Part Four of Six….

“Once you permit the killing of the unborn child, there will be no stopping. There will be no age limit. You are setting off a chain reaction that will eventually make you the victim. Your children will kill you because you permitted the killing of their brothers and sisters. Your children will kill you because they will not want to support you in your old age. Your children will kill you for your homes and estates.  If a doctor will take money for killing the innocent in the womb, he will kill you with a needle when paid by your children. This is the terrible nightmare you are creating for the future.”

Dr. R.A Gallop

The abortion-euthanasia connection goes even further than the natural consequences pointed out by Dr. Gallop. Abortion and euthanasia are the first two movements in a Symphony of Violence. The inspiration comes from the same source; the same composers collaborated on the score; the motifs and themes, the development of the themes, and the form are identical in both movements; the conductors replay the work over and over, hoping it will “catch on.” It becomes a form of brainwashing (seems to me I’ve heard that song before!) The final movement, now being written will be “The Loss of Freedom Lament.” The similarities are worthy of note.

Roots: The inspiration for this symphony comes from the German euthanasia programs which later included abortion.

International Promoters: Glanville Williams, Joseph Fletcher, and A. Guttmacher (former president of Planned Parenthood) are among those who have been in the forefront of the abortion and euthanasia movements, promoting the right to kill – others.

Agents of Social Change: Planned Parenthood has been drafting and recommending to their membership a Five Year Plan which is redrafted every two years. Their “mission” outlined in the plan “is to serve as the nation’s foremost agent of social change” as they work towards legalizing abortion in every country in the world and towards even higher goals for their own abortion clinics. There is a similar document, a Ten Year Plan (1974-83) which outlines the strategy for conditioning society to accept euthanasia. The document is entitled A Social Invention and is known as the Alethea Document. It was produced by Task Force on Death and Dying at the Center for a Human Future in Syracuse, New York. Their goal is to effect social policy through legislation. The promotion of living wills on death and dying (d&d) and education are priorities. The law which they envision would allow the patient and his doctor to decide together the time and mode of death.

Conditioning Process: Polls and legislative bills generate publicity and help mould public opinion. (A poll taken among doctors would influence the general public.) This is the conditioning process; polls ask leading questions of the uninformed and often fail to mention how many did not answer the questionnaire. It is worth remembering that if a poll is taken and the answers are not satisfactory to the party who paid for the service, the results of the poll will never be made public.

Language Power: Slogans are important, although we are informed that “freedom to choose” is not the same as advocating abortion or euthanasia. Euphemisms abound; products of pregnancy, mercy killing, death with dignity. The “right to die” is really the “right to kill”. There is a blurring in the meaning of words; good/evil (killing becomes virtuous), health/disease, humanity/inhumanity.

Personhood arguments: Promoters of abortion and euthanasia withhold human legal status from the unwanted. This has been done in the past to the black people, Indians, and women. People are relieved of their rights by declaring them non-persons. The unborn, the deformed, and the elderly in “vegetative states” are suffering this indignity now. It is easier to kill non-persons.

Compassionate Killing: Abortion and euthanasia are killing in the name of compassion or mercy. They are always represented as the lesser of two evils; it is better than self-induced or other illegal abortions; it is better than a botched-up attempt at euthanasia by a relative or friend.

The Freedom Argument: Euthanasia societies promote voluntary euthanasia to the public, recognizing the importance of freedom. A further reading of the work of the leaders in the movement reveals that their goal is for involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is most often practiced now – on deformed infants and on the unborn (prenatal euthanasia). Legislative guidelines are seldom followed in any country; limited abortion becomes abortion on demand.

Patient’s Rights: Bills on Witholding Treatment tend to be interpreted by the press and readers as Right to Die bills. If you disconnect the respirator and the patient doesn’t die, what is the next step in ensuring the patient’s “right” to die? Abortion, which was legalized for specific cases in many countries, is now interpreted as a woman’s “right” in these same countries.

Political Strategy: Key states (New York and California) are the first targets on the road to federal laws for mercy killing, just as they were for abortion. It has been said “the other states will fall into line.” In the year following the passage of California’s so-called right to die legislation (January 1977), several other states – Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas – passed similar laws.

Legal Strategy: The protection of doctors from criminal prosecution and malpractice suits has been given as reason to change the laws on abortion and euthanasia. However, “in Canada no doctor has ever been charged or prosecuted for doing an abortion to save the life of the mother” (Morality and Law in Canadian Politics, A. deValk, 1974). “Apparently there has never been an indictment, let alone a conviction for a ‘mercy killing’ by omission, not even one which directly and immediately produces death” (Yale Karnisar, Child and Family 1971).

Doctors and Human Rights: The doctors who perform abortions and those who practice euthanasia are attempting to treat social (non-medical) problems by killing (premeditated homicide). They practice a double standard by treating the wanted and killing the unwanted. This is discrimination on a human rights level.

Depression: Studies have shown that women frequently change their minds about abortion. These changes often correspond to changing hormonal patterns at various stages of the pregnancy. Dr. Rory H. Fisher, Chief of Extended Care Unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto, stated that a study in England, of people who had requested euthanasia, found that when those people were treated for combat depression, they changed their minds about welcoming death. Is this caring for people’s needs or entrapment of the vulnerable?

Disabilities: Dr. C. Everett Koop, renowned pediatric surgeon and co-author of Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Has treated many severely deformed children. He points out: “ It has been my constant experience that disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go together. Some of the most unhappy children whom I have known have all their physical and mental faculties, and on the other hand some of the happiest youngsters have borne burdens which I myself would find very difficult to bear.” Killing off the handicapped would not leave us with a population of happy people.

Death education – sex education: Because of the escalating number of suicides among the young, there is a movement for death education, just as we now have sex education to counteract the escalating number of abortions.

Health Care? Abortion Clinics have been established in many centres to handle this new type of “health care.” A Swedish public-health physician has suggested that we should have suicide clinics – not to treat, but to help people do the job competently.

Today, the public has a number of conflicting ideas to sort out:

The works of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross inform us that the dying patients bargain with God for a little more time. At the same time, euthanasia societies are pushing for the right to die.

Today there is a greater recognition of human rights for all, yet when juries hear mercy killing cases “the great majority… end in acquittal, either outright or for reasons of insanity or suspended sentences” (Toronto Star, January 14, 1974). Do some people have more rights than others?

(to be continued…)