NSMinistries
June 18th 2003, 01:05 PM
Expanding Our Options Instead of Choosing the Final Solution Article On NSM (http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID19179|CHID119948|CIID1483650,00.html)
By Daniel Arnold
NSM Admin/Editor for the Living Rock Men's Christian Co-Op newsletter
PPPFUA- (http://www.christianity.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID19179|CHID580042|CIID,00.html)
Few who have taken any world history course have not encountered Hitler’s famous slogan—“the Final Solution.” You may ask yourself, “How does this disturbing saying tie-in with a completely controversial matter faced in the American political spectrum today?” Basically, the logical connection is that just as Hitler created a seemingly simplistic answer to deal with the major issues at the time, abortion has surfaced as America’s “Final Solution” to deal with issues surrounding “unwanted” pregnancies. In both circumstances, “The Final Solution” brings along with it unconsidered ramifications when in truth the existing options could be explored further to deal with the original problems.
Before discussing other options, it would be useful to first glance over just why abortion is not a viable option—followed by an examination of just some of the harmful effects of those who subscribe to this supposed cure-all method.
Deciding viable options in a civilized society in an unbiased fashion involves looking at the constitutional definition of what is humane and what our country is founded upon. Perhaps the most profound statement to sum up American philosophy and policy decision-making is found in one sentence of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—“ (Government Archives). If a person cannot bring themselves to consider an unborn baby as a life-form with the same rights as any other human, perhaps, at the very least, they can consider protecting it under Minnesota’s Statute granted for animals (Government Archives).
Statute 343.2 Subdivision 7 of Minnesota law concerning animals says the following: “No personal shall unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.” Just as John Piper of Desiring God Ministries did, one can ask him or herself the question of why an unborn being that “has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, and finger-grasping” does not earn these same rights like that of a mere animal (Piper).
If those reasons are not enough to clear up in one’s mind about how abortion goes against the fiber of which our nation rests upon, perhaps the Roe vs. Wade decision regarding a father’s choice is. Looking back at Jefferson’s pivotal statement in the Declaration of Independence, we can glance at the phrase, “all men are created equal.” As classical writing uses “men” to apply to both men and women, them it would seem logical to grant parental rights to both father and mother. Unfortunately, even if the father has personal Pro-life values that he is entitled to, he must give up those values and watch his child, in his mind, be murdered without a choice in the matter. Even if he believes the child is human life, he is denied parental rights to that child just because the Roe vs. Wade case does not define him as a parent as of yet. In a “free society”, this puts the father in a possible ethical dilemma—neglecting his right to “liberty” (Burton).
If an individual does not care to decide what the “right” choice is, perhaps he/she might value the unconsidered side effects that the “Final Solution” brings along it. These side effects take on all aspects of a person—mind, body, and soul. Since matters of the soul are undefined in academic circles and matters of the body are just physical, one might value the torturing effects of abortion on the mind the most. Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) has been studied extensively. “A study in the archives of General Psychiatry,” “diagnosed PAS in 1.4% of 442 women interviewed four times” (“Post-Abortion”). Possible symptoms include flashbacks, difficulty sleeping, and “avoidance of thought about the abortion that lasted more than a month” (“Post-Abortion”). As Dr. Vincent stated, “With 40 million abortions since 1972, this would translate into 560,000 cases of PAS” (“Post-Abortion”). Just a glimpse at a case study of this intense syndrome shows its horrors.
One can look at Emily’s story.
She experienced an abortion twelve years before getting married. Afterward, she refused to allow herself to think about it or grieve what she had lost. This "stuffing away" of emotions worked fine until she began to have children. Emily's first flashback hit her violently when she had her first ultrasound while pregnant with a "wanted" child. As time went on, she would get frequent intrusive thoughts concerning her abortion when looking at the faces of her babies. After a time, she also began to experience habitual, obsessive, and scary thoughts about hurting her children. She imagined… (Burke and Reardon)
This Elliot Institute research case study went on to describe the unimaginable-- thoughts better left never experienced by a reader or by any woman (Burke and Reardon).
While the Post Abortion Syndrome diagnosis may still seem small in number to some, one must consider that the same study found 20% of women who had aborted their to have experienced clinical depression. With basic values in mind that make a “civilized” society function and just one aspect of the dangers of abortion observed, one is faced with the task of finding alternative options. Thankfully, legislation is expanding law all the time to present more options that are actually viable. Already in place are three basic options of adoption, Crisis Pregnancy Center services, and of course prevention. Adoption options have been expanded upon already in recent years (Sowell).
Forced by U.S. Congress amendment of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, Minnesota changed its policy repeatedly regarding how minorities can be adopted. Instead of having the option to prohibit inter-racial adoption, “The 1997 amendments basically replace the "heritage" or "background" considerations for child placement decisions with "the child's best interests" (Minnesota). Such legislation has expanded the amount of worthy recipients of a child into society that would otherwise be disposed (Minnesota).
Prevention is another important consideration. While it may be against one’s principles to postpone intercourse, other forms of birth control, such as contraceptives, present viable options to most. Unfortunately, birth control is not funded by many MediCaid programs, but abortion is (Quindlen). As is no surprise, “For women below the poverty line” abortion “has increased by 25 percent,” according to a 2002 report by the Allan Guttmacher Institute (Quindlen). If no ethical or side effect dilemma is involved in this funding policy, the savings of using birth control instead should be enough of an argument for it (Quindlen).
The bright side is that there is room for change. American law can be continually changed to find places for human life to reside if necessary. So if the current Pro-Life options are not satisfactory to a person, he/she should consider changing public policy before dealing with the societal implication and side effects of choosing a final solution that is in truth no solution at all.
WORKS CITED
Burke, Theresa Karminski, and David C. Reardon. “Abortion Trauma and Child Abuse.” Post Abortion Review. Elliott Institute. Winter 1998. 20 Nov. 2002.
.
Burton, Douglas. “Fathers and Abortion.” Insights on the News 1 Oct. 2002. 20 Nov. 2002.
“Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” The Charters of Freedom. Exhibit Hall-NARA. n.d. 20 Nov. 2002. .
“Minnesota Child Heritage Protection Act on .” Resources Minnesota Issues. May 1997 rev Nov. 2002. 20 Nov. 2002. .
Piper, John. “Pondering One-Issue Politics on Cruelty to Animals.” One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriages, and the Humane Society. Desiring God: God-Centered Resources from the Ministry of John Piper. n.d. 4 Nov. 2002.
“Pro Life News in Brief” (Post-Abortion Research).National Right to Life News .Sept. 2000 29 Oct. 2002.
Quinden, Anna. “A Simple One-Word Answer.” Newsweek. 21 Oct. 2002. Infotrac Gen’l Reference Ctr Gold 16 Nov. 2002.
Sowell, Thomas. “Cold Compassion.” Forbes. 2 Aug. 1993. 16 Nov 2002.
Thank you and God bless.
Christ be with you,
Dan
Copyright © 2002 Daniel Arnold
By Daniel Arnold
NSM Admin/Editor for the Living Rock Men's Christian Co-Op newsletter
PPPFUA- (http://www.christianity.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID19179|CHID580042|CIID,00.html)
Few who have taken any world history course have not encountered Hitler’s famous slogan—“the Final Solution.” You may ask yourself, “How does this disturbing saying tie-in with a completely controversial matter faced in the American political spectrum today?” Basically, the logical connection is that just as Hitler created a seemingly simplistic answer to deal with the major issues at the time, abortion has surfaced as America’s “Final Solution” to deal with issues surrounding “unwanted” pregnancies. In both circumstances, “The Final Solution” brings along with it unconsidered ramifications when in truth the existing options could be explored further to deal with the original problems.
Before discussing other options, it would be useful to first glance over just why abortion is not a viable option—followed by an examination of just some of the harmful effects of those who subscribe to this supposed cure-all method.
Deciding viable options in a civilized society in an unbiased fashion involves looking at the constitutional definition of what is humane and what our country is founded upon. Perhaps the most profound statement to sum up American philosophy and policy decision-making is found in one sentence of the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—“ (Government Archives). If a person cannot bring themselves to consider an unborn baby as a life-form with the same rights as any other human, perhaps, at the very least, they can consider protecting it under Minnesota’s Statute granted for animals (Government Archives).
Statute 343.2 Subdivision 7 of Minnesota law concerning animals says the following: “No personal shall unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.” Just as John Piper of Desiring God Ministries did, one can ask him or herself the question of why an unborn being that “has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, and finger-grasping” does not earn these same rights like that of a mere animal (Piper).
If those reasons are not enough to clear up in one’s mind about how abortion goes against the fiber of which our nation rests upon, perhaps the Roe vs. Wade decision regarding a father’s choice is. Looking back at Jefferson’s pivotal statement in the Declaration of Independence, we can glance at the phrase, “all men are created equal.” As classical writing uses “men” to apply to both men and women, them it would seem logical to grant parental rights to both father and mother. Unfortunately, even if the father has personal Pro-life values that he is entitled to, he must give up those values and watch his child, in his mind, be murdered without a choice in the matter. Even if he believes the child is human life, he is denied parental rights to that child just because the Roe vs. Wade case does not define him as a parent as of yet. In a “free society”, this puts the father in a possible ethical dilemma—neglecting his right to “liberty” (Burton).
If an individual does not care to decide what the “right” choice is, perhaps he/she might value the unconsidered side effects that the “Final Solution” brings along it. These side effects take on all aspects of a person—mind, body, and soul. Since matters of the soul are undefined in academic circles and matters of the body are just physical, one might value the torturing effects of abortion on the mind the most. Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS) has been studied extensively. “A study in the archives of General Psychiatry,” “diagnosed PAS in 1.4% of 442 women interviewed four times” (“Post-Abortion”). Possible symptoms include flashbacks, difficulty sleeping, and “avoidance of thought about the abortion that lasted more than a month” (“Post-Abortion”). As Dr. Vincent stated, “With 40 million abortions since 1972, this would translate into 560,000 cases of PAS” (“Post-Abortion”). Just a glimpse at a case study of this intense syndrome shows its horrors.
One can look at Emily’s story.
She experienced an abortion twelve years before getting married. Afterward, she refused to allow herself to think about it or grieve what she had lost. This "stuffing away" of emotions worked fine until she began to have children. Emily's first flashback hit her violently when she had her first ultrasound while pregnant with a "wanted" child. As time went on, she would get frequent intrusive thoughts concerning her abortion when looking at the faces of her babies. After a time, she also began to experience habitual, obsessive, and scary thoughts about hurting her children. She imagined… (Burke and Reardon)
This Elliot Institute research case study went on to describe the unimaginable-- thoughts better left never experienced by a reader or by any woman (Burke and Reardon).
While the Post Abortion Syndrome diagnosis may still seem small in number to some, one must consider that the same study found 20% of women who had aborted their to have experienced clinical depression. With basic values in mind that make a “civilized” society function and just one aspect of the dangers of abortion observed, one is faced with the task of finding alternative options. Thankfully, legislation is expanding law all the time to present more options that are actually viable. Already in place are three basic options of adoption, Crisis Pregnancy Center services, and of course prevention. Adoption options have been expanded upon already in recent years (Sowell).
Forced by U.S. Congress amendment of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, Minnesota changed its policy repeatedly regarding how minorities can be adopted. Instead of having the option to prohibit inter-racial adoption, “The 1997 amendments basically replace the "heritage" or "background" considerations for child placement decisions with "the child's best interests" (Minnesota). Such legislation has expanded the amount of worthy recipients of a child into society that would otherwise be disposed (Minnesota).
Prevention is another important consideration. While it may be against one’s principles to postpone intercourse, other forms of birth control, such as contraceptives, present viable options to most. Unfortunately, birth control is not funded by many MediCaid programs, but abortion is (Quindlen). As is no surprise, “For women below the poverty line” abortion “has increased by 25 percent,” according to a 2002 report by the Allan Guttmacher Institute (Quindlen). If no ethical or side effect dilemma is involved in this funding policy, the savings of using birth control instead should be enough of an argument for it (Quindlen).
The bright side is that there is room for change. American law can be continually changed to find places for human life to reside if necessary. So if the current Pro-Life options are not satisfactory to a person, he/she should consider changing public policy before dealing with the societal implication and side effects of choosing a final solution that is in truth no solution at all.
WORKS CITED
Burke, Theresa Karminski, and David C. Reardon. “Abortion Trauma and Child Abuse.” Post Abortion Review. Elliott Institute. Winter 1998. 20 Nov. 2002.
.
Burton, Douglas. “Fathers and Abortion.” Insights on the News 1 Oct. 2002. 20 Nov. 2002.
“Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” The Charters of Freedom. Exhibit Hall-NARA. n.d. 20 Nov. 2002. .
“Minnesota Child Heritage Protection Act on .” Resources Minnesota Issues. May 1997 rev Nov. 2002. 20 Nov. 2002. .
Piper, John. “Pondering One-Issue Politics on Cruelty to Animals.” One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriages, and the Humane Society. Desiring God: God-Centered Resources from the Ministry of John Piper. n.d. 4 Nov. 2002.
“Pro Life News in Brief” (Post-Abortion Research).National Right to Life News .Sept. 2000 29 Oct. 2002.
Quinden, Anna. “A Simple One-Word Answer.” Newsweek. 21 Oct. 2002. Infotrac Gen’l Reference Ctr Gold 16 Nov. 2002.
Sowell, Thomas. “Cold Compassion.” Forbes. 2 Aug. 1993. 16 Nov 2002.
Thank you and God bless.
Christ be with you,
Dan
Copyright © 2002 Daniel Arnold