Feminists, liberal politicians, and others say they are for abortion, in part, because they do not believe in an "intrusive government." The government, they say, should not intrude upon a woman's right to choose to surgically re-move (kill) the unwanted child. I heard this very argument made by the Democratic candidate for governor in the state of Montana.

I suppose no one would say he is for an "intrusive government" However, government, by definition, must be intrusive to some degree. When a government tells some employers how much they must pay their workers (mini-mum wage), is that "intrusive government"? When government dictates the amount of time off (family leave) that a company must grant to certain employees, is that a case of government intrusion?

There is another facet of government that justifies an element of intrusion. It is the inherent duty of government to provide protection for its citizens (Rom. 13:1-4). To this end, many individual actions are restrained, curtailed, or specifically forbidden. While it is true that unborn children are not citizens in the strictest sense of the word, their life deserves protection. If government can decide that enviable life in the womb is not worthy of protection, what shall we say when government decrees that an enviable life out of the womb (the severely retarded, the aged, and the infirmed) is not deserving of the protection of government?

"Abortion rights" have spawned Dr. Jack (Assisted Suicide) Kervorkian and his murder machine. We have not yet seen the end of it — "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13). If a woman has the right to take the life of her unborn child, why does not killer Kervorkian have the right to help an-other take his own life? He says he has that right. How do we deny him his "right"? Sounds like some form of intrusive government may be necessary to stop him. But, of course, it is better to tolerate death in the name of freedom than to save life in the name of "intrusive government"!

And what next — a panel that will sit in judgment, deciding which patients shall live and which shall be terminated? This is not new to our day. It has been done before. We called it Nazi Germany. The form of government, the rationale, and the means of death differ, but the result is the same. Living beings are put to death with government sanction.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 17 p. 8
September 4, 1997