple Baptist Church 14190 Dedeaux Rd. Gulfport, MS 39503 (228)832-3209 Please designate it for "The BEAMS Property".

If you desire any further information or details, please contact Bro. Rene Freret at (228)832-6606 or by E-mail: RFreret@aol.com

The Lord bless you,

Daniel A. Rogers,

Missionary to Mozambique

Temple Baptist Church

DalvRogers@aol.com

Recently, doctors at St. George's Hospital in London took a major step beyond the traditional black-and-white ultrasound. The old technique revealed the internal organs of a developing fetus, but a new device shows the baby's face -- with all its human emotions. Images are in full color and four dimensions; that is, three spatial dimensions plus time.

In their July 6th segment called, "Womb With a View," ABC News showed a baby in the seventh month of gestation. The report said, "Waving arms, kicking feet -- and ... you can see a seven-month fetus yawning." And smiling. The picture provides what ABC called "a window parents have never had, and an early opportunity to bond."

Well, so far there's only a handful of Voluson 730 ultrasound machines in the U.S., located at screening centers. But the message here is powerful and provides dramatic support for the biblical view of life. Look at the 4-D ultrasound images on TV, in prints, or on the Internet. Does this look like a blob of fetal tissue to you? Are those yawns and smiles coming from inert matter or from a person -- someone who is fully human and fully alive?

In previous broadcasts I've told you about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was once the director of the world's largest abortion clinic. He honestly thought he was helping women whenever he and his medical team performed an abortion. But when he became Chief of Obstetrical Services at a New York hospital, he monitored heartbeats and other bodily functions electronically. He observed that the waveforms on the monitors were the same for the fetus in the womb as for the infant outside. And suddenly, with great anguish, he realized that he had presided over the deaths of more than seventy-five thousand children. He became a convert to the pro-life cause, and later to Christianity.

In his powerful book, ABORTING AMERICA, Dr. Nathanson says, "The most obvious change at birth is breathing, as the lungs are galvanized into activity ... The routing of the blood in the circulatory system," he says, "and the intake of nutrients, and the outgo of wastes are shifted. All other functions of the newborn baby, even crying, may occur within the womb. .... In terms of metabolism, biochemistry, brain and heart function, and almost everything else, birth is an insignificant event ... The organism is put into a different physiological milieu -- and nothing more."

Dr. Nathanson says the move from life in the womb to life after birth is "like switching from A.C. to D.C. current; the energy connection changes, but the basic mechanics remain the same."

This is an important and exciting analysis, but it's no surprise. It's merely confirmation from science of what the Bible has always said: that life is sacred. And now, looking at that four-dimensional, color ultrasound of the baby in the womb can be eye-opening for those who need to be convinced.

What some have downplayed as a "product of conception" is a living human being, with promise, potential, and the right to live.

I, for one, am delighted by this new "window" on the life of the unborn child. As the Scripps-Howard motto says, it's a way to "give light" so people can find their way to God's truth.

For further information:

ABC News. "Womb with a View," July 6, 2001.

Nathanson, Bernard, M.D. Aborting America. Toronto: Life Cycle Books, 1979.

Previous BreakPoints about Dr. Nathanson:

"A Pushy God," Apr 4, 1996.

"The Ultimate Victory," Dec 11, 1996.

"Life and Death Decisions," Apr 25, 2000.

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

What is the mainstream American position on abortion? The question is crucially important right now, because some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are threatening to use abortion as an ideological litmus test for judicial appointments -- and trying to justify their prejudices as mainstream public opinion.

They say they'll use their constitutional "advice and consent" clause to protect the country against the alleged "extremists" the Bush administration is nominating for positions in the federal courts. But some of these folks define "extremist" as anyone who disagrees with them. To hear them tell it, the nation wants pro-choice, pro-abortion judges. And, allegedly, only a few religious fanatics disagree.

But where, really, is mainstream America on the abortion issue? ABC News reported recently, "Support for Legal Abortion Wobbles." A July 2nd dispatch began, "Public support for legal abortion ... has slipped back to its lowest level in polls since 1995." The story also says, "While large majorities say it should be legal in dire cases, most also have said abortions should be illegal when done solely to end an unwanted pregnancy."

Nuances of gray come into the picture when questions are crafted more precisely than the traditional, "Are you for or against abortion?" The New York Times reminded readers that the answers obtained depend to a large extent on the questions asked.

For example, Times writer Tamar Lewin noted that in one poll, only twenty-nine percent said there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. But "when the same people were asked if there should be a constitutional amendment protecting the life of the unborn child, fifty percent said they would favor one."

This ambivalence is not new. In a 1985 Louis Harris poll, a majority said abortion is murder, while a Gallup Poll that same year concluded that over ninety percent thought abortion was sometimes the best way out of a bad situation.

Lewin summarized, "people are far more likely to say they favor abortion rights when the question is framed in terms of a woman's right to choose, than when the question talks about protecting an unborn child."

A 1998 Associated Press poll found that seventy-eight percent favored permitting abortion to protect the mother's health; seventy-one percent in case of rape; and fifty-eight percent allowing it if the baby was likely to have serious defects. But only thirty-six percent said abortion should be permitted when a woman decides she merely didn't want the baby.

In other words -- surprise -- "abortion on demand" is not the mainstream position! You might never guess it from the headlines or the soundbites, but buried deep inside the in-depth articles, you'll find two contrasting viewpoints: First, a majority believes there may be a few extreme situations where abortion is the best solution. But, second, only a small minority favors "abortion for convenience" -- that is, disposing of an unborn baby because he or she would be an inconvenience or an embarrassment.

A vocal minority may sometimes masquerade as the majority. But, clearly, the real mainstream wants something less than "open season" on the unborn.

For further reference:

"Support for Legal Abortion Wobbles."

"'Public Views' on Abortion Depend on Questions Asked."

"Poll: Abortion Should Remain Legal Within Limits."

_________________________

Copyright (c) 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

According to a recent report released by the American Medical Association, applications to medical schools in the United States fell 3.7 percent in 2000 -- the fourth straight year applications have declined. Barbara Barznasky, secretary of the AMA's medical education council and author of the report, listed lucrative jobs in the high-tech field and the prospect of large medical school debts among the reasons for the decline.

Medical school enrollment is not the only area suffering a decline. Recent reports also indicate shortages in the nursing and education professions as well. Poor pay, long hours and the dot-com revolution are all possible reasons given for the decrease in these occupations.

Could there be another reason for the falling numbers? Perhaps personal and economic choices are not behind the decline in doctors, nurses and teachers. Might it be that the shortage is due to a lack of people, period.

In 1973 the Supreme Court made abortion a legal procedure in the United States. >From 1973 to 1981, some 10 to 12 million pregnancies were terminated. Had those children been carried to term, the oldest would be 28 and the youngest would be 18.

If there were currently an additional 6 to 8 million 22- to 28-year-olds, could that make a difference in medical school enrollments as well as in the numbers choosing the nursing and teaching professions? Using the lower figure of 6 million, let's see if abortion could be a factor in the current decline in certain areas of American life.

All of the aforementioned 6 million would not have chosen to pursue higher education. For the sake of argument, let's say that 20 percent would have chosen to attend and finish college. That would mean there would be an additional 1.2 million college graduates. If only 1 percent chose each of the previously mentioned professions, there would currently be at least 12,000 additional medical school students, nurses and teachers. These are significant numbers when you consider only 37,092 individuals applied for medical school in 2000. Keep in mind these numbers are conservative estimates.

Apply the same estimates to college enrollment. With an additional 4 million to 6 million 18- to 22-year-olds and if only 20 percent chose higher education, it would mean an additional 800,000 college students. If only 1 percent chose medicine, nursing or education it would mean an additional 8,000 in each career over the next four years.

By law, America has sanctioned the slaughter of innocent life for almost three decades. It is difficult to estimate the damage legal abortion has done to our nation ethically and morally in that time. If the current cavalier attitude toward life is any indication, it is both significant and tragic. We can, however, gauge abortion's effect on this nation in other tangible areas. In 1973 we began to sow the destruction of unborn children; now we are reaping a decline in doctors, nurses and teachers -- not to mention consumers and taxpayers.

The fruit of abortion is indeed bitter and we have chewed it for much too long. Let's hope we spit it out before its too late.

--30-

A colleague of mine named Kelley was trying to help her son, 15-year-old Rand, bring up his grade in civics class. Students were supposed to read one newspaper each day. Every Friday, the teacher gave a current events test, and every Friday, Rand missed about half the questions -- not surprising, since all he ever read was the comics.

To bring him up to speed, Kelley began bringing newspapers along in the car on the drive to school each morning. During the half-hour commute, she quizzed Rand about Anthrax, the war in Afghanistan, politics, and how the Redskins were doing.

After a few weeks of drill, Rand was ready to be a contestant on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" His test scores improved dramatically. But he and his mother learned something else, something even more important. They learned that knowing about stories in the news is far less important than learning to identify the worldviews that undergird them.

For example, the Washington Post recently ran a story about a new prenatal test -- one that determines in the first trimester if a baby has Down syndrome. The test would replace amniocentesis -- a procedure administered during the second trimester.

Doctors hailed the new test a "major step forward." Why? Because it could bring the Down syndrome detection rate from 65 to 98 percent.

Kelley began asking her son about the story -- not about what it contained, but what it left out.

"Does this new test lead to a cure for Down syndrome?" she asked.

"No."

"If not, then why do doctors think it's good to use it to diagnose Down syndrome in as many babies as possible, as early as possible?"

Rand re-read the story, but couldn't figure it out. So Kelley told him: "It's so the mother can have an early abortion -- before anyone knows she's pregnant -- and avoid a riskier second-trimester abortion."

The story offered no quotes from people questioning the morality of using research dollars to fund "search and destroy" missions against the unborn. No arguments defending the intrinsic value of all human life at every stage and condition. No reminders that in some cities, there are waiting lists of couples wanting to adopt Down syndrome children.

Instead, the story assumed that the lives of these children aren't worth protecting -- and that you'd have to be out of your mind to give birth to a Down syndrome child.

Was the reporter allowing a pro-abortion bias to affect her work? You bet she was, and even worse, she didn't know it. Her presupposition was that anyone would get an abortion if she were pregnant with a Down syndrome child.

This little story offers a sobering warning: If we want our kids to defend and live out God's truth, we must help them identify the worldviews that lie at the heart of cultural conflicts. We must take advantage of every opportunity -- including rides to school each morning -- to help them grow in their awareness of unbiblical biases in films, newspapers, textbooks, and songs.

Biases that quietly deny the authority and presence of our Creator God.

_________________________

Copyright © 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

For teens at the Rock for Life concert, the abortion debate was over. But the issue wasn't.

When I saw the pink earplugs in his hand, I felt older than I've ever felt in my life. I had been invited to be a speaker at an all-day rock concert, and the host had warned me in a prior e-mail that the groups following me would be pretty loud. The afternoon bands, I was told, were "kind of mellow -- my mom likes these bands." (Reading that sentence was the second oldest I've felt.) But "the bands at night are hardcore -- which is very loud and the lyrics are basically screamed out."

As I came off the stage and some rangy kids in black took my place, my host was there, reaching into his pocket and bringing out a pair of earplugs for me. Taking care of Grandma, I thought.

The event was Rock for Life, one of a series of rock concerts held nationwide to benefit organizations that help pregnant women. Admission was $8 "and a jar of baby food or some baby clothes." When I walked in, the room was crowded with teen and twenty-somethings wearing chains, tattoos, spiked hair, metal studs, and distant, aloof expressions. Perhaps that was part of the outfit, or maybe they were just worn out by the preceding punk rock and ska bands.

How to get their attention? I couldn't imagine they were waiting eagerly to hear a pro-life-movement old-timer speak. I clambered up on stage and announced that since it was a concert, I was going to begin by singing something.

Eyes got very wide. I sang one of the ancient Byzantine hymns of Eastern Christianity. Eyes got wider. I figured I had their attention for about 15 minutes, so I talked fast.

I told them that the abortion debate is over. There was a time when it was the hot topic, and you couldn't turn on the TV or pick up a magazine without seeing it discussed. But that's over. People got tired of it. It seemed, after a while, that there was nothing left to say.

That doesn't mean the issue is settled. It won't be settled until we arrive at a solution that will let our consciences be at peace -- one where unwanted pregnancy is prevented, pregnant women are supported, and unborn children are protected. Abortion is an issue of violence, I said, and no just nation condones violence against children.

I didn't think of it this way when I was in college; then, I was strongly in favor of abortion. At the time, I thought it was an indispensable element of women's liberation. How could we succeed in a man's world unless we could be un-pregnant at will?

Then I read an article in Esquire magazine describing a second-trimester abortion. It described how the doctor injected prostaglandin into the woman's uterus, then left the syringe in place on her abdomen. The writer described the surprising, disturbing thing that happened next: The needle begin to bob and jerk against her belly, as the child within went through its death throes. He concluded by saying that whatever else is said to defend abortion, he would never forget that child trying to defend its own life.

Reading that essay made my hair stand on end. I realized that I had embraced, even championed, an act of violence -- I, who was proudly, consistently, anti-violence, anti-war, anti-death penalty, rigorously vegetarian.

Worse, it was violence against our own children. How had women been tricked into seeing our own sons and daughters as our enemies? How had we been persuaded that we must be willing to sacrifice them in order to succeed? Why had we accepted the male never-pregnant model as normative for women? Instead of fighting for changes in society, we were submissively allowing the changes to be worked out within our own bodies.

The debate is over, I told this audience of young people. The cause is not. Your generation is already showing new leadership on the issue.

Last year, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League revealed that its movement is seriously aging; the age of the average member was 55. (Whew -- at least SOMEBODY'S older than me.) On the other hand, an annual survey of college freshmen indicates that support for abortion drops further every year, falling since 1990 from 65% to 51%. A 1996 survey showed that the age group most likely to agree that "abortion is the same thing as murdering a child" was 18 to 29.

Heads were nodding. I could see several in the audience wearing black T-shirts inscribed in white block letters, "Abortion Is Mean."

This youthful opposition to abortion is not surprising. Anyone under the age of 27 could have been aborted. In fact, a third of that generation was. A lot of the kids in the room were surrounded by the unseen ghosts of classmates, siblings, and friends. No wonder they feel solidarity with those whose lives are at risk.

This isn't just youthful idealism -- after all, my own youthful idealism made me vehemently pro-abortion. No doubt the graying heads dominating today's pro-choice organizations would admit the same.

Young people are going to go their own way, no matter how hard the older generation tries to make them conform to its values. In this case, it's a very good thing. At this concert, youngsters proved they were willing to work and sacrifice so that pregnant women can have the support they need to choose life. And they planned ahead to take care of Grandma, too.

*

It may have happened more than I knew, but the first time I remember hearing about someone abducting and murdering a child was in 1981. A boy in Hollywood, Fla., disappeared from the toy department at Sears while his mother shopped in another part of the store. Ironically, the department store was across the street from the city's police station.

The little boy -- whose murderer has never been arrested -- was Adam Walsh.

As a child growing up in Arkansas, I found his death and the potential for the same tragedy in my neighborhood unbelievable. I had never seen the underbelly of humanity. I had never come in contact with anyone who wanted to physically harm another person, especially a child. I was -- as most children are -- naïve.

I lived my life accordingly. My brother, my friends and I rode our bicycles miles from home, pretended to fight famous battles from various wars in the woodlands behind our house, and even felt free to roam the neighborhood at night without fear.

We were not only young; we were free to be young and free to be carefree.

It has taken the birth and care of two children of my own for me to realize with regret that my children will never experience the same freedom. They will not be free because they live in a nation that preys on its children.

Thousands of children have vanished from playgrounds, cradles, shopping malls, and even their own front yards in the past 10 years. The number of missing children this year in the United States stands at more than 3,000. And those who abduct and harm them are becoming more brazen.

Polly Klaas was kidnapped at knifepoint from a slumber party in a California home in October 1993. Morgan Nick disappeared while playing on a sand pile at a baseball field in Arkansas in June 1995. Amber Hagerman was snatched away while playing in a parking lot in Arlington, Texas, with a friend in January 1996. Recently, Elizabeth Smart was awakened by her abductor in the middle of the night and taken from her upper-class Salt Lake City home, and 5-year-old Samantha Runnion was abducted from her front yard in Southern California and murdered in July.

The nation's children also are in jeopardy even while they are in the womb. Barrett Duke of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission references statistics that indicate that more than 1.3 million unborn children are aborted each year. Other pro-life lobbyists estimate that number to be as high as 1.7 million.

Organizations such as Planned Parenthood bless the act of murdering the unborn in the name of convenience and even protect those who murder children after they have been born. In a recent case, Planned Parenthood of Storm Lake, Iowa, refused to cooperate when investigators found the shredded body of an infant in a local recycling facility. Police determined the age of the infant and then requested pregnancy test records from local pro-abortion pregnancy centers in order to determine possible suspects.

Planned Parenthood refused to assist in the case, saying that such records were "confidential." Their response -- callous but not at all surprising -- indicates that the death of a child is but a mere pin prick on their conscience.

Has our nation become equally accustomed to the abuse and murder of its children? I, for one, think it has.

In recent days the media have devoted much time to covering the abductions of a few children, but most go unnoticed. Children lost to predators only become "real" to most people when they see their faces on milk cartons or when a flier with a coupon for dry cleaning on the reverse side arrives in the mailbox.

When allegations of sexual abuse arose within the Catholic Church in America, bishops and archbishops sought to conceal the problem rather than be transparent. Only after church officials were dragged kicking and screaming into the public forum did they concede that the problem was widespread.

Even the Supreme Court has forgotten that laws are established to prohibit and protect. The court recently stumbled blindly into apathy for America's children when it upheld the right to publish "virtual child pornography," ruling that no children are harmed in the production of the images outlawed by the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act.

There is little doubt, however, that current computer technology will create realistic images of children in inappropriate situations -- and those images will incite inappropriate feelings in those who prey on the innocent.

And they are innocent. They are completely unaware of the depravity of those who would harm them.

Jesus spoke often about little children. He saw in them the best and most pure characteristics of humanity. He encouraged his followers to have childlike faith, warned against anyone leading a child into sin, and gathered children in his arms and blessed them. As a matter of fact, Mark 10:13 indicates that Jesus was quite indignant with his own disciples for keeping children away from him.

If our nation understood Christ's love for children, and even for the pedophile, no child would be abused or aborted. No child would be abducted or murdered.

The best hour of my day is between 8 and 9 p.m. Sometime during that hour -- as surely as the sun sets -- my oldest daughter will assemble a mountain of books and plop them in my lap.

"Let's read one of them, Daddy," she will say. "Okay, Libby, which do you want to read?" "That one," she will reply.

Her book of choice lately has been "The Three Little Pigs." The first time I read the revised edition of the book I noticed that the wolf was no longer a "big bad wolf." He was merely a misunderstood wolf who needed acceptance and validation. The little pigs even found a job for the wolf at the conclusion of the story.

Frequently these days, perhaps because of this book, I've begun to think of my childhood when we sang, "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?" I watch the evening news and answer, "I am."

I do not fear that the wolf will harm me; I fear that he will harm my children. I realize how vigilant I must be in order to protect them because they are, as the psalmist claimed in Psalm 127:3, a gift from the Lord. The best protection I can offer them is to be resolute in prayer -- to pray that the Lord will place a hedge of protection around my little lambs.

*

In the 1942 tearjerker NOW VOYAGER, suave actor Paul Henreid says to Bette Davis: “Shall we just have a cigarette on it?” As the two gaze deeply into one another’s eyes, Henreid puts two cigarettes into his mouth, lights them, and hands one to Davis.

It was considered the ultimate in sophisticated romance.

Flash forward fifty-seven years. In the hit comedy MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING, Julia Roberts sits on the floor outside a hotel room, smoking an illicit cigarette. Her friend yanks open the door and snatches the cigarette from her fingers. “I want you to quit this [stuff] before it kills you,” he snarls.

It’s the ultimate in social condemnation — and a complete reversal of the cinematic attitudes of yesteryear.

What happened between 1942 and 1997 to generate such a change? The answer shines a spotlight on how we may one day win the abortion debate.

As Frederica Mathewes-Green writes in a collection of essays called THIRTY YEARS AFTER ROE V. WADE, our grandparents embraced values that we now recognize as damaging, like cigarette smoking and heavy drinking. Those attitudes, says Mathewes-Green, were celebrated in movies in much the same way reckless sexual behavior is today. For instance, in the hugely popular THIN MAN films, the heavy drinking of both Myrna Loy and William Powell was treated as comic relief. Anyone who objected to this view was dismissed as a moralizing busybody.

But then, something happened on the way from the BIJOU to the multiplex. Americans began losing friends to lung cancer and emphysema — friends who smoked. And drunk drivers killed thousands of people. As a result, cigarettes — which kill 400,000 Americans a year — are no longer considered glamorous. Drinking to excess — which kills 100,000 more — is no longer considered funny. And for the most part, Hollywood has stopped suggesting that they are.

It’s important to understand, Matthews-Green points out, that it wasn’t all those warning labels on cigarette packages that got people to quit smoking. And it wasn’t the Temperance Union that convinced people to stop getting drunk. It was truth itself and social pressure.

And that’s where the abortion debate comes in. Modern films portray sexual romps as great fun — the height of hipness. Those who object are dismissed as moralizing busybodies. But just as media messages about drinking and smoking were gradually replaced with healthier messages, we will one day see changes in how Hollywood portrays sexuality, predicts Mathewes-Green. This will happen as more and more people are harmed by promiscuous behavior, watch friends die of AIDS, and see sisters, daughters, and girlfriends harmed or even killed by so-called “safe, legal abortions.”

So, yes indeed, we should keep talking about the horrors of abortion, its impact on future pregnancies, and its link to depression and breast cancer. We should do so knowing we will be mocked and maligned. But we should also have hope, for the day will surely come when abortion won’t be portrayed as a noble decision by brave women who are harassed by right-wing, religious crazies.

Eventually, the truth will out — and we’ll see it even when we go to the movies.

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

William L. Saunders and Brian C. Robertson, eds., BUILDING A CULTURE OF LIFE THIRTY YEARS AFTER ROE V. WADE, Family Research Council, 2002.

Frederica Mathewes-Green, “THE LESSONS OF ROE,” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 22 January 2003.

Teresa R. Wagner, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: THE FUTURE OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT (Dumb Ox Books, 2003).

Leslie Carbone, “A HUMBLE ASSESSMENT: THE PAST AND FUTURE OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, May 12, 2003.

Johannes L. Jacobse, “WOMEN ARE ABORTION’S SECOND VICTIMS,” BREAKPOINT ONLINE, January 22, 2003.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 021113, “STAYING POWER: WILBERFORCE, SLAVERY — AND ABORTION.”

Alan Jacobs, A VISIT TO VANITY FAIR: MORAL ESSAYS ON THE PRESENT AGE (Brazos Press, 2001).

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #23989]