Part J
Awake X
A Closer Look at the One World Order and Bible Prophecy – Part III
The Devaluation of Life
|
|
|
This once great nation has become warped, and it started with
Roe v. Wade. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. Children, the greatest gift, are now looked upon as being competitors, an inconvenience and an intrusion into peoples lives.We often hear that America, along with most of Europe is facing a
crisis of an aging population with not enough younger people entering the work force, and that is why we and Europe need an influx of millions of legal and illegal immigrants to work. The truth is that legalized abortion has been the cause of the shortage of workers. We are killing off generation after generation before they even have a chance to be born.In 1970 a Texas woman became pregnant and decided to fight the anti-abortion legislation of her state. Using the pseudonym
Jane Roe, she took Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney, to court. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court in January, 1973, and is now the renowned Roe vs. Wade case. Seven arrogant Supreme Court justices ruled that the Texas law banning abortion was unconstitutional. For the first time the U.S. Supreme Court created a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers with scarcely any reason or authority for its action and has led to the destruction of 35,000,000 precious babies.This ruling implicitly permitted abortion on demand at every stage of pregnancy. Its judgment inhibited all regulation of abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, and during the second and third trimesters regulated it only in relation to the mother's physical or mental health.
Last year, Planned Parenthood and a host of independent
"clinics," protected by federal alcohol and gambling racketeering laws, gave birth to fourteen healthy little children 8 -to- 9 months old. They also stabbed them in the back of the head and suctioned-out their brains. This barbaric practice is called "Partial Birth Abortion" and it is done every day in the United States. "The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches," said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. "Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers."A bill passed by Congress
allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women's life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for "health" abortions - a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for "emotional well-being" or "depression."The late
Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved "maternal health" [the most common being "depression"]. Another 56% were for "fetal flaws," ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down’s Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial - in other words, "elective".Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over
1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them "routinely" for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are "purely elective." Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been almost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother.[Romans 1:32]"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
The number of legal abortions in the United States in 1969 was less than
20,000. This year more than one and a half million unborn babies will be aborted. That is 4,250 today, 177 this hour, and three since you began reading this. Those babies will never know their mothers or fathers; and whatever they could have been, whatever God had in store for them, and whatever joy they may have brought or known, will never come to pass, and they will never enter the workforce.Since Roe, an activist judiciary propelled by interest groups using the courts to remake the social order has rendered opinions or laid the groundwork for an
assault on the primacy of the family, a revision of the nature of economic and social liberty, and assault on the sanctity of life, and an abandonment of the rule of law itself. These activist judges have pushed their godless battle over infanticide, euthanasia, fetal experimentation, RU-486, and the so-called "right to die" and physician assisted suicide - all of which attack the sanctity and value of life.Over the past twenty four years, abortion has ended the respect Americans once had for human life. Not only has this loss of respect had a profound impact on the euthanasia and health care debate, but I believe it has also had an impact on crime: if ending human life is acceptable before birth, why isn't it acceptable afterwards?
Abortion is not merely a bad choice or ethically unwise;
it is a sin. Christians should actively expose and oppose it as a moral stain on our country. In a democracy where citizens have the right to vote on its laws and leaders, Christian citizens should by all means participate in the political process. God, help us not to be neglectful of our duty to speak out boldly on something so important!On March 6, 1860, presidential candidate
Abraham Lincoln said:"What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery is wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic Party - where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else you think is wrong you are not willing to deal with as wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong."
Now, substitute the word
"abortion" for the word "slavery" and we have the debate raging today.Here is what Bill Clinton, who claims to be a Christian, had to say:
"I think there are too many abortions in America. I think there should be much more adoption in America. But I do not believe that it is self evident from the Bible that all abortions are murder."
(President Bill Clinton, ABC Interview by Peggy Wehmeyer, "American Agenda", March 22, 1994.)
Bill Clinton ended the gag rule that restricted abortion counseling in federally funded clinics. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Donna Shalala suspended the 1988 Reagan regulations on Title X. In revoking this regulation, Clinton directed that 4,000 federally funded family planning clinics counsel all pregnant women and minors regarding abortion as a "pregnancy management option," that is, as a method of birth control.There is now a new and morally repulsive legal theory spreading among abortion enthusiasts — abortion as self-defense. This theory, reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education, acknowledges the humanity of the unborn child but sees the prenatal life as an intruder to be eliminated. In her new book,
Breaking Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent, Eileen McDonagh uses this chilling argument: "Even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman's body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus's imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it." She is advocating a coldly, calculated form of "justifiable homicide."Once you start taking the lives of the unborn, the sanctity of life goes right out the window. The next class of people to lose their rights would be the elderly and the infirm. The same court system that established a constitutional right for a woman to kill her unborn child is now saying there is a constitutional right for a doctor to assist in killing a patient. Two federal courts have recently ruled in favor of a constitutional
"right" to doctor assisted suicide.A person who doesn't value the unborn and have concern for their lives most likely won't stand up for other dependent members of society, such as the
elderly infirm, the disabled and the mentally challenged. The New World Order advocates have instituted a lock-step, litmus-test, gag-rule party, of which the Democrats have enthusiastically become members of. They have been intolerant of those who hold the pro-life view. The new intolerance will not abide doubt or dissent -- it claims it stands for freedom of choice, but it stifles freedom of speech. And so a movement that began by saying 'let every person decide' has ended up by silencing anyone who disagrees.The Clinton White House clamped down on abortion protesters, with the President signing legislation that makes blocking a clinic
a federal offense. The Freedom of Access to Abortion Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) passed in late 1993. "The scope of FACE is so broad that it makes no distinction between violent and non-violent protesters, and, simply because they are pro-life, subjects them to the same harsh penalties," stated Elizabeth Law, director of government relations for the Family Research Council. The law limits First Amendment rights based on political beliefs.Praying, sidewalk counseling, picketing-- any activity construed as blocking clinic sidewalks or driveways-- is strictly prohibited for anyone with a pro-life viewpoint. In theory, this legislation prevents acts of violence at abortion clinics, but in actuality, it hinders free speech rights for a single group of people -- pro-lifers.
In Feb. 1997,
Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America's National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth" in the ABC "Nightline" program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons' statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.
Once a government begins to define life and humanity, there is no end to the possibilities for subjective and selective determination as to who will be allowed to live.
At one time, blacks were not recognized as human beings. This was the rationale behind the slave trade that brought black Africans to the United States. They were transported in slave ships that held them confined in the same manner that livestock is confined when shipped to the slaughter houses. In Nazi Germany, only the Aryan race was considered human, and we know the consequences of that thinking. The treatment of Jews and other non-Aryans was similar to that of animals. And the Nazi genetic experiments remain a source for horror stories to this day.
Will a society which has assumed the right to kill infants in the womb - because they are unwanted, imperfect, or merely inconvenient - have difficulty in assuming the right to kill other human beings, especially older adults who are judged unwanted, deemed imperfect physically or mentally, or considered a possible social nuisance?
"The next candidates for arbitrary reclassification as non-persons are the elderly. This will become increasingly so as the proportion of the old and weak in relation to the young and strong becomes abnormally large, due to the growing antifamily sentiment, the abortion rate, and medicine's contribution to the lengthening of the normal life span. The imbalance will cause many of the young to perceive the old as a cramping nuisance in the hedonistic lifestyle
they claim as their right. As the demand for affluence continues and the economic crunch gets greater, the amount of compassion that the legislature and the courts will have for the old does not seem likely to be significant considering the precedent of the non-protection given to the unborn and newborn." [Francis Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?]Euthanasia:
Joseph Fletcher,
the author of "situational ethics," in his 1973 discussion of death with dignity gives this argument for euthanasia:"It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the positive ending of sub-human life in utero as we do in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion but refuse to approve of positively ending a sub-human life in extremis. If we are morally obliged to put an end to a pregnancy when an amniocentesis reveals a terrible defective fetus, we are equally obliged to put an end to a patient's hopeless misery when a brain scan reveals that a patient with cancer has advanced brain metastases." [Joseph Fletcher, "Ethics and Euthanasia," American Journal of Nursing, 1973.]
One is reminded of the slave holders who devoutly espoused the theory that slavery was really for the good of the black man and that in the end he would be thankful for the opportunity to share in the white man's culture, even from the distance of the garden shed. The Nazis also argued that their victims were being sacrificed for the high end of the general good of society. Many well-meaning people are attracted to what might seem to be the beneficial aspects of some sort of euthanasia program, because they think they can be free of the guilt of responsibility.
The
"right-to-die" movement is not calling for a right to die; they're mostly talking about a right to kill. The advocates of euthanasia are asking the government and courts to step aside and allow people who are feeble and elderly to be snuffed out.Language is an important tool in convincing others of your position. Euthanasia advocates have been skillful in masking their true intent with slogans like
"death with dignity" and "a right to die." These phrases easily capture people's attention. Everyone believes in a death with dignity. But these slogans take on new meaning when they are interpreted by our courts. The right to die may sound wonderful - until we realize that legally it means that you can kill yourself or someone can kill you, even if you don't want to die. Language is powerful. But when it is interpreted by the courts it becomes much more than mere slogans. It becomes the law of the land, and often that interpretation is not at all what we expected. Pretty soon it will become a person’s duty and obligation to have their life ended when they become elderly, disabled or handicapped in any way.Daily, senior citizens and accident victims are starved to death because their families have been convinced that even food and water are extraordinary means to preserve their life.
Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court‘s
Roe v. Wade decision have long claimed that legalized abortion would lead to legalized euthanasia. Supporters of Roe have often scoffed at the idea, insisting that decisions to eliminate a human fetus in no way devalue the lives of born persons. Yet recent court cases in Michigan and Washington have reversed the debate: Euthanasia supporters are openly citing Roe as precedent for a constitutional right to "rational" suicide. In the case of People v. Kevorkian, a trial judge has relied partly on Roe and the later abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to find a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Jack Kevorkian's attorney, Geoffrey Fieger argues that such a right is even better grounded than a right to abortion, because no unwilling 'third party' is involved.Imagine your health care needs being met by a government agency. Our country has an excess of debt and a shortage of morals. We already kill preborn children; there is violence in virtually every city; drugs and weapons are in our schools; and what a few years ago was called pornography is piped into our homes 24 hours a day on television. The people raised with these norms will constitute the government running the health care system, in which every patient will be an expense. In our present system, every patient is a potential profit. Consider the following scenarios:
A 70-year old retired man needs cataract surgery. This is going to cost the bureaucracy $2,000 for some guy who wants to see, but doesn't make any money. No surgery.
(Medicare has already advocated allowing people to go virtually blind before we fix their cataracts.)A 60-year old grandmother who doesn't generate any income needs dialysis because of kidney failure. That's going to cost thousands. Forget it.
A 50-year old man who makes $25,000 a year needs bypass surgery because of his chest pain. This guy may pay $3,000 a year in taxes; his surgery is going to cost $40,000. His ledger sheet doesn't balance. No surgery.
A baby is born with a handicap that's going to require frequent doctor visits, physical therapy, and multiple medications. What a drain on the system. Deny the baby adequate health care and let him die.
When euthanasia becomes law it will start out on a strictly voluntary basis for the terminally ill. Then it will become available to anyone who wants it, and finally it will be
involuntary, practiced on anyone who is a strain on the system: the elderly, the handicapped, and the unemployable - potentially anyone who doesn't benefit the system. Holland has euthanasia. They started out killing the terminally ill, but have veered markedly from this approach. Some estimate that over 50% of those euthanized in Holland are killed without consent. Some of the elderly are afraid to go to the doctor, for fear they will receive involuntary euthanasia. [ Dr. Tom Tolomeo, "Big Brother, M.D.," All About Issues, July-August 1993]Infanticide:
When the United States Supreme Court made its ruling about abortion in 1973, Justice Blackmon delivered the opinion of the Court. The first section in his opinion was titled "Ancient Attitudes." In it he referred back to pre-Christian law. He said, "Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion." Thus, as his first point, Justice Blackmon based his opinion on the practice of pre-Christian Greek and Roman law. Most people who read this did not realize the logical result concerning babies after their birth. Roman law permitted not only abortion but also infanticide. As we think this over, we ask ourselves, "Now that this door is open, how long will it be before infanticide is socially accepted and perhaps legalized?"On June 14, 1981, the Hartford Courant ran an expose entitled
"Defective Newborns Are Dying by Design" about infanticide at Yale-New Haven Hospital. The author, Diane Brozek, explained "In some of the cases... parents approached doctors about the possibility of overdose. Other times... doctors suggested the option, assuring parents they would sign the death certificate, no questions asked. The parents ended their infants' lives with morphine or Phenobarbital prescribed by the doctors and usually dissolved in a baby bottle."Peter Singer,
who recently was seated in an endowed chair at Princeton’s Center for Human Values, said, "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have." In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying "... no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live." At a population-control conference in Washington D.C. one speaker saw "no reason why anyone who accepted abortion should balk at infanticide." Another urged certain medical qualifying tests for all newborns. These would determine their genetic characteristics and, thus, whether their right to life should be forfeited. Of course, at present only a few hold these ideas, but unfortunately they are presenting these ideas again and again. Taken a little more seriously each time, they become just a little more thinkable each time.Sad to say, certain segments of the church are also not
without a positive opinion on the subject of infanticide. A task force of the Anglican Church of Canada reached a conclusion in a 1977 report that it could be morally right to terminate the lives of newborn infants with severe brain damage. The callousness of the report is evident in its phraseology: "Our sense and emotions lead us to the grave mistake of treating human-looking shapes as if they were human, although they lack the least vestige of human behavior and intellect. In fact the only way to treat such defective infants humanely is not to treat them as human." Happily, the general synod of the Anglican Church in Canada did not approve the report, but that such a report came forth from an official group of a major denomination in our day says much about the direction taken by certain segments of the church in regard to infanticide.How far have our Congressmen and Senators slid down that
"slippery slope" of abortion toward infanticide? Is it right to kill a fully delivered child? Consider the exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) and Senator Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) during the Senate debate on whether to override Clinton's veto of the ban on Partial Birth Abortions:Sen. Santorum: "If that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out - that the baby was completely delivered - would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide?"
Sen. Feingold: "The standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation."
Sen. Santorum: "That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?"
Senator Feingold: "That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who received the advice from the doctor."
One cannot underestimate the enormity of the battle before us. For over a decade pro-infanticide forces have been preparing us to accept legalized infanticide. Legalized abortion has made infanticide the next logical step in the devaluation and destruction of innocent lives. Technology such as amniocentesis and ultrasound has enabled us to diagnose a variety of handicaps in the womb. We can legally kill a handicapped child or any child up until the day it is born. But what is the difference between killing a child two days before it is born or two days after its birth? The pro-infanticide forces are also using the same methods now that the pro-abortion advocates used to see abortion legalized. That is, they now focus on the
"hard cases" in a way that opens the door. Later, as has happened in abortion, these "hard cases" will be forgotten as infanticide becomes normal practice.The logical step would then be for the government to limit the number of babies a family may have. In 1971, at the national
Conference on Population Education in Washington, D.C., Martha Willing, co-director of Population Dynamics of Seattle, Washington, first proposed tax disincentives for parents who have more than two children. Then the state should proceed "to penalize deliberate violations of a small family norm and set up controls which prevent such violations." She went on to say:"After the third child is born, both mother and father will have to present themselves at a hospital to undergo sterilization procedures. If the couple does not appear, there will be no birth certificate issued to the third child, but instead a "third child paper." The mother can be tattooed or marked to signify a third birth to any subsequent doctor. Instead of the missing parent, the child can be sterilized on the spot, insuring that this undue share of the gene pool will not be carried forward." (How monstrous and evil).
In Part K; I will cover
The Death of a NationYou have reached the end of the primary article or news item(s) posted.
Scroll down the page for more interesting articles and information or Go Back To:
• Commemorations • Daily News • About Our Jurisdictions
• HOLY ORDERS • Who Are: The Thaddean Fathers?
• AOC/NAOC Clergy • Our Clergy Application & Agreement
• HIV/AIDS OUTREACH PROJECT OF SOUTHWEST NEW MEXICO • EDUCATION • Seminary • A Call To Discovery of Self • Luna county freedom AND TRUTH • Apostasy Index • Pascha - Lenten Season - Easter • PAN (Prisoners & Parolees Anonymous)
• Lines of Succession and a Grammata on the meaning of Canonical
• MISSIONARY CONVERSATIONS WITH PROTESTANT SECTARIANS
• A Reply to Protestant Sectarians
•
Ancient Canons/Seven Ecumenical Councils•An Understanding of the Ancient Canons
• Ancient Canons/Seven Ecumenical Councils
• A bit of understanding about the Fundamentalist Cults....
• Modern Day Ecumenism and its horrors
Notice the New Mailing Address for all Holy Orders, Institutions and organizations under the
AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
and the
NORTH AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH:
P.O. Box 1652, Columbus, NM 88029
NEW PHONE NUMBER:
(505) 531-0021
Institutions include, but are not limited to the following:
Monastic Community of St. John Maximovitch & the Holy Theotokos, Catholic Christian Church, Western Orthodox Theological Institute [W.O.T.I.], Orthodox Benedictine, Thaddean Fathers, Holy Order of St. Jude Thaddeus, Apostle1.com, Prisoners & Parolees Anonymous (PAN)
This website is the property of the American Orthodox Church (AOC), North American Orthodox Church (NAOC) and the American Orthodox Catholic Church (AOCC). This website and all it's contents are under Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by the American Orthodox Church (AOC), North American Orthodox Church (NAOC) and the American Orthodox Catholic Church (AOCC).
All Rights Reserved under International Copyright Conventions. No part or whole of this website may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information, storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from either the American Orthodox Church (AOC), North American Orthodox Church (NAOC) or the American Orthodox Catholic Church (AOCC). Information provided in any directory(ies) may not be recompiled into other directories or used as the basis for a derived work without explicit written permission.
U.S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/
For permission to copy or use any of this material please contact us by using the E-Mail or the Postal Address located at the left of this page.Regarding Copyrighted (c) Copyrighted Logos at this website:
All logos of this Website are copyrighted by their owners and Apostle1.com in California and/or New Mexico 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by the
American Orthodox Church, Inc. (California), North American Orthodox Church (New Mexico) and the American Orthodox Catholic Church Designed by Webfriar Ministries, and His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop +Joseph Thaddeus (Stanford), OSB, SSJt., Ph.D.
Physical Mailing Address Change as of April 15, 2007:
P.O. Box 1652, Columbus, NM 88029
Church International Communications Headquarters
NEW PHONE NUMBER:
(505) 531-0021
