I am Edwin H. Palmer, the Executive Secretary of an international Bible translation, sponsored by the New York Bible Society. I testify in behalf of the New Jersey Right to Life Committee, being the chairman of its Executive Committee. I also testify in behalf of the New Jersey Christian Action Foundation, a Protestant interdenominational organization.
I am Edwin H. Palmer, the Executive Secretary of an international Bible translation, sponsored by the New York Bible Society. I testify in behalf of the New Jersey Right to Life Committee, being the chairman of its Executive Committee. I also testify in behalf of the New Jersey Christian Action Foundation, a Protestant interdenominational organization.
I have three points to make concerning the Crane liberalized abortion bill:
1. The state has a moral duty to legislate concerning abortion.
It has been suggested that abortion is a private, moral affair between a mother and her doctor; and that the state has no more business in dealing with abortion than it does in the regulation of birth control practices.
Such an assertion of privacy can be made only if it is true that the fetus is a thing and not a person. If it is a thing, an organ of the mother, or a nonhuman object, then the New Jersey legislature has no right to make any restrictions on abortion at all. Then the Crane bill, in proposing a 90-day limit, would infringe upon the sovereign rights of the mother.
If, however, the fetus is a person, then the New Jersey legislature has not only a right, but also a duty to legislate concerning abortion. For the task of the state is to protect and foster the rights of people, and in this case it would mean the rights of an unborn child.
Sincere doubts in many people’s minds about the humanity of the fetus does not mean that the legislature should leave the matter to the individual conscience.
Because of the New Morality one college student, after killing a girl, said, “I loved her so much I had to kill her.” The fact that he was sincere and moved by moral convictions does not mean that this killing was a private matter. The state has an obligation tq legislate against such killing, even if the murderer thinks he is religiously right. Murder is never a private matter.
In the same way, sincere doubts on the part of many citizens that a 90-day old fetus is a person does not permit a legisiature to take n hands-off attitude, leaving abortion to the conscience of every individual.
If a legislator believes that the fetus is a person, then, regardless of the sincerity of the views of others who may disagree, he has a solemn responsibility to vote for legislation that will protect the life of that person.
This is, of course, the ground for the New Jersey Supreme Court decision causing a mother to have a blood transfusion against her religious convictions. It was judged that the unborn child was not a thing but a human person; and that it is the duty of the state to protect the right to life of all people, born or unborn.
If, however, a legislator is convinced that the unborn child is an impersonal thing, then he must reckon with the following principle.
2. If there is any reasonable possibility that the fetus is in fact human life, then it is morally wrong to abolish that life.
It would be immoral to take the life of an alleged murderer if there was a reasonable possibility that he was innocent. It would be wrong to shoot in target practice if you were not absolutely sure that there was no human in back of the target. So also it is morally unjustifiable to take the life of the fetus when there is not absolute certainty that it is just an impersonal object.
And that many do believe that the unborn fetus is not just a thing but is human life is evidenced from:
a. The anti-abortion legislation of the past
b. The many court decisions on abortion
c. The many church pronouncements
d. The views of many theologians of all faiths, fetologists, physicians and legislators of your own Assembly and Senate.
3. The right-to-life philosophy of abortion is an ecumenical one.
We must once and for all rid ourselves of the myth that abortion is a Catholic issue. The following, which is only a sample, suggests the wide, ecumenical background of the right-to-life philosophy:
a. The time-honored Hippocratic Oath, which can hardly be called Catholic or Christian, since it was formulated by the Greeks in a pre-Christian era. The physician who takes this oath swears, “I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”
b. The pronouncements of several Protestant denominations.
c. The views of 20th century Protestant theologians of international stature, such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Ramsey and Helmut Thielicke.
d. The opinions of American Protestant theologians in innumerable seminaries of many different denominations.
e. The stand of the New Jersey and national Right-To-Life Committees, which are composed of Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.
f. The position of the New Jersey and national Christian Action Foundation, a Protestant organization concerned with social problems.
I have three points to make concerning the Crane liberalized abortion bill:
1. The state has a moral duty to legislate concerning abortion.
It has been suggested that abortion is a private, moral affair between a mother and her doctor; and that the state has no more business in dealing with abortion than it does in the regulation of birth control practices.
Such an assertion of privacy can be made only if it is true that the fetus is a thing and not a person. If it is a thing, an organ of the mother, or a nonhuman object, then the New Jersey legislature has no right to make any restrictions on abortion at all. Then the Crane bill, in proposing a 90-day limit, would infringe upon the sovereign rights of the mother.
If, however, the fetus is a person, then the New Jersey legislature has not only a right, but also a duty to legislate concerning abortion. For the task of the state is to protect and foster the rights of people, and in this case it would mean the rights of an unborn child.
Sincere doubts in many people’s minds about the humanity of the fetus does not mean that the legislature should leave the matter to the individual conscience.
Because of the New Morality one college student, after killing a girl, said, “I loved her so much I had to kill her.” The fact that he was sincere and moved by moral convictions does not mean that this killing was a private matter. The state has an obligation tq legislate against such killing, even if the murderer thinks he is religiously right. Murder is never a private matter.
In the same way, sincere doubts on the part of many citizens that a 90-day old fetus is a person does not permit a legisiature to take n hands-off attitude, leaving abortion to the conscience of every individual.
If a legislator believes that the fetus is a person, then, regardless of the sincerity of the views of others who may disagree, he has a solemn responsibility to vote for legislation that will protect the life of that person.
This is, of course, the ground for the New Jersey Supreme Court decision causing a mother to have a blood transfusion against her religious convictions. It was judged that the unborn child was not a thing but a human person; and that it is the duty of the state to protect the right to life of all people, born or unborn.
If, however, a legislator is convinced that the unborn child is an impersonal thing, then he must reckon with the following principle.
2. If there is any reasonable possibility that the fetus is in fact human life, then it is morally wrong to abolish that life.
It would be immoral to take the life of an alleged murderer if there was a reasonable possibility that he was innocent. It would be wrong to shoot in target practice if you were not absolutely sure that there was no human in back of the target. So also it is morally unjustifiable to take the life of the fetus when there is not absolute certainty that it is just an impersonal object.
And that many do believe that the unborn fetus is not just a thing but is human life is evidenced from:
a. The anti-abortion legislation of the past
b. The many court decisions on abortion
c. The many church pronouncements
d. The views of many theologians of all faiths, fetologists, physicians and legislators of your own Assembly and Senate.
3. The right-to-life philosophy of abortion is an ecumenical one.
We must once and for all rid ourselves of the myth that abortion is a Catholic issue. The following, which is only a sample, suggests the wide, ecumenical background of the right-to-life philosophy:
a. The time-honored Hippocratic Oath, which can hardly be called Catholic or Christian, since it was formulated by the Greeks in a pre-Christian era. The physician who takes this oath swears, “I will not aid a woman to procure abortion.”
b. The pronouncements of several Protestant denominations.
c. The views of 20th century Protestant theologians of international stature, such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Ramsey and Helmut Thielicke.
d. The opinions of American Protestant theologians in innumerable seminaries of many different denominations.
e. The stand of the New Jersey and national Right-To-Life Committees, which are composed of Jews, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.
f. The position of the New Jersey and national Christian Action Foundation, a Protestant organization concerned with social problems.