THE "RELIGIOUS" STRATEGY OF THE PRO-ABORTIONISTS

There is a saying that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. One could equally make the case that religion is the last refuge of the pro-abortion variety of scoundrels. Their use of religion is most creative: They are ready to invoke religion to justify the right to have an abortion ("it's a matter between a woman, her doctor, and her God"), but consider it unacceptable to invoke religion to justify the right to life.

When "her God" gives a woman permission to have her child killed by an abortionist, she exercises a constitutional right. When pro-lifers seek to protect the child because God has created the child in His image and endowed her with the inalienable right to life, they are accused of imposing religious doctrine on the public in violation of "separation of church and state." Pro-abortionists insist on having it both ways.

Of course, pro-abortionists are quite willing to live with blatant contradictions. Who can forget the eminent molecular biologist from Yale University who in a U.S. Senate hearing in the 1980s testified, with a straight face, that human life begins at birth - - as if biological knowledge of human development hadn't dramatically changed since ancient times. Unfortunately, this scientist's unscientific position is quite common among pro-abortion biologists. Such a deliberately uninformed "belief" is a sort of primitive and perverted religion, a form of " superstition," you might say.

The contradictions inherent in that position are truly astonishing. Abortionists can use the most recent scientific knowledge to refine their "search-and-destroy missions" in their war against children in the womb. Yet when pro-lifers make use of scientific knowledge, too, and point to the undisputed fact that each human life begins at conception and, therefore, ought to be protected from then on, they are accused of imposing " religious dogma." In modern hospitals, premature babies are cared for in one room while in another room babies of the same gestational age are being aborted, sacrificed on the altar of the religion of "choice." Skillful practitioners of prenatal medicine are treating sick babies in the womb, before birth, with surgery and other techniques.

In view of the unscientific dogma that "human life begins at birth," are we to assume that these physicians are actually veterinarians and not doctors of human medicine? (Let me add that veterinary medicine is a noble profession.)G. K. Chesterton observed that those not believing in God are ready to believe in anything. Similarly, one could observe that those rejecting the teachings of traditional religion are ready to make a religion out of anything. For pro-abortionists, "choice" is their religion. (They even speak of abortion as a "rite of passage," an "empowering" experience. Some of the more extreme adherents of the religion of "choice" even consider abortion a kind of sacrament.)

The primitive religion of "choice" has no substantive underpinnings: neither in science nor the laws of nature, neither in sound moral theology nor in divine revelation. Its appeal lies in its promise of a moral shortcut, a quick way out of a difficult situation. "Her God" gives a woman permission to act out of narrow self-interest and for the sake of convenience: "Let's get it over with and go on." The moral shortcut, however, comes at a heavy price: Not only is an innocent child dead, but those who robbed that unborn child of its personhood, logically, declared themselves worthless. Why shouldn't their own personhood be contingent on someone else's choice?

With regard to "mainstream" religion, pro-abortionists pursued from the very beginning a dual religious strategy of hiding behind a religious fig leaf while attacking religion at the same time.

The religious fig leaf has taken various forms. In the late 1960s there was New York's "Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion," whose main purposes were to make abortion respectable and refer women to abortionists. Then came the "Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights," now renamed the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice," claiming to represent a broad cross-section of denominations. And let's not forget the media darling "Catholics for a Free Choice," a letterhead organization with practically no members but rich funding from pro-abortion foundations. The common characteristic of such organizations is that they are always ready to provide a religious justification of abortion on demand. They are loved by the press for providing quotable "dissent" from established teaching.

While the "religious fig leaf strategy" has had fair success, the " attack strategy" has been spectacularly successful. As Dr. Nathanson reported in his book Aborting America, instead of just fighting for the repeal of laws prohibiting abortion on demand, pro-abortionists decided in the late 1960s to "identify those unjust laws witha group of people," namely the Catholic hierarchy. It was a brilliant tactic that exploited widespread anti-Catholic bias. Opposition to abortion was now a "Catholic thing." People might not know much about laws prohibiting abortion but they sure were opposed to Catholic "doctrine" having the force of law. (They did not draw the logical conclusion that laws against murder, theft, etc. should then be repealed for the same reasons.)

In the 1970s, evangelical groups publicly proclaimed their opposition to abortion, so they, too, were attacked. Ever since, pro-abortionists have busied themselves with dark warnings about the "religious right" - - again an appeal to prejudice.

The attack strategy, however, went beyond the exploitation of prejudice against pro-life churches. In the case of the Catholic Church, for example, pro-abortionists went to court over that church's pro-life activities in order to deprive it of its tax-exempt status and make it ineffective in the arena of public policy. (After years of lengthy and expensive litigation, the attack was beaten back.) In fact, pro-abortionists have used all means at their disposal to deny pro-life churches their First Amendment rights.

Pro-abortionists claim for themselves an undisputed right to formulate public policy. They know the law "teaches." That is why they want to force pro-life churches and their members out of the debate over public policy. You, your congregation, and your pastor must insist on the right to participate in that debate.