No Regard For Life - Part III
Reprinted from Rape Of A Nation by Jimmy Swaggart
October 2021 |
The Media Is The Message
Marshall McLuhan, in his book, The Media Is the Message, warns, “When the mechanization of death occurs on a vast scale, the minds of civilized people are numbed. Decent and well-meaning people, acting as if in corporate somnambulism, are engaged today in repeating in abortion centers the patterns of life processing, which worked so well in meat packing and death camps … One precedent begets another by echo of remorseless logic and quantified statistical reasoning. If meat packing and death camps can resonate in a way that makes abortion centers a familiar and acceptable pattern, the abortion centers themselves constitute a further precedent for the repetition of further violence to human dignity and compassion.”8
Marshall McLuhan foresaw that the experience with easy abortion would result in a general loss of respect for human life. Here’s an example of what he was talking about: Doctor C. C. Merry, a pathologist at the Winnipeg General Hospital, found a baby boy whimpering in a garbage bag waiting to be burned in the hospital incinerator.9 Doctor Merry said that those who perform abortions become hardened to such cases and would not try to save the life of the baby. Why? It is because the whole purpose of abortion is to destroy life!
Doctor Lawrence Lawn, of Cambridge University’s Department of Experimental Medicine, has been photographed experimenting on a legally aborted, but living, fetus. Doctor Lawn was quoted in the Cambridge Evening News as saying, “We are simply using something which is destined for the incinerator to benefit mankind.”10
Researchers who argue that they are only making use of human fetal “garbage” in their work demonstrate the extent to which the respect and dignity afforded human life has deteriorated. Permissive abortion policies have degraded human life to the point where living, breathing babies are now considered to be “research specimens.”11
While researchers encourage murder for the advancement of science, others do so for mere profit. In a bizarre and sordid link between European abortionists and cosmetic manufacturers, the prestigious French journal, Gazette du Palais, reported the use of aborted babies in beauty products!12
Frozen bodies of aborted babies are destined for rendering in the laboratories of French cosmetic firms. Cells from the fetuses supposedly rejuvenate aging human skin by lending firmness and luster.
The Government’s View
Our nations’ values are misplaced. The irony of a recent event demonstrates this. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, pressured by public opinion, ordered a halt to the shooting of dogs for medical experiments and training. His decision was announced in a brief one-sentence statement following a report in the Washington Post.13
The paper reported plans of the Department of Defense to open a firing range at the nation’s Military Medical School in Bethesda, Maryland. Dogs and other animals were to be put under anesthesia and then shot with high-powered weapons such as those used in combat. By using these animals, military doctors and scientists hoped to study how to treat similar wounds suffered by humans. However, as stated, Secretary Weinberger ordered a halt to these shootings.
What a paradox! Laws are passed by high public officials to stop the killing of dogs, while other high officials (the Supreme Court) pass laws to allow the increased killing of tiny human beings! In other words, it would seem clear that in today’s society, dogs are more important than babies.
As a nation, we are in desperate straits. We cannot survive as a free nation under such a value system. Nazi government-approved gas chambers killed “unwanted” Jews. Now, America’s government-approved abortion centers kill “unwanted” babies. How long will it be before we begin exterminating all other “unwanteds” simply because they are considered less than perfect, useless, or burdens on society?
Medical Ethics
It is especially sad when we realize the part the medical profession plays in this carnage. Historians tell us that the Holocaust in Nazi Germany was accompanied by a corruption of medical ethics. Law permitted the extermination of “useless” members of society. Then those ethically committed to life and health responded by setting themselves up as gods to determine which lives were of value and which were not.
Today, a new ethic has emerged in our own nation in which a whole category of people, unloved and unborn, are senselessly slaughtered. And once again, the corruption of medical ethics is partially to blame.
For centuries, doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath as a moral standard governing their work decisions. In recent years, however, many medical schools have ceased to recite the Hippocratic Oath, which specifically forbids the practice of abortion and euthanasia.14
“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.”
The policy statements on abortion of the American Medical Association (made over a century ago) are quite a contrast to those set forth in the past two decades. In 1859, abortion was defined as “the slaughter of countless children; no mere misdemeanor, nor attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of human life.” In 1871, abortion was considered “the work of destruction; the wholesale destruction of unborn infants.” Today it is a “medical procedure.”
Concerning the physician abortionist, the American Medical Association, in 1871, stated that these are “men who cling to a noble profession only to dishonor it; false brethren; educated assassins; these modern Herods; these men who, with corrupt hearts and bloodstained hands, destroy what they cannot reinstate, corrupt souls, and destroy the fairest fabric that God has ever created … Under the cloak of that medical profession; monsters of iniquity.” That statement describes the modern abortionist perfectly (even though he may be considered a conscientious practitioner by some) — if he performs therapeutic abortions for reasons other than those posing a threat to the life of the mother!15
Think About This
The mother strode into the doctor’s office carrying a bright and beautiful baby. Seating herself near her family physician, she said, “Doctor, I want you to help me with my problem. My baby is only one year old and I’ve conceived again. I don’t want to have children so close together.”
“Ah,” he said, “and what would you have me to do?”
“Oh, anything to get rid of it for me,” she replied.
After thinking seriously about it for a moment, the doctor said, “I think I can suggest a better method. If you object to having two children so near to each other, the best solution would be to kill the one on your lap and to let the other one be born. It is very easy to get at the one on your lap, and it makes no difference to me which one I kill. Besides, it might be dangerous to your health if I undertook to kill the younger one.”
With that, the doctor reached for a hatchet that was used to chop kindling and casually asked the mother to lay the baby on her lap and turn her head away. Not surprisingly, the woman almost fainted as she leaped from the chair and screamed, “Murderer!”
A few words of explanation from the doctor soon convinced her that his offer to commit murder was no worse than her request for him to destroy the unborn child. In either case, the act would be murder — the only difference would be in the age of the victim.
Within The Word Of God
You can give it any name you want, but in God’s Holy Word, it is murder! All murder is wrong. In the Old Testament, even before the Mosaic law was delivered, God said, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6).
Later, under the Mosaic law, God plainly commanded, “He who smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Ex. 21:12).
The death penalty for murder is also clearly implied in the New Testament. Romans 13:1-7 states that the rule of the nation is the minister of God and he “beareth not the sword in vain.” In the book of Revelation, we are told that murderers shall never enter the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:8; 22:15).
To God, any unprovoked killing is murder, and the person guilty of murder is deserving of punishment. To Him there is no difference between the person who kills an unborn child and the person who pulls the trigger of a loaded gun.
The feminist argument that a woman has the right to do what she would like “with her own body” openly defies God’s commandment concerning murder. It is certainly agreed that every individual has certain rights, but such rights never extend to the imposition of gross injustice on someone else.
Even though the unborn baby is supported and nurtured within the mother’s body, it is a separate human being and must be protected — not only by the mother, but by society as well. If the mother refuses to protect the child, the medical profession must. If the medical profession refuses, laws must be established that will deliver true justice.
8 Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, Handbook on Abortion (Cincinnati, OH: Hayes, 1979), p. 175, citing Marshal McLuhan.
9 Victoria Daily Colonist, April 5, 1972, cited in pamphlet What Is a Baby Worth? (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Winnipeg League for Life).
10 Willke, op. cit., 131.
11 John A. Morris, et al, “Measurement of Fetoplacental Blood Volume in the Human Previable Fetus,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, April 1, 1974, p. 927.
12 Brennan, op. cit., p. 77.
13 John Lofton, “Let Drugged Dogs Lie, Unborn Humans Live,” Washington Times, August 3, 1983.
14 Brennan, op. cit., p. 140.
15 Ibid., p. 191.
|
|
