Following yesterday’s podcast, Dr. Mohler offers additional comments concerning Katrina Efferts’ murder of her baby. He writes on his blog today:
The case emerged from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, where a judge faced the fact that a woman had been convicted of strangling her newborn son and then throwing the baby’s body over the fence into her neighbor’s yard.
As CBC News reported, the woman was given a three-year suspended sentence and will spend no time in jail for the killing of her baby. Katrina Efferts “will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her own son.”
Justice Joanne Veit, whose name should now go down in legal and moral infamy, tied this woman’s act of infanticide to Canada’s lack of legal restrictions on abortion. The judge’s decision stated that “while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”
She continued: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.” She also stated that the Canadian approach is a “fair compromise of all the interests involved.”
Two juries had found Effert guilty of second-degree murder, but an appeals court had reduced her conviction to infanticide.
The moral dishonesty of the entire tragedy comes down to the fact that, in legalizing abortion, liberal societies claimed to be making a bargain. We will not protect unborn life, but we will defend all those who make it to birth. Of course, the dividing line was always dishonest. Are we seriously to believe that human personhood is a matter of mere location, inside or outside the womb?
The entire article is worth a read.
Last week, The New York Times Magazine ran a horrifying story about a woman who conceived twins through IVF and then terminated one of the babies (referred to as pregnancy reduction). The biggest issue to note is that the woman who is aborting one twin (as is the case in many of these situations) is doing so out of convenience and preference for her and not because of her concern for the babies (which is still no excuse). Dr. Denny Burk and Dr. Albert Mohler have both commented on this article and I’ve included a couple of excerpts below.
Dr. Denny Burk introduces us to the topic:
The New York Times Magazine has a heartbreaking article on yet another monument to the culture of death—pregnancy reduction. In case you have never heard the term, here’s what pregnancy reduction is in a nutshell. When a pregnant mother is carrying two or more babies in her womb, she can choose to kill one or more of those babies while allowing others to live. According to pro-choicers, pregnancy reduction is a practice that began years ago to reduce health risks for women carrying multiples. Pro-choicers have also reasoned that pregnancy reduction increases chances for surviving multiples to make it to term. But that was then, and this is now. What began as a misguided attempt to help women and (some!) unborn babies, has now devolved into the slippery slope. Now, the procedure is increasingly performed on women carrying twins. In fact, the Times article focuses in particular on the increasing number of women who carry twins but who for whatever reason only want one of them to live. The reasons for killing one and letting the other live range from finances to time-management.
In this article, the euphemism “pregnancy reduction” is a rouse. It is a term that attempts to cover-up a great moral evil. The expression plainly functions to deflect attention from an intolerable contradiction—that one unborn child might be allowed to live while its perfectly healthy sibling is destroyed. But the covering is a fig leaf, and that is seen most conspicuously in the troubled consciences of the mothers and medical professionals in this article who have participated in this procedure.
At the end of the day, it’s not just the euphemism that is the problem. It is the heinous evil that the euphemism is trying to hide that should scandalize us. Reducing a pregnancy means killing an innocent human. Just as we don’t want to give in to the mores of a decadent culture, neither should we be complicit in covering evil with clever obfuscations. Such talk is a not-too subtle throwback to an ancient method that humans use to justify sin—calling evil good and calling good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Make no mistake. God is outraged at that, and so should we.
Dr. Albert Mohler‘s commentary begins:
Euphemisms are the refuge of moral cowardice, and no euphemism is so cowardly or so deadly as “reduction” — a word that sounds like math, but really means murder. The August 14, 2011 edition of The New York Times Magazine makes this fact clear in its cover story, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy.”
“The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” is one of the most significant articles of recent years. With chilling and unflinching candor, Ruth Padawer virtually forces her readers to see the twisted thinking that justifies the killing of the unborn, and then she tries to evade moral responsibility by calling the procedure a “reduction.”
There is a story behind this story, of course. The intersection where modern reproductive technologies and legal abortion meet is now a deadly place for many unborn babies. In the name of personal preference and for “social reasons,” some women now demand that their multiple babies be aborted so that they will have only the one baby they want.
Padawer says that many Americans are uneasy about this knowledge, perhaps “because the desire for more choices conflicts with our discomfort about meddling with ever more aspects of reproduction.”
But the procedure so dishonestly called “reduction” is really not about mere “meddling.” It is murder.
I would encourage you to read the original article in its entirety and pray for these precious babies who are losing their lives to “preference.” God hears their cries.
It should be no surprise that those who fight for the right to murder unborn children are also declaring battle on those who work so hard to protect these little ones. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are crucial in that they provide all manner of help to those women who believe they have no other option but abortion. Many times, once a mom sees her precious child with the technology of an ultrasound, she changes her mind about aborting the baby.
This morning, Dr. Albert Mohler pens an article highlighting the attacks against Crisis Pregnancy Centers. He writes:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s declaration of war upon the unborn in its infamous 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, caught most conservative Christians unprepared and unaware. This shock to the nation’s conscience required Christians and other pro-life activists to develop arguments, strategies, and organizations in order to confront the Culture of Death and the legalized killing of the unborn.
The Roe v. Wade decision was quickly repackaged by pro-abortion forces into a “pro-choice” argument that was intended to avoid the scandal of being pro-abortion. Nevertheless, the pro-choice mantra never really worked as a public relations strategy for pro-abortion forces for one simple reason: The only “choice” the pro-abortion forces would accept or respect is the choice to abort.
If that sounds extreme, just consider recent developments in cities like Baltimore, New York, and San Francisco. First in Baltimore, and then in New York City, municipal governments passed laws intended to shut down or curtail the work of crisis pregnancy centers in their cities. The crisis pregnancy centers have been among the most important platforms for saving unborn human lives and reasserting human dignity.
Now, city officials in San Francisco have launched their own effort to shutter crisis pregnancy centers, claiming that staff at the centers impose “anti-abortion propaganda and mistruths on suspecting women.”
Note the reference to anti-abortion arguments as “propaganda,” as if there could only be one side to the issue. Dennis Herrera, the San Francisco city attorney who is running for mayor, called the crisis pregnancy centers “right wing” and “politically motivated.” There was no acknowledgment of the fact that pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood are “left wing” and “politically motivated.” Furthermore, given the millions of dollars of income made by Planned Parenthood and other major components of the abortion industry, the phrase “financially motivated” should be added as well. Where are the calls for honesty from Planned Parenthood?
The work of Crisis Pregnancy Centers is crucial. If you would like more information about how you can help in Louisville, please visit A Woman’s Choice Resource Center for more information.
I would also encourage you to read the rest of Dr. Mohler’s article here.
Saturday is the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision which has made legal the slaughter of millions of children. Here in Louisville, several pro-choice groups have come together in order to “celebrate” this day with events during the week leading up to Saturday. And as horrific it was for me see events set up to celebrate this decision, something even more horrible caught my attention yesterday.
In light of the events mentioned above, there are two articles that are worth noting. The first, written by Dr. Albert Mohler, is in reaction to the Pennsylvania doctor mentioned above and the internationally publicized abortion of twin boys conceived via IVF because the couple wanted a girl.
The Christian revulsion over abortion and the destruction of human life is based in the knowledge that God is the Author of all life and of every life, without exception. Abortion is the business of death, and it is the great wound that runs through the nation’s conscience. These shocking accounts may sear their way into the nation’s collective conscience, but unless the basic logic of abortion rights is overturned, such accounts will erupt again and again.
You can read the rest of the article here.
The other post is a chapter Justin Taylor wrote for For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper called “Abortion is about God: Piper’s Passionate, Prophetic Pro-Life Preaching.”
The opening paragraph:
Evangelicalism—in the Reformed camp or elsewhere—is not exactly overflowing with models of how to preach exegetically faithful, powerfully prophetic, culture-engaging, hope-giving, gospel-centered sermons on the politically charged and personally painful topic of abortion. But for the past twenty years John Piper has been doing just that. In this chapter I want to survey Piper’s sermons and writings on abortion as an encouragement and a model for preachers—and all believers—to honor God and defend the defenseless by proclaiming God’s Word and engaging the world on the issue of abortion.
It is very important for the local church to preach the Gospel and the whole counsel of the Bible. We are to be shaped by God’s word; we do not bend what it says to fit our own, sinful agenda. And one of the issues addressed by the Word is the precious gift of life which God created which means taking a life inside the womb is murder, regardless of the legal status.