The Culture of Death
This article is not about political parties. Anyone with a sense of history knows that we began with two major parties known as the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist political organizations. Since that time have emerged the Whig parties, the Know-Nothing, the Bull Moose, Communist, Green, Socialist, and mostly what we have today: Democrat, Republican, and Independents. The reason the article is not about any of these parties is that they can change ideologies, and what they stand for this decade is not necessarily what they stand for the next decade.
Instead, the subject addressed herein concerns moral issues\they are seen, or whatever happens, but rather concerns moral issues—particularly abortion. Like homosexuality and homosexual marriage, abortion is not a political issue or a party issue, these are God\’s moral issues. Homosexuality has been condemned in no uncertain terms under every covenant that God has ever made with mankind. The Holy Scriptures inspired of God called the men of Sodom “exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” (Gen. 13:13, emph. GWS).
The Lord also said that the “outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous” (Gen. 18:20, emph. GWS). This was long before the Law of Moses. Under that Law, homosexuals were to be put to death (Lev. 20:13). God has not changed his mind toward this perversion under the New (and final) Testament. He calls same-sex affections “vile passions,” “against nature,” “shameful,” and the product of “a debased mind.” It is also a symptom of human beings refusing “to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:26-28).
To even suggest that homosexuals could be “married” shows how depraved mankind has become in his thinking. How did we get to such a state in this country? The answer is that people elected immoral men and women to positions of authority. When someone is elected President and he appoints morally liberal judges, homosexual “marriage,” which blasphemes God’s plan for the home, is the result. In the first century no one got to vote for Nero, who was openly a homosexual, but this nation has the power to vote, and we allowed this to happen.
The same thing is true of abortion. It became legal by means of the Roe v. Wade decision of a morally liberal court. How did we get a court that could not define pornography but knew that Bible study and prayer in public schools was bad? A liberal court legislated from the bench (in the sense that they based their ruling on no legal precedent whatsoever). The Roe decision struck down laws protecting infants in 46 of the 50 states. At the time it was rendered, most of the nation did not even know such a case was being considered. Many were taken by surprise and were not even familiar with the subject. However, today that ignorance no longer exists.
New York State’s Celebration of Death
Many have probably by now heard what recently occurred in the state of New York. The state House of Representatives passed a certain piece of legislation 92 to 47, and the state Senate passed it 38 to 24, and it was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo. When the results of the Senate vote were announced, one would have thought the Jets had won the Superbowl. Shouts of hearty approval echoed off the walls; enthusiastic joy was rampant.
The object of all this jubilation was The Reproductive Health Act, which states that abortions will be legal within 24 weeks of the start of a pregnancy—“or at any time when necessary to protect a woman’s life or health.’’ No, the above is not a misprint. Abortions will be legal—no questions asked—if a woman decides to kill the baby she is carrying up to almost 6 months! Is it necessary to repeat that the child has a beating heart after about three weeks? Have people forgotten that surgeons operate successfully on infants prior to six months in order to correct a medical problem so the child might live? Therefore, some surgeons are saving lives at the same time that other “doctors” are terminating them. How much greater could the irony be?
As pointed out recently in a related article, the Greek word brephos designates both the unborn (Luke 1:41, 44) and the born infant (Luke 2:12, 16). Winford Claiborne quotes from two Greek dictionaries that confirm this definition in his first volume of Silence Can Be Sinful:
Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1957) says that the word brephos means unborn child, embryo, baby, infant (p. 146). Walter E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984) defines brephos as “an unborn child…a newborn child, or an infant still older” (p. 85). Other Greek scholars agree with these two sources that I have just quoted (99).
In other words, God considers the child to be a living being whether in or out of the womb. Claiborne elsewhere called attention to the fact that when Paul wrote to Timothy that, “From a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation…” (2 Tim. 3:15), Timothy was a brephos that had exited the womb. “…Timothy was a child before he was born and he was a child after he was born” (101).
We fear not to make a politically incorrect statement because it is true: “Those who supported and voted for this bill are evil.” They have access to pertinent information and still voted for the death of infants.
If further explanation of the preceding statement is necessary, consider these facts. When the Roe v. Wade ruling was given, we did not have all of the information that we do now. Today, we know week by week the development of a baby. Medically speaking, we have no basis for wondering if the baby is a human being. We know that it is.
Biblically speaking, we know that the child in the womb is a human being. David wrote three thousand years ago that God “formed his inward parts” and that he was “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-14). God spoke similar words to his prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). To deny the information provided in the Bible is to reject the Bible.
Why would anyone want to vote for candidates who oppose the Bible outright and who have no respect for innocent life? No political candidate of any party should be supported in any way unless he will defend those who cannot defend themselves. Voting for such individuals is what brings about legislation like that in New York. Do Christians want to stand side by side on the Day of Judgment with the pro-death crowd?
Virginia’s Bill Was Worse
Virginia House Bill 2491 would roll back a number of requirements, including a 24-hour waiting period and a mandate that second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital (Internet).
The repeals described above are, however, only the beginning. For last-trimester abortions a woman needed to have the statement of three doctors that she would die or be substantially impaired. The new legislation would require only the opinion of one doctor, which might open the floodgate, since it might not be that difficult to find one corrupt physician.
But it gets worse. Kathy Tran sponsored the bill; what follows is a conversation with her. Read it carefully. She was asked to clarify if her bill would allow abortions up to the time of birth.
“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”
“OK, but to the end of the third trimester?” Republican Majority Leader Todd Gilbert asked her.
“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran replied.
“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating,” he added.
“My bill would allow that. Yes.”
Does this seem radical—even to those who are pro-abortion? However, in order to answer the question of what would happen next, a question was posed to the governor, Ralph Northam, who answered:
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
And then? He did not say, but the implication is that if the mother did not want the child, it would be killed. Does anyone not understand that at this point we have moved from abortion to infanticide? The governor (a former pediatrician, of all things) said he was only talking about defective babies. Oh, so if a child has Down Syndrome, it’s okay to let him die? How is that not still infanticide? Does anyone find this to be Hitleresque?
Apparently, several states are considering following the example of New York by removing current restrictions and safeguards against abortion and curtailing the rights of the child. Every state needs to be cautious concerning current legislation being introduced. Voters should find out what is happening and let their voices be heard. Also, it is vital that pro-abortionists not be elected in the first place. Once the alarm-system is deactivated, it’s harder to keep the burglars out.
What If?
What if pro-life, pro-family candidates had been elected in every office from local ones to the presidency? The Roe v. Wade decision was 46 years ago. Probably 70,000,000 lives have been killed “legally” since that time. That figure is more than 1/5 of our population, larger than the combined populations of California and Texas. Imagine the citizens of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Austin, Dallas, and Forth Worth being wiped out by atomic bombs from some foreign power. U. S. citizens would be outraged and calling for war.
But who is calling for war against the ideology that has killed millions of future citizens if they had been born? Some lament erecting a wall to keep out non-citizens, yet they vote for candidates who favor killing our own people! Some of the same folks who would actually cry if a tree was felled or if the egg of a bald eagle were destroyed have no tears to shed for the death of an infant who might have been a brilliant jurist or discovered a cure for cancer.
Guessing “what if” only serves to grant us a few moments of speculation; looking at “what is” can be depressing. How about if we all work to change “what if” into “what is”? Many worthwhile changes begin at the grassroots level. May our commitment match the Lord’s!