The Pitched Battle for the Soul of America!

Copyright 2007 Victor Shane, all rights reserved



Abortion on Demand




The cultural swing away from the Judeo-Christian worldview resulted in the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade in which the United States Supreme Court overturned all state laws that outlawed or restricted abortion. Roe v. Wade has since become the most controversial decision in American history, reshaping national politics and dividing the nation into “pro-life” and “pro-choice” camps. How did this happen?

In Texas, in March 1970, two feminist lawyers used the plight of a young lady named Norma McCorvey to file suit and push it all the way to the Supreme Court. They picked up Norma when she was a naive and destitute young woman, used her to change the law, and then discarded her like so much refuse. In case Norma’s real name doesn’t ring a bell, her alias should—she is the “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade.


Norma later came to see the sham of the billion dollar abortion industry and the hypocrisy of the so-called “pro-choice” propaganda. In 1995 she renounced her involvement in the whole sordid affair, repented of Roe and announced her conversion to Christianity. Deeply troubled by her conscience, Norma then went on the lecture circuit to warn young women about the spiritual and moral pitfalls of abortion.


Nineteen seventy-three was also the year in which the same Supreme Court legalized “D & X procedures” in the case of Doe v. Bolton. “D & X” stands for “intact dilation and extraction,” also known as “late-term abortion.” What is it and what does it involve? Perhaps we should refrain from describing the heinous procedure here. Suffice it to say that it amounts to the legalized killing of helpless babies that have been pulled partly out of the birth canal.


Let the reader understand the base and vile hypocrisy involved in all this: if the helpless child were to be pulled all the way out of the birth canal and then killed, the abortionist would have to be arrested and go to prison on a charge of homicide or murder. The only reason the abortionist can perform the horrendous act “legally,” is because he or she is careful not to pull the baby all the way out of the birth canal before killing it.


How did this happen, here in America? Well, it happened almost the same way that Roe v. Wade happened, only the unwitting pawn was in this case a young lady by the name of Sandra Cano—the “Jane Doe” in Doe v. Bolton. Cano later claimed that she had never wanted an abortion, that she had always thought that abortion was wrong, and that she had been tricked by her feminist lawyer into taking part in a legal case that would end up killing babies.


Along with the stories of Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano, we should also mention that of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and co-founder of NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). Dr. Nathanson was the one who originally invented the pro-abortion slogans of “pro-choice” and “a woman’s right to choose.” Like McCorvey and Cano, Dr. Nathanson also later came to deeply regret the role that he played in the abortion movement, musing at the fact that the propaganda he himself invented thirty years ago is still in use today.


The real-life stories of Norma McCorvey, Sandra Cano and Dr. Bernard Nathanson are a few of those dirty little secrets that the liberal left would rather sweep under a rug and not talk about.


With the possible exception of cases involving rape, incest and/or the safety of the mother’s life, Christians would move heaven and earth to outlaw abortion in all fifty states. Contrariwise atheists and radical feminists would move heaven and earth to guarantee the right of abortion to every woman in America. Who is right and who is wrong? Where do the best interests of American women lie? It is interesting to note what the Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer had to say about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade:



The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural [derivative] result of this other worldview, because with this other worldview, human life (your individual life) has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe.... So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been [come as] a surprise, because it boiled up out of, quite naturally (I would use the word again, mathematically), this other worldview.1



Is there any truth to what Schaeffer is saying? He is saying this: given a naturalistic worldview, you would expect to find a pro-abortion agenda. But why would a naturalistic worldview inevitably produce a pro-abortion agenda? Is Schaeffer’s hypothesis consistent with the nature of the physical world?


Remove all considerations of God and Judeo-Christian morality. Exclude the Ten Commandments, strip the human condition of the protective coverings of the Spirit of God, divine law, imperative and discipline. What have you done? You have reduced human beings to physical systems. Now apply the rule of general physical law to their behavior, and you would expect to find a cultural bias in favor of abortion. How so?


Let us briefly review what is discussed in great length in the pages of In God We Trust. According to the Bible, God formed Adam from the “dust of the earth” (physics of this universe, oriented toward more probable states). Our physical constitution (the atoms that make up our DNA, our cells, our flesh, our sinews, our bones, our nervous system, our neurons, our synapses, etc.) is “wired” into the behavioral field of the cosmos in subtle ways that may yet take another century to fully understand.


The cosmos into which all of this is “wired” has a property that makes general selections in favor of more probable states, a property that feeds back into our physical constitution to produce an attraction toward, and preference for, more probable states. What then? Is the pro-abortion agenda of the liberal left a particular instance of general physical law? Put simply, is it the urge to move toward more probable states? Indeed it is!


The probability of finding non-life in the universe is very high. The probability of finding life in the universe is relatively very low. This is partly because non-life (the dust of the earth, for example) is a lot more “stable” than living cells. When scientists say “universal entropy is always increasing,” they imply that the universe as a whole is moving toward some final equilibrium state. And if the entropy of the universe were to reach a maximum, in what is commonly referred to as “the heat death of the universe,” the cosmos would reduce down to a state of pure undifferentiated energy, at which time it would be “perfectly formless,” “perfectly still,” “perfectly uniform,” “perfectly homogeneous,” “perfectly ordered” and “perfectly stable.” Unfortunately we would all be dead.


It is worth repeating what we just said: If the universe were to reduce down to a state of maximum “stability,” life would be replaced by death (non-life). So then what does “death” have to do with “stability”? In the ontology of man, nothing. In the ontology of the cosmos, “death” is another word for “maximum entropy,” or “final equilibrium state.”


Here is the nature of the enigma discussed in Chapter 5 of In God We Trust:

What would amount to “order and stability” given the ontology of the cosmos, would amount to “disorder and instability,” given the ontology of man, and vice versa. (The conventions of order and disorder are reversed between the ontology of man and the ontology of the cosmos.)


Let us now return to the subject of “abortion” and ask the pertinent question: Would the ontology of the cosmos tend to make selections in favor of human life, or would it tend to make selections in favor non-life? Would it tend to make selections in favor of living cells, or in favor of dust? Well, again, that would all depend on the probability and stability of human life, as compared to the probability and stability of dust, wouldn’t it?


If human life embodied a high probability stable state, and dust embodied a low probability unstable state, you would expect the behavioral field of the cosmos to make general selections in favor of human life. Conversely, if human life embodied a low probability unstable state, and dust embodied a high probability stable state, you would expect the behavioral field of the cosmos to make general selections in favor of non-life. So which is it?


What is the probability of finding dust in the universe? Very high, is it not? What is the probability of finding human life in the universe? The origins of life are to this day unknown. There isn’t a scientist alive who can explain how life got started here on earth, let alone how it might start elsewhere in the universe. There isn’t enough space here to go into all the problems that scientists run into when they try to explain the appearance of life in terms of natural, derivative or “spontaneous” processes. Suffice it to say that the statistical resources of the universe are limited—the numbers of the so-called “possibilities” are not infinite. Cosmos can only supply so many “bits” of information, and the laws of physics limit the speed with which they can be “switched.”


These and other considerations all but rule out the probability of accidental biogenesis—atoms organizing themselves into living cells through some “glorious accident.” As for appeals to “infinity issues” and “parallel universes,” these too are problematic in that they assume the benefit of an infinite sample without supporting evidence. So then, avoiding infinity issues, and avoiding appeals to metaphysics, scientists are confronted with a huge question mark when it comes to the origins of life. In the words of renowned scientist Stanley Miller himself:


The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.2



Even given ideal conditions here on earth, biological life depends on a myriad of mind-bogglingly complex micro-arrangements and regulatory mechanisms working in perfect harmony and orchestration. Any deficit, weak link, failure or compromise can throw the whole thing out of kilter, short-circuiting health into disease, life into death, survival into extinction.


So then, by all accounts, human life is an extremely rare and low-probability phenomenon in the universe, requiring highly ordered, highly strung, highly tensed, highly stressed, highly complex and highly unstable arrangements of informational, material and energetic elements. The magnitude of the complexity of a single living cell, the brief and tenuous nature of life itself, the fine line that separates health from disease, and the rapid rate at which flesh will decay after death, all testify to the instability of human life. From a cosmic perspective, at least, human life represents a low-entropy, low- probability unstable state of enormous magnitude.


How does unborn life factor into all of this? Would the ontology of the cosmos tend to make selections in favor of the enormous instability associated with the complex changes and rapid developments taking place in the womb? Or would it tend to make selections in favor of the stability restored by way of abortion?


Question (stated figuratively): If cosmos had a mind of its own, and if it could think thoughts, would it tend to favor the pro-abortion agenda of the liberal left, or would it tend to favor the pro-life agenda of the conservative right? Well, if it were trying to make general selections in favor of higher probability states, it is reasonable to assume that it would tend to favor the pro-abortion agenda of the liberal left.


Let us try to view life and death from a purely elemental (non-human) perspective. At the point of conception, human life embodies a rapidly developing, enormously complex and tenuous state of instability. At the point of demise (from miscarriage, from abortion, from privation, from violence, from disease, from accident or from old age), death embodies a return to stability—dust to dust and ashes to ashes. So then it would seem that Francis Schaeffer’s hypothesis was consistent with reality after all. Obviously the mindset of the liberal left does not derive itself from the ontology of the Bible: it derives itself from the ontology of the cosmos, as confirmed by the words of atheist Carl Sagan decades ago—The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be.


Given a mindset derived from the ontology of the cosmos, you would expect to find derivative civilizations making selections in favor of abortion and infanticide. Abortion and infanticide are nothing new. Millennia ago pagan civilizations were sacrificing children on altars of cosmic expediency on a regular basis.






Was Roe a necessary decision? Or was it a contingent decision? Was it constitutional? Or was it unconstitutional? Former Acting Attorney General Robert H. Bork:



Whatever one’s feelings about abortion, the decision has no constitutional foundation, and the Court offered no constitutional reasoning. Roe is nothing more than the decision of a Court majority to enlist on one side of the culture war. The extra-constitutional individualism that undergirds the “constitutional” right to abortion was made clearest in the joint opinion of three Justices in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These Justices, whose votes created a majority to sustain most of Roe, invented a heretofore unheard-of constitutional right to “personal dignity and autonomy.” They attempted to explain the appearance of this previously unsuspected right by saying: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”3




So it would seem that here also the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision was indeed the inevitable result of a cultural swing away from the Judeo-Christian consensus, toward a materialistic one. As Schaeffer correctly observed, Roe boiled up quite naturally out of the atheistic /materialistic consensus which recognizes only one final reality: matter and energy shaped by pure chance. Apply the principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy to the behavior of human societies and you would expect to find a cultural bias in favor of non-life and/or the aborting of life. Apply the ontology of the cosmos to the human spirit, and you can expect to find rulings such as Roe v. Wade.


Stated otherwise: Those who will not conform to the nature of the Creator by choice, will conform to the nature of the created thing by default.


Within the pages of In God We Trust you will learn how to roll back the derivative worldview that produced Roe v. Wade, and reinstate the original consensus that values the life of the born and unborn equally. (Refer also to Abortion and Infanticide expo in our I-4 Newsletter.)



1. Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (transcript, published by Coral Ridge Ministries, 1982), 4.

2. Quoted by J. Horgan, “In the Beginning...,” (Scientific American, February 1991), 117.


3. Bork, Gomorrah, 103. Judge Bork’s reference to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, see 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).


Ordering Information

Back to top - Back to Home