10012016Sat
Last updateFri, 24 Oct 2014 5pm


 

Questions & Answers

1. The Christian faith has been the voice for the sanctity of life in western culture for over 2000 years. Today we live in a post-Christian culture. This means that we can no longer appeal to our faith to inform our culture regarding politics and law. In a pluralistic society it is better if we rely on natural law (human conscience) when crafting our appeal to culture.

Answer: FALSE - If this were true then Greek, Roman, Germanic and Celtic culture would never have embraced a sanctity of life ethos. The light shines the brightest in the midst of darkness. It is in times like these that truth must confront evil. The Church, the Body of Christ, must, by example, be the primary means to form the consciences of nations regarding the moral demands of God  The culture of life as expressed through our Christian faith is exactly what is required of God's people in a post-Christian culture. 

"You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."  

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Mt 5:13–16). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

2. Do you believe that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of his/her conception or earliest biological beginning?  Even in cases where the mother's life is in physical danger? (Conception being defined as the first moment of human existence, the moment the human zygote has formed.)

Answer: YES - The medical association of Ireland, one of the countries who has the highest "safe birth" ratings in the world, have stated that due to the advancement of medical knowledge there is no medical condition that requires abortion. Two decades ago there was only one means of creating a human life, today, there are over 30 unique ways to create a human being. Regardless of our manner of conception each human life is created by God in His image (imago dei) and therefore has certain inalienable rights. Government is called upon to recognize and defend these rights. Because these rights come from our Creator, government can never be allowed to define or abridge these rights without incurring the just judgment of God.

"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 . . ."

 

3. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or of the mother: it is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth and unique genetic fingerprint?

Answer: TRUE - Once fertilized he or she is called a zygote at this stage, until reaching the uterus 3-4 days later. Forty-six chromosomes combine, which predetermine all of a person's physical characteristics. All that is necessary for a successful birth is time, nutrition and a protective environment.
 

4. From the first moment of his/her existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life?

Answer:  YES - Personhood must be classified as an inalienable right conferred by God and not by government.  The personhood of the preborn has already been established by God; now Personhood can and must be recognized by government as a superior right.  The root problem of abortion is that too many women see the child in the womb as nothing more than a blob of reproductive tissue.  We need to focus on the fact that they are terminating the life of a young person who has rights and who is owed certain inalienable rights under our laws.  It begins with each of us recognizing the Personhood of every unborn child.
 
5. The ultimate goal of the modern pro-life movement is, and has always been _________

Answer:  In 1985, Dr. Willke, founder and former president of National Right to Life explained that “the ultimate prolife goal is quite direct and very simple.  Pro-lifers want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. . .that will give equal protection under the law, to all living humans from the time their biologic  life begins at fertilization until natural death. . .the intermediate goal . . .is a Constitutional Amendment returning the right to make decisions about abortion to each individual state.”  (from his book Love Them Both) It appears that the intermediate goal is now the pursuit of Personhood at the state level.

 
6.  As a matter of policy the pro-life movment has only allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest or only when the physical life of the mother is threatened.
Answer:   FALSE - As a matter of policy, the pro-life movement has NEVER allowed abortions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Current strategy allows for it.  It has become a matter of pragmatism that the pro-life movement has been willing to sacrifice babies conceived in rape or incest in order to get laws passed that supposedly are pro-life.  As a matter of principle, it is not a pro-life law if one class of persons is singled out as not having the right to life under that law. The Law of Non-Contradiction asserts that one's strategy must never undermine one's policy.
 
7. Pro-life candidates who support abortion only in cases of rape, incest or the physical life of the mother ____________

Answer:  Candidates who are “pro-life with exceptions” are NOT pro-life.  We can infer that they are willing to sacrifice a whole class of people (those conceived in rape or incest.)  This is not a principled pro-life stand.  It is compromise.  These candidates would be surprised to learn that "they are really pro-abortion with certain exceptions for life." (Jill Stanek)  In 1977, the Hyde Amendment damaged the very fabric of the pro-life movement.  In the ensuing years, over 54 million children have died.  By supporting candidates who are “pro-life with exceptions,” we have paid a terrible price by straying from our foundational principle of Personhood.

 

8. When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-death law, it would be morally acceptable (licit) for an elected official, whose absolute personal support for the defense of the sanctity of life is well known, to support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality, as long as, such a law does not explicitly identify a class of human life that can legally be killed?

Answer: TRUE - For an in depth article about this please read “Incrementalism vs. Immediatism”—Strategy of the National Personhood Alliance by clicking on this link:  http://preview.tinyurl.com/pqodqfh

 
9. Which of the following issues have been cited by Christian bio-ethicists as being issues of grave concern facing the pro-life movement in the 21st century?
Answer: ALL of the Above -  Professor Michael Sleasman, managing director and research scholar for The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, explains that “while many of the ethical questions of the late 20th century dealt with the bio-ethical concerns over the beginning and end of life issues (the making, and the taking of human life,) the questions raised by these new emerging technologies threaten to change the nature of the human species and the very essence of what it means to be human.” Germ-line intervention, transhuman enhancement, designer babies, cyborgs, chimeras—these are all an attempt to advance the human species by human means by a culture that rejects the absolute truth that God created humanity in His own image.  Personhood is the only public policy that assures the protection of what it means to be human.
 

10.During the previous generation there have been over forty years of abortion on demand. Do you believe that this generation of Americans can end abortion?

Answer: YES!  If this generation of Americans returns to First Principles in Politics and follows Personhood as its Roadmap, then this generation could end abortion.  Nothing has proven to be more pragmatic than taking the principled stand for Life!