Fetal Holocaust
by Richard A. Hansen, MD, and Bryan M. Dench, Esq.
Dr. Hansen is Medical Director of Poland Spring Health Institute, Poland Spring, Maine. Bryan Dench is an attorney, practicing in Lewistown, Maine. He also serves as Treasurer of the Maine Right-to-Life Committee.
What is the leading cause of death in the United States? Cancer, right? Wrong. Our number one cause of death today is abortion! One million per year! Announce this appalling death rate for any illness, and watch the charitable and government agencies dedicated to conquering it mushroom overnight.
But not abortion!
Rather, it is protected by our Supreme Court, although as President Reagan said recently,
"Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for y our people nor enacted by our legislators. Not a single State had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973.* Since 1973, more than 15,000,000 children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our Nation's wars!
Seems a queer quirk of rationalization that will spend $30,000 of taxpayers' money for coronary by-pass surgery for any Medicare recipient, with very few potential years of life of questionable quality before him, while permitting destruction of life with an average expectancy of seventy years, forty or fifty of them of maximum potential, including tax paying!
Until media violence with its painless deaths and instant resurrections programmed millions of us to accept death as a way of life, death was universally regarded as it is, a terrible tragedy to be avoided or prevented at all costs. Even now most people would shrink from deliberately murdering a newborn baby. It must be that there is something about the invisibility of the unborn baby that makes it possible for a woman to deny that it is human, for in our confused society it is not unusual to hear someone ask, "Is the unborn fetus or infant truly human?" A mother, challenging the then existing laws in Illinois, was reported as saying, "I don't think it's human. It's too small."
A few years ago a distinguished scientific meeting* considered this question in depth. World authorities in the fields of medicine, law, ethics and social sciences met for several days. Their almost unanimous conclusion (19 to 1) was:
"The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life."
Science Does Know When Human Life Begins
Why this conclusion? Embryology and genetics and the physiology of pregnancy itself teach us the basics. When a sperm from a man fertilizes an egg from a woman, each contributes exactly half of the new life consisting of the resulting fertilized egg. In this mysterious union, 23 chromosomes from the sperm unite with 23 chromosomes from the egg, to create a new life. Never before in the history of the world, nor ever again, will a being identical to this one exist. This living being, granted the appropriate protected environment, is completely independent from this beginning of life, at fertilization. In only ten more days it takes over control of its mother's body being responsible for stopping her menstrual periods!
But can it be human at that point? Doesn't it become human later? Actually, from a medical standpoint, the only thing that has been added to the fertilized egg is nutrition. It is not like the blueprint of a house that describes a building to be built. It is, in a figure, the house in miniature. It, itself, will grow into a person in time. All it needs is nutrition, oxygen and time. From a scientific standpoint there is no other way to look at the developing embryo than as a human being in various stages of development. It is not plant or animal life. It can never become anything other than the implementation of the genetic "program" which was miraculously combined at the point of conception. This was recognized by the World Medical Association which met in Geneva in 1948 and adopted the following code of ethics, descended from both the Hebrews and Hippocrates:
"I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity...I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient; I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception. [Italics Ours] Even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor."
*First International Conference on Abortion, Washington, DC, October, 1967.
Vacillation in the AMA
One hundred years ago the AMA declared abortion "the work of destruction, the wholesale destruction of unborn infants." Its policy statement of 1871 treated physician abortionists very harshly:
"The members of the profession should shrink with horror from all intercourse with them, professionally or otherwise. These men should be marked as Cain was marked; they should be made the outcasts of society. It becomes the duty of every physician in the United States to resort to every honorable and legal means in his power to crush out from among us this pest of society."
But in a 1970 revision, the AMA calls abortion a "medical procedure," and in 1977 its Ethics Committee says:
"They should be allowed to perform abortions as long as they are done in an accredited hospital acting only after consultation with two other physicians."
"SANCTITY OF LIFE: VERSES "QUALITY OF LIFE"
So now many medical people are discarding the Judeo-Christian ethic of the sanctity of human life in favor of a new pragmatic ethic of the quality of life. In an editorial published by the California Medical Association were some terse observations:
"The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be see most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion.....Since the old ethic has not been fully displaced, it has become necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorred. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extra-uterine until death....It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not been rejected." (2)
Just a few years before the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1973, a similar wide open abortion philosophy (1967) was adopted by an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Thus two of the most "civilized" nations on earth embarked on a program of legalized abortion that had previously been seen only in the Orient on a widespread scale. Many clergymen, physicians and experts in ethics cried "wolf" at the time, predicting that a general erosion of morality would take place, leading eventually to infanticide, euthanasia and a general cheapening of human life values. Ten years later we can see that the "wolf" was really there.
The Bloomington Baby - et al!
Inevitably it had to happen. If destruction of live, unborn babies is legal, what is prevent the next step, elimination of unwanted living newborns?
The date is 1982. The stage is a hospital in Bloomington, Indiana. The cast? A just born baby boy, his parents and the physician. He obviously has Down's syndrome - a condition that usually is accompanied with a degree of mental retardation and an innocent childlike appearance leaves the person with a placid, lovable disposition and childlike mentality, although some of these people do have average intelligence. But, in addition this baby has a birth defect, a fistula or opening between the trachea (wind pipe) and the esophagus (gullet or food tube). Normally, this birth defect would be corrected with expert pediatric surgery, and he would have a reasonably good chance of normal life. But because of the possibility of mental retardation, his parents and the physician make a decision which leads to the infant's death five days later. Basically, his medical "treatment" is, inn an incomprehensible perversion of language, "Do not feed," and the lawyers call this, "treatment to do nothing." So the little boy starves to death - in the face of a legal battle, several offers of adoption and the horror and outrage of thinking people across the country. It might have been Good Friday on the calendar, but for him it was martyrdom.
It happened in England, too. On June 28, 1980 a baby was born with Down's syndrome, and when the senior pediatrician examined the baby in the presence of its understandably distressed parents, they rejected the child. The doctor then wrote on the hospital chart, "Parents do not wish it to survive. Nursing care only." The baby died 69 hours later. After seven months the doctor was charged with murder. And as it turned out in reviewing the records, large doses of dihydro-codeine, a morphine-like drug were prescribed, "to alleviate distress as and when it arose". The suppression of appetite and respiration was rapid that at autopsy it was obvious that the baby had died of pneumonia secondary to an overdose of narcotics. But when the courts considered the doctor's treatment, he was eventually given the verdict of "not guilty". His motives were accepted as humanitarian, although English statue and legal precedent were both overturned, for English law recognizes that a bay born alive, even before the umbilical cord is severed, is an independent being with its own rights, regardless of its parents' wishes. For when human life is at stake, parents' wishes are irrelevant. And life can be ended by neglect as much as by action, both being morally as well as legally wrong. (3)
"HARD CASES" MAKE BAD LAW
But with over 1,000,000 abortions taking place every year, it is still common for people to think that the majority are done for such atrocities as rape or incest. Nothing could be more wrong - few abortions result from these causes. There is no question that rape is a terrible wrong and should be dealt with in a judicial manner. So is incest, the most common crime in our local country. And yet there are some things to be considered by the innocent one who has been victimized by rape. In the first place, it is well to point out that most rapes do not end in pregnancy. Many who cannot condone abortion, do approve either hormone administration or curettage (scraping) of the womb at the earliest possible opportunity after rape to prevent pregnancy, although others cannot accept this practice. Secondly, in spite of what some pro-abortion advocates may say, it is not fair to "let the tail wag the dog." A rare tragic happening that might seem to justify an abortion is no reason to accept a law permitting millions of other innocent babies to be denied their right to live. Furthermore, whoever said that two wrongs make a right? A recent British study was done showing that mothers who conceived and were given sympathy and support at this crucial time in their lives were able to cope far better with the consequences of pregnancy, childbirth and adoption than those who were aborted. Two wrongs never make a right!
The Abortion Industry - A $700 Million a Year Business
Now let's look at the abortion business itself. First, from a medical point of view most abortion "counseling" can best be described as a farce. None of the abortion organizations tell the mother, or show her in pictures, the stage of development of the baby, nor do they tell of possible complications to her and her other babies later. There is no "informed consent," no follow-up care, medical records are scanty and there is a scandalous coverup of most surgical errors. In legitimate surgery, any tissue removed from the body is examined and a permanent record made. This is seldom done in abortion chambers. And finally, in a hospital, human tissue is disposed of in a dignified manner, while in abortion chambers human tissue is usually treated like garbage!
Monetary kickbacks are common in many abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood-Clergy Counseling Service of Los Angeles received in 1972 $250,000 from the clinics and private "hospitals" to which they referred women for abortion. (4)
There is no question about it. Abortion is a lucrative business for doctors and clinics that engage in it. It is a $700 million per year industry. In fact, most of the up-front money that is used to combat Right-to-Life litigation comes from these practitioners that are making many times the the salary of legitimate surgeons practicing in a hospital. Women thus are being ruthlessly explooited financially and in the care of their bodies, while making a decision that puts a scar on their consciences for life. This probably explains why a number of people who were enthusiastic about abortion in the early '70's have entirely switched, to become advocates of the Right-to-Life movement.
Large Scale Legalized Killing Cannot be Limited to Abortion
Other warped rationalizations regarding the humanity or rights of certain groups of human beings considered undesireable by those with legal authority have led to the foulest bots in human history. The torture and annihilation of millions in Christendom by the ruling religious authorities during the Dark Ages because they dared worship their God according to the dictates of their consciences, and the elimination of their elderly by certain "heathen" cultures are part of a by-gone horror we read about, rejoicing that we enjoy freedom of religion and many civil rights today.
Closer to our generation is the experience of Dred Scott. Slave of Dr. Emerson, an Army surgeon stationed at St. Louis, he was taken in 1834 into Illinois, a free state, then across the Mississippi into the free part of the Louisiana territory. Later they returned to St. Louis, and Dred Scott suied Dr. Emerson's widow for freedom, on the claim that he had been emanipated by his residence on free soil. After going through several lower courts, this case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower courts' decision that Scott was still a slave and had no right to sue. So much for the legal matter.* But the Chief Justice and all but two of his colleagues added an uncalled-for opinion, stating that the U.S.Constitution was made for white men only, that a slave was the property of his owner and Congress had no constutional rights to deprive a citizen of his property! This, in face of the Declaration of Independence, which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Dred Scott decision was not overturned in a day or even a decade. At first it was only a minority of Americans who recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying full humanity to the slaves. But a minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They appealed to the hearts and minds of their countrymen and even fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind, black people in America, could not be denied the vision embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
*The Dred Scott decision of 1857.
IS ABORTION, LIKE SLAVERY, A MORAL ISSUE?
The great champion of the sanctity of human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, warned us of the dangers we would face, if we closed our eyes to the vaue of life in any category of human beings. "I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making an exception to it, where would it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" Abortion presents a similar moral dilemna.
What then is the real issue today? When we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives - the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? Furthermore, if we, her doctor or anyone else, do not feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life, please, please give life clearly the benefit of the doubt. If you do not know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it! This consideration in itself should be enough to insist on protecting the unborn. (5)
LESSONS FROM NAZI GERMAY
Let's switch for a moment and look back a generation to the "humane killing" that took place in Germany. Beginning in 1933, the German penal code was altered to allow a doctor the privilege of interrupting pregnancy when it "threatens the life or health of the mother" and "an unborn child that is likely to present hereditary and transmissible defects may be destroyed." In 1935 persons of "German or related blood" were declared the only ones eligible as citizens. This law thus exclused Jews, relegating them to a second-class of socity. Hitler's euthanasia order was promulgated in 1939, allowing physicians the authority to accord a "mercy death" to "incurables."
Then the holocaust began, which was most dehumanizing. Franz Stangel, former Commandant of Treblinka, said in 1971 "it had nothing to do with humanity. It was a mass. I rarely saw them as individuals. It was always a huge mass." Hitler himself declared in 1943, "They are pure parasites." Even the language of killing was changed to use terms such as "evacuated," "emptied" or "removal" to describe the wholesale destruction of Jews. It is interesting how commonly we see these terms applied to abortion.
Down the Slippery Slope
These cases illustrate the "slippery slope" down which morals slide when the value ofhukan life becomes relative rather than absolute. It matters not whether slave, female, Jew or fetus - "all men are created equal." Chills go down our spines when we think about where a society will end that starts off on such a perilous journey.
In contemporary America are science, research, ethics, medical ethics and theology immune? History has often repeated itself.
The Scriptures Delare the Nature of Man
For a moment let us consider the nature of man and the issues that pertain to life. The Scriptures regard conception
|
Print Friendly Page
