No Regard For Life - Part II
Reprinted from Rape Of A Nation by Jimmy Swaggart
September 2021 |
The Law And The Bible
In a “pluralistic” society, one which tries to create a compromise of all viewpoints, we are told that individuals should not be prevented from doing whatever their religious principles allow. We are further told that a free society should not “invade the privacy of a woman’s body.” Furthermore, it is contended that a just society should not pass laws that create unfairness, nor should a merciful society make laws that impose handicaps on children. Finally, a wise society will not pass laws that it cannot (or perhaps does not have the will to) enforce.
Men exalting themselves in their superior enlightenment and humanity use these arguments to promote abortion. On the surface, these may appear to be valid assumptions for a society that professes concern about all of its members. They are, however, based on the false assumption that unborn babies are not human beings entitled to the same protection as all other members of society.
According to the Bible, man’s thinking concerning abortion is contrary to God’s way of thinking. The Bible says that the unborn child is a living soul. The Holy Spirit inspired David to say, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5).
When David said, “I was shapen,” he clearly implied that from the moment of conception, he was the same person who would later be known as David, the great king of Israel.
Again, in Psalm 139:13-14, David was inspired to write, “Thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
From the moment of conception, and as the Holy Spirit purposed, David was indeed a person. It was David’s body, his very substance that resided in his mother’s womb.
We find the same type of teaching concerning Jeremiah. He said: “Then the Word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thee came forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:4-5).
God knew the Prophet Jeremiah before he was born, plainly signifying that his soul and spirit were already in his maturing infant body. If this fetus had been aborted, it would have constituted murder, for more than a mass of tissue would have died — the Prophet Jeremiah would have died. His mother might not have known he was to be a mighty prophet, but God knew. His mother might not have even known his name if he hadn’t survived birth, but God knew that as well.
I am saying that in God’s eyes and according to His Word, a fetus is unquestionably a person. It is a living soul from the very moment of conception. It is a child — whether born or unborn.
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit “even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). Mary, the mother of Jesus, went to greet Elisabeth, “And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). John the Baptist, yet a “fetus” in his mother’s womb, may not have understood why he leaped at the sound of Mary’s voice, but God knew. Even as a fetus, John responded to the presence of the Saviour, who was then within Mary’s body.
It is interesting to note the words of Jesus in Mark 10:14: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Here He was referring specifically to the small children being brought to Him for His blessing, but the Greek word translated in Luke 1:41 as “babe” is brephos. Brephos means “an unborn child or newborn.” Based on this, it seems clear that every infant — born or unborn — has an immortal soul since Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of God.”
What Is Life Worth?
Jesse Helms, U.S. Senator, states: “There comes a time in the history of all great civilizations when the moral foundations upon which it rests are shaken by some momentous turn of events. That time has come for America. The historical experience of Western man indicates that such upheavals can ultimately destroy a nation — the collapse of Rome being only one of many examples. Great nations die when they cease to live by the great principles that gave them the vision and strength to rise above tyranny and human degradation. Unless the abortion decision is reversed by an amendment to the Constitution, the future of America is in grave doubt, for no nation can remain free or exercise moral leadership when it has embraced the doctrine of death.”1
The true issue behind legalized abortion (as well as the growing acceptance of infanticide) boils down to a judgment on the value of human life. Approval of these practices demands acceptance of the primary evolutionary premise that man is just an animal — a view diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian concept that affords great value to every person.
Disregard for human life and the worth of the individual is fast becoming accepted as a normal part of modern society, but an even greater danger exists. This lack of respect for life is only a symptom of a growing tendency of the state to claim total power. “The ease with which destruction of life is advocated for those considered either socially useless or socially disturbing instead of educational and ameliorative measures may be the first danger sign of loss of creative liberty in thinking, which is the hallmark of a democratic society.”2
If we don’t deal effectively and quickly with these issues, we will most assuredly see the death of our country. The sanctity of human life cannot be taken lightly; it touches the very essence of man’s existence.
The Weisberg Incident
The Weisberg incident is a perfect example of innocent victims tossed about in a game of political football, a sadistic game in which human life is devalued, and supposedly civilized and educated persons expose themselves as little more than brute beasts. In a well-devised strategy of rhetoric, “babies” are reduced to “abstract fetal tissue,” or just so many ounces of flesh, and handled with as much emotion as one feels in purchasing a pound of ground meat!
The Weisberg incident was first reported on February 6, 1982, as a small, obscure item in the Los Angeles Times. One might have expected the article to be slashed across the front pages of all papers in bold black type, but that isn’t the way it happened.
The newspaper reported the discovery of 500 fetuses, some weighing up to four pounds. A crew of workers discovered the mangled and maimed mass of humanity — individually stored in formaldehyde-filled maimed plastic containers — in what began as simply an assignment to repossess a 20-foot-long shipping container. Marvin Weisberg, owner of a pathology lab in Los Angeles County, had failed to pay the storage bill on the container that he used to store infants from abortion mills for pathological studies.
Workers, unloading the container behind Weisberg’s posh Woodland Hills home, stared in disbelief at the evidence of mass murder, while others, their senses assaulted by the odors and morbid sight, vomited in horror. One crew member later said, “I saw one fetus with legs two and one-half to three inches long, and the body and head were demolished. I was scared, frightened, and had tears in my eyes. What else can you say?”
His boss had said, “They’re just fetuses, but they sure looked like little babies to me.”3
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors called for a speedy determination of any illegality. Under California law, abortion of fetuses under 20 weeks of age was legal, but since state codes required burial or cremation, improper disposal was evident. That, however, was not the first problem with disposal. In 1976, tenants who shared the same building as Weisberg’s lab complained about 100 fetuses stacked in the hallway.
Four private organizations, including a Right-to-Life group, offered to pay for the cremation or burial of the yet undetermined number of almost 7,000 pounds of babies whose lives were cruelly and prematurely snuffed out. It was later determined that there were actually 17,000 fetuses in the container.
President Reagan endorsed a plan to hold a memorial service for the fetuses, but the district attorney refused to release what he now considered “criminal evidence.” In response, public officials and members of the California Pro-life Medical Association made a courageous attempt to initiate action and promote burial by releasing the grossly disturbing photographs of the infants.4
The media, of course, protected the perpetrators of this horrendous deed and echoed their perverted views. In a diabolical plot to brainwash the American public, they presented the abortion-produced carnage as a mere unemotional abstraction rather than exposing the actual magnitude of the slaughter.
How is it that a media that ordinarily specializes in the sensational and the sordid suddenly suppresses pictures of the massacred, fails to reveal the negative factors involved, and even refuses to inform the public of the medical and emotional hazards to the mother? If the truth be known, only those whose consciences have been seared into insensitivity could choose to suppress such a crime.
It seems inconceivable that a nation as great as America could regress to such abominable barbarism. Still, it is happening! Men as drunken savages, intoxicated with their own wisdom and power, court the god of Baal, and our nation’s passive multitudes watch from the distance and do nothing!
- Jesse Helms, “Foreword,” The Right to Live, the Right to Die, by C. Everett Koop (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1980), p. 10.
- L. Alexander, M.D., “Medical Science Under Dictatorship,” New England Journal of Medicine, July 14, 1949.
- Los Angeles Times, February 6, 1982.
- Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1982.
|
|
