Editorial
September/October, 1980
Volume 15, Number 5
Recently a medical student in the mid-west refused to participate in a classroom abortion. Her professor took her aside and said, “Come on and face it; a human life has no more value than a laboratory rat.” In another case, a doctor, upon hearing that a certain nursing home patient was difficult to manage and had no close relatives, advised that the patient be starved. Are these just freak incidents? I wish they were. Unfortunately, we are beginning to reap the bitter fruit of abandoning God’s moral standards.
The world and even many in the church have rejected the Bible as truth. Human beings are no longer considered to be tremendously valuable as persons created in the image of the infinite, personal God. Rather, we are viewed as the chance product of an impersonal evolution, in which case we are of no more value than rats or mosquitoes. Life’s goal, then, can only be self-gratification. Other people become tinker-toys to manipulate for our own pleasure. This loss of the value of human life results in abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
We Christians have the responsibility to become a voice for righteousness. I believe that as we expose the ugliness of this sinful devaluation of human life, and as we lift up the beauty and wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, many will receive the truth and be saved. We must speak out in behalf of the victims. Proverbs 24:11-12 says, “Deliver those who are being taken away to death. And those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold them back. If you say,’See, we didnot know this,’ does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to His work?” (NASB).
If we are to be used of God in speaking out boldly in favor of the respect for human life, we must become involved and educate ourselves about these issues. I commend to you the following article by our brother, Wesley Brubaker. May the Lord give us His grace to fight the good fight of faith.
James Eikenberry is an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren, and is a member of the BRF Advisory Council.
Justice For The Unborn
by Wesley Brubaker
Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren decided that the clause “to do justice and to love mercy” will have high priority in our emphasis for the eighties. It would be hard to find anyone who would challenge the validity of this concern. The entire Jewish law spoke of God’s concern for justice among His people. Amos 5:24 calls for justice to “roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” We would all be able to unite in the call for justice.
However, one area of injustice elicits very little concern from us as a denomination. This is the injustice of taking the lives of about 1.5 million babies every year before they are born. A basic doctrine of the Brethren is the sacredness of human life. For this reason we have opposed war throughout our history. We believe that since only God can give life, only He should take it away. We have held pretty consistently to this position until the abortion issue came along. Now we are seeing it crumble.
Some justify abortion by saying that we don’t know when life begins. Simple logic however would indicate that if an organism is a human being after birth, it must be a human being before birth. It is an undisputed biological fact that organisms do not change from one species to another during growth. Like begets like. Cows beget cows and human beings beget human beings. It is that simple. God pretty well settled the argument when He said to Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah 1:5). This would imply that our origin could even precede conception. Certainly this makes it clear that the prophet was a person from the beginning.
1. HOW ABORTIONS ARE PERFORMED
One of our doctors once said, “The Brethren talk very glibly about abortion. If they knew what a nasty thing it is, they would feel differently.” When I talk to the Brethren I never cease to be amazed at how poorly informed they are. To make an intelligent decision on the issue we need to know the facts.
We seem to realize instinctively that abortion is gruesome. We try to avoid any discussion of it, and we are especially anxious to avoid any visual aids that show it as it is. There are a number of ways to abort a child. Probably the most common way is to use the suction method. A very powerful suction device is inserted into the uterus and moved about until the baby is located. The tender tissues of the fetus are torn to shreds and sucked from the uterus. The remains of the baby are then thrown into the garbage.
The D & C method is very similar except that the job is done with a sharp instrument. The doctor hacks the baby to pieces and scrapes it from the womb and discards it. Sometimes prostaglandins (drugs which induce labor) are used, but they have failed to gain popularity. The baby is delivered alive and must be killed by the doctor. It is suspected that doctors find it more difficult to kill a baby they can see, than one they cannot, and so they seldom encourage the use of this method.
The method usually used for an abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy is a hysterotomy. This is the same procedure as a Caesarean section. The baby is delivered alive, then either killed or allowed to die of neglect. Many of these babies would survive if they were given the same care as premature births, but the court has ruled that if it is the intention of the mother that the baby is to die, it must die. State laws enacted to protect these children have been declared unconstitutional.
A Church of the Brethren nurse told me of a friend of hers who was unwittingly roped into assisting with a hysterotomy. When the baby was delivered, the doctor handed it to the nurse. When she began to run toward an incubator, the doctor saw what was happening and stopped her. He told her that this was an abortion, so she was to throw the baby into the incinerator. On the way to the incinerator the baby began to cry. It is my contention that it was violent and unjust to ask the nurse to throw the crying baby into an incinerator, and it was even more unjust to the child to be burned to death.
The most diabolic technique for performing abortions is the saline injection. It is used during the second and early part of the third trimester. In this procedure, the amniotic fluid is removed and replaced by a strong solution of salt water. When the baby is immersed in the brine, the solution immediately begins to eat the skin. The solution runs into the ear canals and starts burning up the inside of the baby’s head. The baby both inhales and swallows it so that the lungs and the stomach are filled. It burns from both inside and out. There is no escape from this little hell into which the fetus has been placed, and the baby suffers unspeakable agony for hours until death brings it the only mercy the tiny human being will ever know. I have seen motion pictures of the mother’s abdomen after the brine had been injected. One could easily see the violent thrashing of the baby while it was being slowly burned to death. Surely semantics is stretched to the limit if we call this responsible parenthood. One of the most popular subjects for discussion today is child abuse. It should be apparent that abortion is the ultimate crime in child abuse.
2. THE RATIONALE FOR ABORTION
There are a number of reasons given to justify abortion. It is important to examine their accuracy or validity.
Some say, “Better an aborted child than an abused one.” It has already been demonstrated that the most abused child is the one killed by the abortionist. It is significant that as the number of cases of abortion increases, the number of cases of child abuse goes up also. If abortion were a deterrent to child abuse, the statistics would go in the opposite direction. We hear that child abuse has reached epidemic proportions. That should be no surprise, for as we cheapen the value of human life, the inclination to abuse it grows.
Advocates of the pro-life movement are sometimes accused of making their presentation “emotional.” But shouldn’t any compassionate person be disturbed by the wholesale slaughter of totally innocent children? However, the abortionists are good at making emotional appeals too. How often do the abortionists let a discussion go by without bringing in a heart-wringing case of the woman who was a victim of rape? There are those who mistakenly want to offer abortion as the way out.
The woman who is the victim of a rape needs the loving support of the church community. All the wagging tongues that suggest she might have invited the attack should be stopped. Many times pregnancy does not result, but when it does, the woman will ultimately realize that the baby conceived is as much a victim as she is. In no possible way can we place on the baby the blame for the rape. So snuffing out the life of the baby is as unjust as executing the woman because she had been raped. God in His infinite wisdom sometimes takes the most sordid situations which man can create, and brings something beautiful from them. A classic example of this is the singer Ethel Waters, who has brought joy and inspiration to the hearts of many. She was the product of the raping of a very young girl. It is true that the mother might feel that she cannot rear the child because it would be a constant reminder of her tragedy, but she could place the child for adoption where he would bring joy to the hearts of some couple who wanted a child but could never have one of their own. This could be a happy solution for all.
Another reason given for promoting abortion is poverty. Nothing is more disgusting than to hear some social do-gooder argue that abortions are needed for the poor. It is a personal affront to me, for I was born in what government would have called the poverty bracket, and have lived there most of my life. I ought to know better than the fellow who wrote the sociology textbook, whether life in such circumstances is worthwhile or not. I was tenth in a family of thirteen, so material things were not very abundant in my childhood. I know what it is like to see Christmas come and go, and there was no present for me. We did not have expensive works of art at home, but I still vividly recall the beauty of the sun setting behind the Allegheny mountains. We used to spend Sunday afternoon hiking over the mountains, and those trips were as full of adventure as anything the rich children could buy. We discovered how to have a good time with what was available.
Then too, we sometimes hear the argument that women will have abortions anyhow, so we should make it safe for them. But the Scriptures never imply that we should make wrongdoing safe. On the contrary, we are told that the wages of sin is death. If we were to transfer this principle to other situations, we would see how ridiculous it becomes. Robbing banks is dangerous, so we should make it safe. Sometimes a rapist gets hurt, so we should protect him against
this danger. If such reasoning seems foolish, remember that some are asking for it to be made safe for a mother to destroy the child she was responsible for begetting. The whole thing is absurd.
If Brethren were to be honest they must admit that the great majority of abortions take place because people have become so materialistic in their thinking that they feel they must have all those creature comforts they see advertised on their TV sets, even if having them necessitates the killing of their own children. As I write this article, Christmas has just passed, and I note that most children have received more on this one occasion than I received in my entire childhood. Yet they don’t appear to be any happier than I was when I played with spools and scrap wood.
3. CONTRADICTIONS IN OUR POSITION ON THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE
No doubt we all have some contradictions in our philosophy of life. The important thing is that when we become aware of our contradictions, we try to reason them out so that our actions are more logical. When a contradiction becomes evident, it is incumbent that something be done about it, or the group holding the concept, loses its credibility.
We give a lot of publicity to those who oppose the use of nuclear power. Anyone who carries a sign, “No More Nukes” is readily assimilated into our fellowship. Yet we totally ignore a fact pointed out by one of our doctors that in the area which would have been affected by an accident at Three Mile Island, more than 5,000 die each year as a result of cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is next after abortion in cause of deaths in the United States, yet no one ever mentions it. More than 25,000 persons are killed each year on our highways by drunken drivers, and we keep silent! Aren’t these folks as dead as those who die of radiation! Why do we become so concerned with what might have been, and ignore what is?
We oppose participation in war. The life of the enemy soldier is sacred and we have no right to take it. In harmony with this, our Annual Conference has ordered the General Board to divest itself of all stock in companies with military contracts. Yet our churches are urged to support Bethany Hospital, and Bethany Hospital has been responsible for the death of hundreds of babies killed by abortionists who practice there. We support the institution that slays the totally innocent and the totally defenseless.
Our Church is promoting a World Peace Tax Fund. As I understand it, if this were enacted into law it would give all those who are opposed to having their taxes used for military purposes, the right to specify that their tax money goes into the special fund used to relieve human suffering throughout the world. This is a noble idea, but while we are working for the establishment of that fund, our denominational headquarters filed a brief in federal court in New York State, supporting a plea to have the Hyde Amendment to the HEW funding bill declared unconstitutional. The court has recently done so. The result of this action is that – if you are conscientiously opposed to having your tax money go to destroy the life of an enemy soldier, the Church is back of you one hundred percent – but if you are opposed to having your tax money used to destroy the lives of the innocent unborn, the Church refuses to recognize the validity of your conscience. As I recall, the Scripture says something about the same fountain being unable to produce two different kinds of water (James 3:11-12). Perhaps we would take another look at that passage.
We have been fighting against the reinstatement of the draft. We have called a draft-registration-card the license to kill. Yet for several years until Conference ordered the General Board to withdraw, we were affiliated with the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, whose purpose is to keep the killing of babies legal. If you opposed the draft, you were in good standing with the Brotherhood, but if you opposed the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, the Church was against you.
4. THE ALTERNATIVES TO ABORTION
There is no evil under the sun about which we can do nothing. It takes will-power to right wrongs. It would be useless for me to write this, were there nothing to do to correct the situation. As a Church we have yet to take a look at what we can do to change the situation.
The starting place is to seek to prevent a lot of pregnancies that should never occur. In the past 25 years we have so thoroughly forsaken the teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong — that we have a generation growing up who have not heard that fornication and adultery are sin. Our pastors, Sunday School teachers, and parents should get busy and teach the children the position of the Bible on these sins. See Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Mark 7:21-23. The New Testament makes it very clear that those who deliberately commit these sins will forfeit their place in the kingdom of heaven.
We need to educate our membership on the issue of abortion. I am deeply disturbed by the fact that when groups are addressed, there are none more poorly informed than members of the Church of the Brethren. When we passed our paper on abortion in 1972, one of its provisions stated that there was to be an educational program in the Church on the issue. So far nothing has been done, and our own Publishing House has no materials available on the subject. It is small wonder our members are so poorly informed. When such a program is initiated, it should be supervised by someone who can present it -in a manner that is consistent with our position on the sacredness of life. It is obvious that this would require that some changes be made in our posture.
We ought to encourage families with large houses to take in girls who are expecting a child and feel they cannot cope with the situation. The hostess could provide loving care until the baby is born and could help prepare the girl to care for the child, or perhaps encourage the girl to offer the child for adoption. When a family is willing to undertake such a task, but can hardly afford it, the church should help bear the burden with them. If we come through this time of need, it might not only mean saving the life of the child, but also the soul of the mother. This is mission work too. Our church has been very reluctant about establishing homes for unwed mothers. Perhaps we have tried to be too respectable. We need to break out of that shell. Until we have wiped out the effects of the humanistic sex education programs in our schools, there will be a lot of girls in trouble. We could use mature Brethren Service Volunteer workers to operate such an institution at a minimum of expense for the Church. The right persons in a program like this could do a really redemptive work.
We need to offer leadership in the pro-life movement. In this area, the historic peace churches have been very conspicuous by their absence. Often at pro-life conferences, the question is raised, “Where are those opponents of war?” I find it interesting that in the pro-life movement, there are a number of people who are moving toward a position of opposition to war and capital punishment. The Brethren can’t take credit for that change.
We need compassionate women who will wait outside of the abortion mills and offer to talk to the girls before they go in. The girls who go there are often frightened and confused. The right person can often persuade them to keep their babies. This is so effective that it is one of the biggest problems that the operators of the mills have to face.
Above all, we should let the world know where we stand. When we passed our paper on abortion at the Cincinnati Conference in 1972, one of the local newspapers came out with the heading that Brethren favored abortion, and another that the Brethren opposed abortion. I am constantly being told by our leaders that our Church opposes abortion, yet every action taken by the General Board on the issue has supported abortion. In the pro-life movement the Church of the Brethren is always considered to be pro-abortion. Members express surprise when any of the Brethren join a right-to-life group.
This story you will discover is true. It is about a young girl who learned she was expecting a child. Coming from a small country town, she may have been somewhat naive. She was engaged, but the man to whom she was engaged was not the father of the baby. One thing was sure, he would find it out, and then she would run the risk of losing him. Her family was quite religious and was esteemed because of their integrity. If she had the baby, she would drag their name in the mud. They were poor also, and could not easily afford to support another child. Sociologists would be quick to point out that an abortion could solve all these problems in one swoop. But she did not have an abortion. She had her baby. It was a little boy, and she named him “Jesus.”
