I. The Security of Israel; The Formation of a
The Democratic Party is
fundamentally committed to the security of our ally Israel and the
creation of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace between Israel
and her neighbors….We support the creation of a democratic
Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by
side with the Jewish State of Israel. The creation of a Palestinian
state should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing
them to settle there, rather than in Israel.3
We support President
Bush’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by
side in peace and security. However, as he observed in his remarks
of June 24, 2002, for such a vision to become a reality,
Palestinians need a new leadership, not compromised by terror. Like
all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves
their interests and listens to their voices. If Palestinians embrace
democracy and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly
reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation
of a Palestinian state. The Bush Administration has been clear about
the obligations of Arab nations in achieving peace in the Middle
To help Christians understand the issues involved in the formation of
a Palestinine state, and it’s relationship to Israel’s security, we
present a portion of an interview Dr. Ankerberg held with Jimmy DeYoung,
a journalist who has lived in Isreal for nearly 15 years.
Will a Palestinian State help Israel?
Dr. John Ankerberg: If a demilitarized Palestinian state does
come into existence, hook or crook, somewhere up ahead, should Israel
and should the world rely on it?
Dr. Jimmy DeYoung: Well, you know, I think that’s almost an
oxymoron: a "demilitarized" Palestinian state. I don’t see how that’s
ever going to come to existence, because the philosophy of the
Palestinian people and their leadership is, "We’re going to have our own
independence and our covenant"—the Palestinian Covenant—calls, in 36
places, 36 clauses, "get rid of the Jewish state. Get rid of the Jewish
people here in the Middle East." So, I don’t think that’ll ever happen.
They talked about it, but talk is cheap. Are they going to have a
demilitarized Palestinian state there anyplace? I don’t think they’re
going to sit still. I mean, I can’t imagine any Palestinian leader, if
Yasser Arafat is off the scene, any other potential leaders coming to
power and saying, "Okay. Lay down your weapons. We’re not going to have
any military force." Well, hey, listen, that’s what the Oslo Accords
called for. It called for 18,000 policemen, Palestinian policemen, to
police their people–not to be a military operation. Now, I’ve driven
by–maybe you have, too, John–Jericho, where that camp to train those
Palestinian policemen is located down there. They weren’t training them
as I know some of the city police are trained. They were training to be
military operatives, and that number, 18,000, grew to about 60,000 and
they were Yasser Arafat’s personal military operation. And many of those
Palestinian policemen were the ones, members of Fateh, members of the
al-Aqsa Brigade, these terrorist groups who perpetrated the violence and
the suicide bombing and all of that on the Jewish people.
So, I’m not sure how you could ever have a demilitarized Palestinian
state. I think it would just be a lie. Could we rely upon them?
Absolutely not. You can’t trust them.
Will the PLO change their charter, dropping the mandate to eradicate
Ankerberg: Henry Kissinger in his weekly syndicated column in the
New York Post has joined a growing list of prominent Americans and
Israelis who have publicly now called on the PLO to change 30 of the 33
clauses in the PLO National Covenant that called for the destruction of
Israel or that urge violence against Israel. Now, Kissinger is simply
saying this, and I’m going to quote him: "Dropping from the PLO charter
the mandate to eradicate Israel is symbolically important, which is the
reason why the PLO’s delay in carrying out this commitment is so
disquieting." Actually, in 1993 they told the world they were going to
change the charter; they haven’t done it yet. Kissinger says, "No such
changes have been made nor has the PLO specified which particular
articles will be changed or when they will go into effect. By leaving
the covenant intact [the PLO charter] the PLO is sending a clear message
that it has not renounced violence nor accepted Israel’s right to
exist." Jimmy, what is going on with the PLO? Why haven’t they changed
the charter? Do you think they intend to?
DeYoung: I don’t believe they intend to. The reason they have not
changed it, that is still their goal—to eliminate the Jewish presence in
the Middle East through armed struggle. Right here in my file I have a
copy of the Palestinian Covenant, and in my file also in my office I
have a copy of a letter that Yasser Arafat sent the first week of
September in 1993 promising Yitzhak Rabin, 1.) he would denounce
terrorism; 2.) he would do everything he could to get rid of terrorism
in the Middle East and in particular Israel, and 3.) he would change the
Palestinian Covenant taking out those clauses in question. In this last
year, they have had a meeting of the PNC, the Palestinian National
Council. The purpose was, propagated to the world anyway, that they were
going to come together and change the Palestinian Covenant. At the
conclusion of that meeting, Shimon Peres, who was the Prime Minister,
announced to the world the most historic event in the last 100 years had
taken place because the Palestinians had changed the Palestinian
Covenant. President Bill Clinton, based upon that statement, invited
Yasser Arafat to Washington, DC to be his special guest in the White
House. This man who is the world’s best-known terrorist, responsible for
more Jewish blood on his hands than any other man since Adolf Hitler,
responsible for over 1,000 Palestinian deaths, those deaths coming at
his command, this man was a guest of the President of the United States
propagating to the world that they had changed the covenant. And as I
speak, and as Henry Kissinger gives us evidence, that Palestinian
Covenant has not been changed because their intentions are still the
same: they want to wipe out the Jewish presence in the Middle East.5
II. Stem Cell Research; Abortion
Democratic Party Platform
Republican Party Platform
President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy
Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for
assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his
wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100
million Americans who have serious illnesses– from Alzheimer’s to
heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue
this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will
not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human
Stem Cell Research
supported, and will continue to support, important scientific
research without undermining the fundamental ethical principles that
have guided medical research in this country for decades. We
especially welcome and encourage a stronger emphasis on adult stem
cell and cord blood stem cell research, which has already provided
benefits to hundreds of patients and provides real promise for
treatments to help millions of Americans.We recognize that President
Bush made a carefully considered decision to allow federal funding
for stem cell research for the first time, and did not affect stem
cell research in the private sector. We strongly support the
President’s policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to
encourage the future destruction of human embryos.7
believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a
woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless
of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to
undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family
planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal,
country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the
Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has
a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We
support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse
legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s
protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have
legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who
perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and
will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the
appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the
sanctity of innocent human life….In signing the partial birth
abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that "the most basic duty
of government is to defend the life of the innocent.9
Since the embryonic stem cell research and abortion both get into the
issue of when life begins, we will deal with them together. Below, we
present scientific evidence that life begins at conception.
What does modern science conclude about when human life begins?10
The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But
these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the
question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life
begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not
philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the
evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well
documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or
physician can deny it.
In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade
decision that it did not have to decide the "difficult question" of when
life begins. Why? In essence, they said, "It is impossible to say when
human life begins."11
The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the
Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two
years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220
distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an
amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the
Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already
established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child
from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a
person, like its mother.12
The brief set as its task "to show how clearly and conclusively modern
science—embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of
biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child."13
For example, "In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the
familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult....
The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out
impulses that coordinate the function of other organs…. The heart beats
sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures
blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid
from the child’s blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already
be set in motion. After the eighth week… everything is already
present that will be found in the full term baby."14
This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins
at conception and that "the unborn is a person within the meaning of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."15
In fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, nearly every medical and
biological textbook assumed or taught that human life begins at
conception. That human life begins at conception was an accepted medical
fact, but not necessarily a discussed medical fact. This is why many
textbooks did not devote a discussion to this issue. But many others
did. For example, Mr. Patrick A. Trueman helped prepare a 1975 brief
before the Illinois Supreme Court on the unborn child. He noted,
We introduced an affidavit from a professor of medicine detailing
19 textbooks on the subject of embryology used in medical schools
today which universally agreed that human life begins at conception…
those textbooks agree that is when human life begins. The court didn’t
strike that down—the court couldn’t strike that down because there was
a logical/biological basis for that law.16
Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to
the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was
insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence,
their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not
scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the
editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the
"curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows,
that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or
extra-uterine until death."17
Even 25 years after the abortion revolution that politicized
scientific opinion, medical texts today still often assume or affirm
that human life begins at conception. For example, Keith L. Moore is
professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of
Toronto Faculty of Medicine. His text, The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology, is widely used in core courses in
medical embryology. This text asserts:
The processes by which a child develops from a single cell are
Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum
from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male. Growth and
differentiation transform the zygote, a single cell... into a
multicellular adult human being.18
The reference to the "miraculous processes in a purely secular text
is not surprising. Even a single strand of DNA from a human cell
contains information equivalent to a library of 1,000 volumes. The
complexity of the zygote itself according to Dr. Hymie Gordon, chief
geneticist at the Mayo Clinic, "is so great that it is beyond our
In a short nine months’ time, one fertilized ovum grows into 6,000
million cells that become a living, breathing person.
Further, medical dictionaries and encyclopedias all affirm that the
embryo is human. Among many we could cite are Dorland’s Illustrated
Medical Dictionary, Tuber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary,
and the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied
Health, which defines the embryo as "the human young from the time
of fertilization of the ovum until the beginning of the third month."20
In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the
question, "When does human life begin?" A group of internationally known
scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.21
The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical School’s
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, "In biology and in medicine, it is an
accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by
sexual reproduction begins at conception...."22
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical
School, testified that "the beginning of a single human life is from a
biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the
beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not
be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals."23
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical
School noted: "The standard medical texts have long taught that human
life begins at conception."24
He added: "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being.
This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late
Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law
professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment
of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment
World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental
genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, "each
individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception."27
Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: "The human nature of the human being from
conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain
The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo
Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, "By all the criteria of
modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of
He further emphasized: "now we can say, unequivocally, that the
question of when life begins… is an established scientific fact…. It is
an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the
moment of conception."30
At that time the U.S. Senate proposed Senate Bill 158, called the
"Human Life Bill." These hearings, which lasted eight days, involving 57
witnesses, were conducted by Senator John East. This Senate report
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majority’s
conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific
grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed
to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that
life begins at any other point than conception.32
Many other biologists and scientists agree that life begins at
conception. All agree that there is no point of time or interval of time
between conception and birth when the unborn is anything but human.
Professor Roth of Harvard University Medical School has emphasized,
"It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive…. It
is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at
conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that
this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of
In conclusion, we agree with pioneer medical researcher, Landrum B.
Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., that, "There is one fact that no one can deny;
human beings begin at conception."34
Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion,
it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every
religious view and no religious view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist,
atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at
conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of
Medical Ethics asserts: "A doctor must always bear in mind the
importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until
This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the
following: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the
time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical
knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."36
These statements can be found in the World Medical Association
Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p.
5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the
Declaration of Geneva.37
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception?
The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then
abortion is the killing of a human life. The same can be said for the
methods used to harvest embryonic stem cells, which results in the
destruction of the embryo.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.38
III. Same-Sex Marriage; The Marriage Amendment
Democratic Party Platform
Republican Party Platform
We support full inclusion
of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In
our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200
years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We
repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the
Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment."39
We strongly support
President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully
protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state
judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living
arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social
science confirms, that the well-being of children is best
accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their
mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further
believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits
afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special
union of one man and one woman which has historically been called
marriage….On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people
must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that
the final decision will rest with the American people and their
Why should Christians be concerned about the push to legalize gay
marriage in America? Dr. Ankerberg spoke with Glenn Stanton from Focus
on the Family to find out.
Why do we need the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect marriage in
the states? Do the American people, as a whole support same-sex
Dr. John Ankerberg: Okay, so the question I want to talk to our
people about is, we’ve seen this happening in Canada; we’ve seen it
happen in Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Belgium. Now we’re debating
the topic here in America, and where are we at in the debate?
Let’s start with the fact that before Massachusetts did their thing
and found this constitutional right and they started okaying gay
marriages in Massachusetts and a bunch went there, went back to the
states, before that even took place, some of our other states, I think
at least 33 of them, they, the state legislatures saw this coming, and
the state legislatures said, "Let’s pass laws that says if any other
state pulls the trigger and they make it legal in their state for people
to be married, this constitutional phrase, namely if you do something in
one state it should be accepted in the other states, it’s not going to
happen here in regards to same-sex marriage."
So 33 of them passed what is called a Defense of Marriage Act, saying
if some state pulls the trigger, it will not be legal here. Okay. Five
other states actually voted on it.
Glenn Stanton: Right.
Ankerberg: Tell us the states because this is really something
Stanton: Well, it’s an overwhelming majority of states that have
done this and have said—and it’s exactly because of this threat—that if
some other state legalizes same-sex marriage, people get married there
and then come back to their home state and try to force a change among
all the rest of us, we want to have it codified in our law that marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. And only a few of these states
have done it constitutionally. All the rest of the states have done it
legislatively through their law.
And they’re vulnerable now, because if a court says that this is a
fundamental human right, then that trumps state law. So the DOMA’s as we
call them, these Defense of Marriage Acts, that are in a great plurality
of states, really are vulnerable under judicial usurpation, these judges
saying, "You know what, this is what marriage is going to be about: it’s
going to be about any grouping of people who we think it might be."
Ankerberg: What got me is the five states that actually voted on
Ankerberg: Okay? You’ve got California, Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska
and Nevada. And the majority of people in those states voted it down…
Ankerberg: …and said, "We want traditional marriage." So that
which you cannot pass with a vote, and that which 33 other states,
through the Legislature, said, "We don’t want,"—that would be 38
states—okay? Now it’s in jeopardy. Why? Because… tell us what happened
Stanton: Well, it’s really the wishes and desires of an elite
group of judges against the people. As you well pointed out, you know,
the American people have spoken clearly through the legislative process
and through the voting process. They do not want same-sex marriage. But
what we’ve got in Massachusetts, in November 2003, really it came down
to one judge—very thin majority on the court—saying that same-sex
marriage is a fundamental human right; and that the law as it has
existed since the beginning of the colonies in Massachusetts, is
unconstitutional and somehow rooted in what they said was animus toward
homosexuality; and that that was wrong and that we’re going to have a
new definition of marriage, and that’s going to be that it could be
between two men, two women, whatever we want it to be.
And so it’s this small group of judges, as I say you could put them
in a minivan and take them anywhere! They are imposing upon all of us,
really a radical new definition of marriage that very few of us are
What does same-sex marriage say about men and women?
Stanton: We have to understand that if you accept the same-sex
marriage proposition, then you have to accept the proposition that male
and female do not matter; husband and wife do not matter; and that
children do not need mothers and fathers; that fathers could be replaced
by a woman; and that mothers could be replaced by a father.
Ankerberg: Yeah, let me slow that down, what you’re saying is
that if you have two gay men, what they’re saying is that look, "We
don’t need a mother, we don’t need a woman; women are unnecessary."
Stanton: Every gay family is a statement to the community that
women do not matter. And, every lesbian family is a statement to the
community that men do not matter. And, every heterosexual family—mother
and father coming together—is a statement to the community that male and
female matter. And I would bet that most viewers want that kind of
message. The declaration that women matter, that men matter, and that
both are necessary for the family. But, again, the same-sex family
proposition says that either are replaceable and neither are necessary.
Ankerberg: Add to that, the fact is that the social sciences are
showing that children really, really, really, big time need both a
mother and a father in their life.
Is same-sex marriage healthy for children?
Stanton: It’s interesting, if we look at the work of a man,
Edward Westermarck, he was a man that lived a number of years ago, and
wrote this wonderful, definitive history of marriage and human
experience across all civilizations, across all times. And he says a
number of things, but here’s one of the things that he says: Marriage in
every single civilization, throughout time, regardless of where it is,
is always about the next generation. It’s always about making sure that
we bring the next generation of humanity forward in a healthy,
protective way. And it always needs men and women to do that. Just as it
takes a sperm and an egg to produce a new life, it takes the lifelong
commitment—for humans, it’s eighteen years—for male and female, mother
and father, to be committed to raising that child.
Now, we have had a lot of experimentation in this nation in the past
thirty to forty years, where fathers haven’t been as involved as they
should be in the raising of children and what has been the result of
that? We’ve seen cohabitation, we’ve seen no-fault divorce, we’ve seen
the single parenting by choice. And, we have to ask, what has been the
impact of that? Has it improved human well-being? Has it elevated human
well-being? No, it has diminished human well-being in every single
measure, not just for men, not just for women, but especially for
And here we come along and say, "Well, let’s have more
experimentation," thinking that somehow it will improve human
well-being, and it just is not the case. And this is not just found in
tens of studies or hundreds of studies, but literally thousands of
published, social science studies, showing us that men and women,
mothers and fathers, are essential and needed in the job of parenting.41
One Last Word to Christian Voters
You can find the complete text of the Democratic and Republican Party
Platforms on the Internet (see footnotes 1 and 2). Please take the time
to look at these statements, which reflect the values and goals of the
parties. Think through the issues and the stands each party has taken
before the November vote! Then go to the polls! Let your voice be heard
3 2004 Democratic National
Platform Committee Report, page 11.
4 2004 Republican Party
Platform, p. 37.
5 John Ankerberg, Jimmy DeYoung,
"Questions About the Middle East From a Journalist’s Perspective,"
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP0304W4B.htm)
6 2004 Democratic National
Platform Committee Report, page 29.
7 2004 Republican Party
Platform, pp. 66-67.
8 2004 Democratic National
Platform Committee Report, page 36.
9 2004 Republican Party
Platform, p. 84.
10 John Ankerberg, John Weldon,
The Facts on Abortion (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers,
1995), pp. 6-10, 12,
11 Lawyer Cooperative, U.S.
Supreme Court Reports, vol. 35 (1974), Roe v. Wade, 410 US
113, p. 181; 410 US 113 at 159; cf. Harold 0. J. Brown, Death
Before Birth (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 81, cf. pp.
73-96; John Warwick Montgomery, "The Rights of the Unborn Children,"
The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, vol. 5 (1985-86), p. 64.
12 Motion filed in the Supreme
Court of the United States, Oct. 15, 1971 (Re: No. 70-18 and No.
70-40), titled Motion and Brief Amicus Curiae of Certain
Physicians, Professionals and Fellows of the American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecology in Support of Appellees, Dennis J. Horan
et al., United States District Court 1971, pp.19, 29-30.
13 Ibid., p. 7.
14 Ibid., pp. 13-14.
15 Ibid., p. 64, cf. pp. 19-20,
16 Television program
transcript, "Abortion," Chattanooga, TN, The John Ankerberg
Evangelistic Association, 1982, p. 2.
Medicine, vol. 113, no. 3 (Sept. 1970), p. 67.
18 Keith L. Moore, The
Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia,
PA: W.B. Sanders, 1982), p.1, emphasis added.
19 Thomas W. Hilgers, Dennis J.
Horan, Abortion and Social Justice (Thaxton, VA: Sun Life,
1980), p. 5.
20 Encyclopedia and
Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing and Allied Health (Philadelphia:
W.B. Sanders Co., 1978), 2nd ed., p. 335.
21 The Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, 97th Congress, First Session, 1981.
22 Ibid., cf. Richard Exley,
Abortion: Pro-life by Conviction, Pro-choice by Default (Tulsa,
OK: Honor Books, 1989), p.18; Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics:
Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1989), p. 149.
23 Landrum B. Shettles, Rites
of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), p. 114.
27 The Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, 97th Congress, First Session, 1981; cf. Richard Exley,
Abortion: Pro-life by Conviction, Pro-choice by Default
(Tulsa, OK: Honor Books, 1989), p. 18.
Ibid.; cf. Norman L. Geisler,
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker),
1989, p. 149.
29 Ibid., Report to Senate.
30 Ibid., and Richard Exley, Abortion:
Pro-life by Conviction, Pro-choice by Default (Tulsa, OK: Honor
Books, 1989), p. 18.
31 Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Willke, Handbook
on Abortion and Abortion Questions and Answers (Hayes Publishing
Co., 1985), p. 40.
32 Shettles, Rites of Life: The
Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, p. 113. A few held that
life may begin at implantation. However, implantation, while
important, in no way defines life.
33 The Subcommittee on Separation of
Powers, Report to Senate; cf. Exley, Abortion: Pro-life by
Conviction, Pro-choice by Default, p.18; Geisler, Christian
Ethics: Options and Issues, p. 149.
34 Landrum B. Shettles in Abortion:
Opposing Viewpoints (New York: Greenhaven Press, 1986), p. 16,
35 Hilgers and Horan, p. 317.
38 But to accept this fact and maintain
that taking human life is not morally wrong is incredible. It is even
reminiscent of Nazi Germany and yet today such arguments are
increasingly accepted (e.g. Biomedical Ethics and the Law by
James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder, page 16; cf. note 3).
39 2004 Democratic National Platform
Committee Report, page 36.
40 2004 Republican Party Platform,
41 Dr. John Ankerberg, Glenn T. Stanton,
"The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage," (unpublished transcript, The John
Ankerberg Show, 2004), www.johnankerberg.org.