scribing of abortion as a response to suspicions that an abnormal child may otherwise be born. Such cases are extremely rare, for the majority of such pregnancies will produce normal children.'

13

Equally distressing is the problem of prescribing abortion for psychiatric reasons. Valid psychiatric reasons for abortion occur so rarely as to be statistically negligible; given present-day therapy, the prognosis for the mother is normally excellent." Even so, there will no doubt always be persons who believe that they are the exceptional instances. Such individuals will require very special attention and counseling on the basis of the principles set forth in these guidelines and such other precepts as may apply to the specifics of a given situation.

CONCLUSION

Ethical decisions call for the most competent application of both the ability to make judgments and the willingness to be guided by the principles derived from the revelation of God's will. To that end men have been endowed with reason. They are expected to use this gift for purposes of making choices on given issues. In making up their minds, however, they must be guided by more than human calculations. In the matter of abortion this means that such alleged dangers as overpopulation and dire predictions of an impending shortage of food are not decisive, since such estimates and projections may suffer from the fallibility inherent in any human enterprise.

This is not to suggest that ethical guidance offered by the church sets out to ignore or to denigrate competent judgments made by professional persons on the specific issues under consideration. What it does indicate is that God is still the Lord of history and that He can and often has upset human calculations. In the process of ethical decision-making, therefore, persons will be well advised to give greater weight to basic principles set forth in Scripture than to conclusions reached only at the hand of man's reckoning.

Living as Christians calls for trust and obedience toward that God who, through Word and Sacrament, offers man salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, and who reveals His will for man in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture does not present us with a detailed set of regulations for abortion and many other complex ethical problems. It does, however, offer principles of enduring validity and authority. Responsible ethical living therefore calls for making personal choices on the basis of validly established principles rather than following a detailed set of regulations in a servile way. Accordingly, these guidelines are intended to set forth those principles of God's revelation that should guide individuals in making decisions and judgments on the question of abortion as a theological, legal, and medical problem.

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS, St. Louis, Mo., January 29, 1974. From: The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Department of Public Relations, Victor W. Bryant, Director, 500 North Broadway, St. Louis, Mo.

LCMS COMMISSION ADOPTS STATEMENT ON ABORTION

St. Louis, Mo.-The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations last week adopted a statement that restressed the Synod's stand against abortion and initiates "Life Concerns" programs for the church's three million members.

The action came on a recommendation of the CTCR's Social Concerns Committee and was timed to coincide with the first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing therapeutic abortion (January 22).

13 See Journal of the American Medical Association, 204, 12 (June 17, 1968), 1153 ff. 14 Meyre Sim, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry, Birmingham University. Birmingham, England, so indicated in his 1970 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Lecture, entitled "Psychiatric Reasons for Abortion." See also "Abortion," an editorial in the California Journal of Medicine, Sept. 1970, p. 1.

At its 1971 Milwaukee convention, the LCMS took the position that "willful abortion is contrary to the will of God." The Social Ministry Affirmations adopted during the same convention encourage all people to ". . . avoid perverting God's will... through such acts as abortion or euthanasia."

Synodical President J. A. O. Preus said following the CTCR decision that application of the Affirmations has become "increasingly imperative." "As president of the LCMS, I want to associate myself with this reminder from the CTCR and its Social Concerns Committee. At the same time, I would like to invite the administrative leaders and clergy, not only of my own church body but also of all other denominations, to set before their constituencies the urgency of following moral principles in both private and public life." Dr. Preus made specific reference to abortion and euthanasia.

Proposals for the "Life Concerns" movement in the Missouri Synod call for both immediate and long-range planning. The first phase of the program will feature a series of pilot workshops, publication of resource study material and the offering of special courses pertaining to "Life Concerns" in LCMS colleges and seminaries.

The CTCR Statement on Abortion, in its entirety reads as follows:

The first anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the issue of abortion (Roe vs. Wade, January 22, 1973) offers an opportune moment to protest the legalization of non-therapeutic abortions. Without a doubt one of the most crucial issues presently facing almost every citizen of our country is the attitude toward human life, not only the life of the child yet unborn, but also the life of the aged and the terminally ill, and of all those who may seem to be a burden to family and society. Within this context the LCMS today recalls that its 1971 synodical convention has taken the position that "willful abortion is contrary to the will of God," and has stated in its Social Ministry Affirmations:

By reason of the Father's creation and the Son's redemption of man, God has exalted him above all creatures and has given to him the privilege of becoming His child. Therefore, human life must be treasured, supported, and protected.

We encourage all people to avoid perverting God's will. . . through such acts as abortion or euthanasia.

In other action during the CTCR meeting, the following were elected officers: chairman-Rev. Karl L. Barth of Milwaukee, president of the South Wisconsin District of the LCMS; vice-chairman-Dr. Henry J. Eggold, acting president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Ill.; and secretary-Mr. Richard Korthals, a layman from Arcadia, Michigan.

Mrs. GARTON. I speak now not only as a representative of my denomination but as a woman and with responsibilities on our National Board for Social Concern, and as a woman who is deeply concerned about the rights and privileges and concomitant responsibilities of women in general in America today.

The Supreme Court decision of January 19, 1973 made it very clear that unborn children are now the women's exclusive responsibility. Fulfilling its role as a teacher, what now does the law teach us who must weave the fabric of society when it condones violence to our offspring and encourages selfishness as a virtue?

To offer to women abortion as the solution for their economic and social problems is to do violence to the integrity of women. How long we have fought to be more than just bodies. This decision fragments us again and treats our bodies as machines and pregnancies as a minor malfunction.

I speak also as a woman, as do many of my more vocal sisters, who has a great concern for the right to control my own body. But in this context such a claim is sheer sophistry for quite simply we are speaking about the body of another human being.

Two of my children are boys. As I carried them, was one body then both male and female at the same time? Two of my children have blood which differs in type and factor from mine. Can one body have two blood types at the same time? And what of the child who died when I was carrying him, can one body be alive and dead at the same time?

Abortion, by any reasonable, biological standard, is the destruction of a separate human life.

I was glad to hear that you were going to provide some medical testimony on this issue. We have heard people say the question is not when does life begin, and perhaps I would agree, I think the question is who is a human being? And medical testimony, I believe, provided by geneticists and embryologists can establish what and who is a human being.

But while our particular denominational statements are explicitly theological, it is my conviction that a constitutional amendment would help to safeguard the concerns of our constituency for innocent, defenseless life which has an intrinsic value and dignity beyond being "wanted."

To use, "wantedness," in connection with human beings is to reduce them to objects. You want a lunch and I may want a new dress, but when we talk about wanting or not wanting humans, we dehumanize them.

And I think it is rather ironic that women, who for so long have fought to be viewed as persons rather than objects to be wanted or discarded, now when they finally have a voice demand the right to view another segment of the family as objects to be wanted or discarded.

And to apply wantedness to a human being is not to tell us anything about the human being at all. I could say you are weary or hungry or gentle, and that would be describing you. But the minute I say you are not wanted, I am not saying anything about you, but rather I am telling you something about myself.

Unwantedness measures our attitudes and our feelings. And the fact that the Supreme Court has stripped a whole segment of the human race from any protection when it is not wanted, tells us a great deal about the kind of people we in America have become.

And true, we cannot pass a law to make people wanted. But I remember and am reminded of the incident in 1964 when a Senator said, "You can't pass a law and make me love Negroes." And Negroes said, "We don't care whether you love us or not, we want a law that will protect us from you killing us, from you discriminating against us, and from you using evil practices against us."

That is the purpose of constitutional amendment, to protect the unborn child from having his life taken away from him simply because he is not wanted.

I have one other concern as a woman and as a mother and it is that

the law teaches our children also. And is it not teaching them that the sanctity of life may be enjoyed only by those who are wanted and reverence of life extends only to those who are perfect and quality of life takes precedence over life itself?

I and our 3 million members, like the unborn, have no voice in this issue. We would ask you to give the people of this country an opportunity to speak to the subject in an open and democratic forum. The way that could be done is through the process of proposing to the States for ratification a constitutional amendment protecting the life of the unborn and indeed the life of all people regardless of age or dependency.

The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod would protest the kind of justice which is conditioned by what is socially expedient or economically utilitarian. The keystone of any nation that claims to be civilized or rational or reasonable is a respect for all human life. Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless.

Thank you.

Senator BAYH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Garton.

Mr. Holbrook?

Reverend HOLBROOK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity extended to me to speak before you regarding the abortion issue, which is of deep personal interest and concern to millions of Americans.

That I am here, a Southern Baptist pastor and coordinator of the organization "Baptists for Life" is testimony in itself to the rising tide of indignation surrounding the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion until the moment of birth. As American citizens of all religious persuasions, or of no religious belief at all, learn what this decision said and what has happened to hundreds of thousands of unborn children as a result, they are becoming increasingly angry and concerned. The 25 million-plus Baptists of the Nation are among those who are becoming aware of the full implications of current abortion trends and many of us have searched for a way to make our voices heard in protest. "Baptists for Life" was formed in late 1973 as a result of this need for a united voice. It is our intention to speak in defense of the right to life both within the public forum and within our denominations and congregations. We have received positive responses in large numbers from Southern Baptists, American Baptists, independent Baptists, other denominational groupings including the National Baptist Convention, Inc., from both pastors and laymen.

We feel certain that the members of this subcommittee and the whole Senate would want to act on this issue according to the facts that are presented, and that your deliberations will be guided by the merits of the arguments heard. Propaganda has no place. Statements made by persons purporting to speak for denominations as official spokesmen who have, in reality, no right to represent entire denominations have no place. Such an unofficial statement is one made recently by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs' executive director, Dr. James Wood, who attached his name to a recent letter inserted in the Congressional Record by U.S. Representative Dellums which criticized the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act.

43-245-15-22

It is my understanding that you have been in contact with the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs quite recently, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you wish to know that they do not, and cannot, speak for the denominations they represent on the abortion question. Any statements that they might make will be representative of their personal opinions only.

I might add here just yesterday I received-just the day before yesterday I received from the National Baptist Convention, Inc., which is a member of that Baptist Joint Committee, and President Johnson informed me their resolution as denomination condemns abortion and does not agree with that.

Senator BAYH. Let me be discourteous enough to interrupt so that we can iron this out now. We have a few members of the Jewish faith who have testified who have diametrically opposing views and it is not unusual to expect that this will be the case with others. And I think that the committee would like to sort of have a feel as to the representativeness of the number of citizens involved.

You pointed out that some of these groups on the other side don't represent their various groups. You talked in your statement about positive responses in large numbers from Southern Baptists from American Baptists from independent Baptists and other denominational groups, including the National Baptist Conference. Could you tell me, is your position that of the Southern Baptists?

Reverend HOLBROOK. No.

Senator BAYH. Or the American Baptists?

Reverend HOLBROOK. No; it is not intended to give that impression. Senator BAYH. What percentage of those various groups do you feel that you represent? Do you feel you have an official resolution in this kind of thing to present for any group?

Reverend HOLBROOK. No; there would be no way I could present the numbers, but I can without fear of contradiction say I represent more than, say, some official denomination spokesman, who wants to speak for himself, in that I have received communication-actually I state here in my statement that we formed "Baptists for Life" in late 1973, that is in December, but just 2 weeks ago we began publicity work and already we are receiving letters from California to Maine to Texas to Minnesota; from individuals in just the grassroots expressing concern. And that is our purpose; to try to get a grassroots picture.

And I'm not saying that I represent Southern Baptists because I do not, but I do ask that the other side of the coin be seen also and that is that no official denomination spokesman can represent Southern Baptists. And I do ask for the committee to make its evaluation on the basis of the facts of the arguments, and the merits of the case itself.

Senator BAYH. Now, I don't suppose there is much to be gained by spending a lot of time, either your time or the committee's time or the time of those here, trying to weigh this out when we all admit that we don't have a scientific way of doing it.

I do note in your statement reference to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. I don't know how representative that is of the entire Baptists' beliefs. But I do have here a document that was just given