America's Party News

col317

_And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;...
...Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

                                             -- Luke 3:3, 7-14

The preacher of this brief, but very practical sermon was Jesus' older cousin, John the Baptist, whom, the context reminds us, was sent to prepare the way for the ministry of Jesus Himself.  In these few verses, John delivers an important message about the necessity and true nature of repentance.

As evidenced by the recent actions of Personhood USA in allowing four Republican presidential candidates--Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry--to sign their personhood pledge, John's lessons on repentence are still very much needed today.  What is it about repentance that Personhood USA and these four candidates--not to mention other leaders in the personhood camp, American Right to Life, Bob Enyart, Steve Deace, and Gregg Jackson among them--are failing to grasp?  Let's go to the text.

*****

First, notice to whom John's rather pointed rebukes are directed.  “Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (verse 7)  Perhaps this seems like an odd thing to say to those who were coming to him to be baptized--especially in light of the fact that baptism was a key theme of John’s message in verse 3:  “And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”.  Why, if John is preaching baptism in verse 3, would he then in verse 7 refer to those who came to him to be baptized as a bunch of snakes?  The remainder of verse 7 contains a hint.  John says, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” 

John knew their motives for coming to him.  John knew that, rather than seeking a sincere relationship with God, they saw baptism as a quick fix to the problem of their own guilt.  They understood John when he said that baptism was “for the remission of sins” (verse 3).  They wanted remission of sins, and were willing to allow John to immerse them in order for them to receive it.  They understood, rightly, that John was commanding them to be baptized, and that he was presenting baptism as a condition to receive remission of sins. 

But what they were failing to see was baptism’s proper basis in repentance.  Look again at John’s message in vs. 3.  “ And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”.  The multitudes correctly understood that baptism was “for the remission of sins”; but they failed to see that not just any baptism would do.  The baptism that John said was necessary was, specifically, “the baptism of repentance.”  These were attempting to come to John, allow him to immerse them, thinking this would remove their sins, and planning to go on their way with no real change of heart, intending to continue in the very sins from which they were seeking forgiveness.  They truly were a bunch of snakes, seeking salvation from God, but unwilling to walk according to His will; seeking to “flee from the wrath [of God] to come”, but not willing to flee to God Himself.

How did John know this?  His words to them in verse 8 tell us.  He commands them to “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance….”  Later, the Savior Whose way John was preparing would tell us that “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16).  John knew them by their fruits--by the actions, attitudes, and results that were brought forth from their hearts.  And John could see that these results were not consistent with true repentance.

To their credit, John’s rebuked audience then asks what they were missing.  “And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?” (verse 10)  John had told them that seeking a quick-fix remission of sins through a baseless and meaningless ritual put them in the category of a “generation of vipers”.  For their baptism to have any meaning or effect it needed to be based on repentance.  Now they are asking, in practical terms, what they needed to do.  What does it mean to “bring forth fruits worthy of repentance”?  When we repent, what kind of effect will that bring about in our lives?

John tells them.  “He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.  Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?  And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.   And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (verses 11-14)  John is telling them that there needed to be some meaningful changes in their behavior.  If they wanted to know what true repentance is, and what kind of effect it would have in their actions, John would give them some examples:  Change your behavior to begin sharing with those in need.  Change your behavior, tax collectors, and stop your stealing and dishonesty.  Change your behavior, soldiers, and stop abusing your power.

This was what they were missing--a change in behavior.  And this lack of the effect of repentance showed John that there had, in deed, been no repentance, and that their attempts to receive a blessing from God (remission of sins) was not met with an equal desire to come to God on His terms.  For their outward, apparent appeals to have any substance, any truth, they needed to be accompanied by the kind of inward change of heart that resulted in visible changes to their behavior.  Otherwise, they were simply a generation of vipers.

*****

Two thousand years later, these same lessons can still be applied to the four candidates who have now signed Personhood USA’s pledge.  It is undeniable by those who truly understand the personhood principles that all four of these candidates have, in the past, espoused positions that are in direct conflict with the personhood of the unborn.  But now, these same candidates are seeking a benefit from Personhood USA and personhood voters, who they believe will be impressed by their signature on this document.  Personhood USA touts their willingness to sign the pledge as evidence that they have changed their views on personhood.  But, as yet, we have seen them bring forth no fruits worthy of this supposed repentance. 

John held his audience accountable for the lack of a change in their lives.  Personhood USA is utterly and miserably failing to do so.  When John’s audience came seeking to receive the remission of sins by means of a mere gesture, John told them plainly that a mere gesture was insufficient--that it was not just any baptism that would lead to remission of sins, but that it must be the baptism of repentance, as manifested in their lives by a change of behavior.  Personhood USA should, likewise, require a corresponding change from the signatories of their pledge, by letting them know plainly that it is not just any signature on this document that will win their favor, but that it must be a signature based on a true change of heart, manifested by a change in these candidates’ policies and behavior.  Otherwise, if there is no such repentance, then as John declares, these candidates are the latest generation of vipers in a long line of compromised, ineffective, panderers, seeking to gain favor through a meaningless gesture.

Had John baptized his hearers, knowing that their lives were showing evidence of a failure to repent, he would have been complicit in their insincere and offensive attempts to win God’s favor.  Likewise, Personhood USA, by allowing these candidates to sign their pledge without any indication that they have repented of their previously held ungodly positions and support for immoral legislation, shares the guilt of this generation of snakelike deceivers and flatterers; and perhaps worse, allows the candidates to believe (or pretend to believe) that there is no conflict between personhood and their unrepented utilitarian positions.

Let us pray that all involved with this pledge will learn from John’s discourse, and begin to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

_The Personhood Initiative

Bill Fortenberry

One of the most ardently presented pro-choice arguments is the claim that abortion is sometimes necessary in order to save the life of the mother.  This argument has been very effective over the years and has been used to persuade pro-life politicians to include a life of the mother exception to nearly every law designed to limit abortions.  Very few politicians realize that the inclusion of a life of the mother exception is a tacit admission that the unborn child is not a person.  Even more rare is the politician who realizes that Justice Blackmun cited this very exception to justify his decision in Roe v. Wade.

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment ... When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?" [ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]

If we are ever to succeed in overcoming the Roe decision, then it is imperative that we answer the dilemma presented by Justice Blackmun.  How can a personhood amendment be reconciled with the need to protect the life of the mother?

The solution to this dilemma is actually quite simple, but the majority of Americans find it so contrary to their perspective  that they tend to reject it without even the slightest consideration.  Surgeon General C. Everett Koop answered the dilemma in this way: “Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life.”[1]  Dr. Koop has been made the subject of much ridicule since making that statement, but is it possible that he is right?  Most Americans would answer with an emphatic, “No,” but let us not be so hasty.  Let’s take the time to consider the evidence before we arrive at our conclusion.

Without a doubt, the most frequently presented example of a case in which the mother’s life may be in danger if an abortion is not performed is the case of an ectopic pregnancy.  An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy in which the child is growing in an area of the mother’s body other than the womb.  In most of these cases, the child is found to be growing in one of the mother’s fallopian tubes.  Occasionally the child will grow in the mother’s abdominal cavity, and on very rare occasions he will begin to develop inside of one of her ovaries.  These pregnancies are generally assumed to be fatal unless an abortion is performed, and the explanation is given that it is better to save the mother by killing the unborn child than to do nothing and allow both of them to die.

When we take the time to examine scientific studies of ectopic pregnancies, however, an entirely different picture comes to light.  To begin with, let’s consider the Center for Disease Control estimate of 108,800 ectopic pregnancies in America in 1992.[2]  According to the above assumption, this number is equal to the number of women who would have died if abortion had not been available to them as a treatment.  The CDC also reported an average of 26.3 ectopic related deaths per year from 1991 – 1999,[3] and the proponents of abortion tout these figure as proof that abortion is necessary to save thousands of lives per year.  However, that boast is made in ignorance of several additional studies.

The actual danger that an ectopic pregnancy poses to the mother is that of a tubal rupture or some other kind of hemorrhage which could cause the mother to lose a vital amount of blood.  However, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation reported that, from 1983 to 1996, they treated 62 patients who had experienced a tubal rupture.[4]  Over a fourteen year period, this single hospital treated 4.4 ruptured ectopic pregnancies per year, but the CDC only reported 26.3 ectopic related deaths per year.  If tubal ruptures were definitely fatal, then that would mean that this one hospital has witnessed 1/6 of all the ectopic related deaths in America.  While this would be highly unlikely, it is certainly not impossible, and so we turn to the next study on our list.

The entire southern region of Israel only saw 13 pregnancy related deaths over a 23 year period extending from 1969 to 1991. [5]  This comes to an average of .57 deaths per year.  In 1992, the Soroka University Hospital in Be’er Sheva reported 148 ruptured ectopic pregnancies.[6]  If we assume that the rate of maternal deaths for this region did not experience a drastic increase from 1991 to 1992, and if we assume that every single one of those .57 deaths occurred at this one hospital and that all .57 of them were the result of ruptured ectopic pregnancies, we still would only be able to calculate a .4% chance that a ruptured ectopic pregnancy will cause the death of the mother.  If 99.6% of all the ruptured ectopic pregnancies in southern Israel do not result in the death of the mother, then the claim that abortion must be performed in order to prevent death from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy is undoubtedly spurious.

Of course, this then begs the question of how these mothers were able to survive such an ordeal.  Nearly a century ago, a doctor in Germany reported success in using autotransfusion to treat ruptured ectopic pregnancies.[7]  Autotransfusion involves siphoning the blood which has spilled into the abdominal cavity, running it through a filter and then pumping it back into the mother’s body.  In 2002, a worldwide study of 632 ruptured ectopic pregnancies treated with autotransfusion reported only a single instance of death.[8]  That’s a success rate of 99.84%.  This study demonstrates that this non-abortive treatment is more successful than the preferred abortion method which has a success rate of just 99.6%.[9]

Clearly we can see that ectopic pregnancies are not fatal to the mother, but what of the child?  Those confronted with this evidence will undoubtedly ask if it is ethical to cause the mother to experience the pain of an ectopic pregnancy if there is no hope of her child’s survival.  However, the assumption that the child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy is just as groundless as the same claim about the mother.

There have been many reports of successful ectopic pregnancies.  In September of 1999, Ronan Ingram was successfully delivered via c-section.  Ronan had implanted in one of his mother’s fallopian tubes which subsequently ruptured as he grew into the abdominal cavity.[10]  In May of 2008, Durga Thangarajah was born after spending a full nine months in her mother’s ovary.[11]  Sage Dalton was born in July of 1999 after developing in the amniotic membrane outside her mother’s womb.[12]  Billy Jones was born in 2008 after developing in his mother’s abdominal cavity.[13]  The reports go on and on.[14] [15] [16] [17] In spite of all the claims to the contrary, doctors are constantly being amazed by the unborn child’s ability to develop and grow in spite of his location within his mother’s body.

Ectopic pregnancies are neither fatal for the mother nor necessarily for the child.  The mother’s survival is almost certain, and the survival of the child is at least possible if not likely.  So what does this mean to the pro-life movement?  It means that Dr. Koop was correct.  The personhood of the unborn child does not conflict with the need to protect the life of the mother for the simple reason that abortion is never necessary for that protection.




[1] C. Everett Koop, M. D., "A Physician Speaks About Abortion," http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/abort08.htm (accessed December 3, 2011)

[2] Center for Disease Control, “Current Trends Ecoptic Pregnancy.” http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00035709.htm (accessed December 3, 2011)

[3] Center for Disease Control, “Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance,“ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm (accessed December 3, 2011)

[4] Tommaso Falcone, Edward J. Mascha, Jeffrey M. Goldberg, Lourdes L. Falconi, Geeta Mohla, and Marjan Attaran. “A Study of Risk Factors for Ruptured Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy,” Journal of Women's Health. May 1998, 7(4): 459-463. doi:10.1089/jwh.1998.7.459.

[5] J. R. Leiberman, D. Fraser, M. Mazor and M. Glezerman, “Maternal Mortality in Southern Israel,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 252(4): 203-207, DOI: 10.1007/BF02426359

[6] M. Glezerman, F. Press and M. Carpman, "Culdocentesis is an Obsolete Diagnostic Tool in Suspected Ectopic Pregnancy," Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 252(1): 5-9, DOI: 10.1007/BF02389600

[7] S Edwin Duncan, Gerald Klebanoff, Waid Rogers, "A Clinical Experience with Intraoperative Autotransfusion," Annals of Surgery 180(3): 296-304,

[8] D.O Selo-Ojemea, J.L Onwudea, U Onwudiegwu, "Autotransfusion for Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy," International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 80(2): 103-110, DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00379-X

[9] Clarisa R Gracia M.D.a, Hillary A Brown M.D.b, Kurt T Barnhart M.D.M.S.C.E., "Prophylactic methotrexate after linear salpingostomy: a decision analysis," Fertility and Sterility, 76(6): 1191-1195, DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02906-5

[10] BBC News, "Doctors hail 'miracle' baby," http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/443373.stm (accessed December 3, 2011)

[11] Rebekah Cavanagh, "Miracle baby may be a world first," NT News, May 30th, 2008, http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/05/30/4247_ntnews.html (accessed December 3, 2011)

[12] The American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, "Broadcast of “Miracle Ectopic Pregnancy” Brought Quick Response by ARDMS," Registry Reports, XVI(5):1

[13] Laura Collins, "Miracle baby Billy grew outside his mother's womb," http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050942/Miracle-baby-Bill... (accessed December 3, 2011)

[14] Janusz J. Godyn MD, Anup Hazra MD, Vito M. Gulli MD, "Subperitoneal placenta accreta succenturiate in the case of a successful near-term extrauterine abdominal pregnancy," Human Pathology (2005) 36: 922– 926, DOI:10.1016/j.humpath.2005.05.020

[15] L. Badria, Z. Amarin, A. Jaradat, H. Zahawi, A. Gharaibeh, A. Zobi, "Full-term viable abdominal pregnancy: a case report and review," Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, (2003) 268: 340-342, DOI: 10.1007/s00404-002-0363-y

[16] Anjali S. Kawthalkar, Madhuri S. Gawande, Sheela H. Jain, Sulabha A. Joshi, Sunita D. Ghike, Anuja V. Bhalerao, "Rare case of live birth in a ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy," Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 37(8): 1169–1172, DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01497.x

[17] Lucia Muehlparzer, Wolfgang Arzt, Thomas Ebner, Gernot Tews, "Secondary abdominal pregnancy with live birth," Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 90(3): 288, DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01041.xEctopic Personhood

_