The Spirit of Cain: Abortion and Murder
By Robin Schumacher
It’s rather depressing to realize that the first person born of human parents became a murderer.
“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD”” (Genesis 4:1). Cain, whose name means “gotten one”, was the first person born with an inherited sin nature, and it wasn’t long before his evil came to light.
After Cain’s offering to God was rejected and his brother’s accepted, Scripture describes Cain’s actions very simply: “And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him” (Genesis 4:8). The Bible gives us no real details about the event, but one thing we do know: Cain’s act was the first to showcase the spirit behind the murder of the innocent.
That spirit of Cain is, sadly, alive and well today, and is experienced with sickening frequency. But I think nothing manifests it more clearly than the evolution occurring right now in the area of abortion, which is quickly beginning to target more than just children in the womb. The fact that the world cherishes its ability to practice abortion has recently been demonstrated in a couple of situations that clearly reveal the double standard the pro-abortion movement uses to retain its deadly ‘right’.
A Double Standard with a Single (not so) Hidden Agenda
The first example occurred when the Susan Komen foundation dared to suspend its contribution to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, denounced the “thug” tactics that she said caused the Komen foundation to withdrawal its extremely modest amount from her organization. However, Richards was more than happy to employ her own bullying techniques via a social media campaign that resulted in Komen restoring its giving to her group, which rakes in millions from performing abortions.
The theme of Richards’ attack on Komen was that the supposed reduction in funds (quickly made up by other doners) would adversely impact women’s health, with abortion never being mentioned; only other various medical tests and such were publicly discussed as being threatened by Komen’s withdrawal. The outcry that women’s health programs were at risk was heard from coast to coast.
No such protest, however, is occurring with the recent decision of the Obama administration to stop funding a Texas health program that serves 130,000 low-income women. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is pulling the plug on the funding because of Texas’ law that bars abortion-affiliated clinics from getting public money.
As opposed to the very small amount of money Komen was giving Planned Parenthood, the amount of money being yanked from the Texas women’s program amounts to about $36 million, with Texas unable to say if they will be to keep the program afloat without federal aid.
Where are all the voices and media reporters who said women’s health was at risk with the Komen decision? Why aren’t they protesting what’s about to happen to the low-income Texas women whose size is far greater than that which would have been affected on the Planned Parenthood side with the Komen situation?
Their lips are sealed because the Komen complaint was never about women’s health; that was a lie. It was all about defeating any supposed threat to abortion. Because the Texas law bars public funds from going to any programs, organizations or groups that are affiliated with abortions (even if they don't perform them), no one involved in the Komen protests seems to care that women’s health programs are going to be negatively affected by the Obama administration’s ruling.
The real bottom line? Women’s health programs are not things that the spirit of Cain cares about. The Proposal of “After-Birth” Abortions
The second illustration of Cain’s spirit being not only alive and well, but flexing its muscles in ways that pro-abortion supporters swore would never happen is the just published article in the Journal of Medical Ethics by professors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. The Journal’s abstract of the article explains the professor’s position better than I can, so let me quote it in its entirety:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
This is infanticide, pure and simple, and is appearing in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
The authors conclude their article with this eye-opening statement: “However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
You read that correctly. It’s the authors’ opinion that if a baby is an economic, social or psychological ‘burden’ for the parents, they should be allowed to put the baby to death.
Now, many will rightly be taken aback by their opinion, however this progression or evolution in the abortion march should really surprise no one. A selfishness and self-centeredness that has no concern for taking a baby’s life that it cannot (or will not) see will not stop just because that life is fully out in the open if that child is thought to be a ‘burden’.
Cain’s spirit couldn’t care one way or the other, with early history showing this to be the case:
“Deformed infants shall be killed." — Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
“We drown children who at birth are weakly and abnormal" — Seneca (A.D. 65)
A woman should submit to abortion so the state does not become too populous. – Plato
“[There is] a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring...Abortion must be practiced.” - Aristotle
In his book, “How Christianity Changed the World”, Alvin Schmidt discusses the finding of an inscription at Delphi that revealed a second-century population sample of six hundred families. Of them, only one percent had raised two daughters. Given that second-century people had no way to determine the gender of a baby prior to its birth, it’s not hard to figure out what happened to many baby girls in that society.
The Real Abortion War
Abortion is not a war of politics, rhetoric, and rights — it’s a spiritual war. It’s a spiritual war of two sides that have two fathers.
When God spoke to Satan in Genesis after the Fall, He disclosed the fact that there are two spiritual lineages that would develop: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel” (Genesis 3:15). Many know that the last part of the verse is the first prophecy in the Bible about the coming of Christ; that He would be struck by the enemy on the ‘heel’ (the cross), but that He would ultimately deliver the death blow to Satan at the same time.
However, the verse also reveals two “seeds” or family trees that are made up of Cain (the seed of the serpent) and Seth (the seed of the woman) who replaced Abel. Behind these two lines are two spiritual fathers with radically different agendas.
Cain’s spiritual father is Satan, who works within his children to bring about death. Jesus highlights this fact in a number of places when he faces off against Cain’s line:
“I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father...You are doing the deeds of your father. . . . You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (John 8:38, 41, 44).
John also speaks to Cain’s spiritual heritage when he says, “For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother” (1 John 3:11–12).
Cain’s spirit is the spirit of his father, and it is at work today in the things we see in the abortion debate. That lying spirit whispers in people’s ears that children are an impediment to a fulfilling life — something showcased in a paper written for Planned Parenthood by Dr. William Cates: “Abortion as treatment for unwanted pregnancy, the second sexually transmitted disease.”
It was also, sadly, seen in a statement made by President Obama: “But if they [his daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.”
On the other side we find God as the spiritual Father who says this about children: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3).
Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
How do you defeat the spirit of Cain? Of course, Christians and others who believe in the sanctity of life need to make their voices heard and participate in the political process. However, as the nations continue their slide into a post-Christian culture, without a spiritual change, all we will be doing in the public arena is talking nonsense to the children of Cain who want to do the desire of their father.
The real victory over Cain’s war on children will be had when we obey and take seriously Christ’s command to go and make disciples of Cain’s world. A change of hearts will then bring about the change in spirit, which will bring a change in a country’s laws so that abortion will one day only be a horrific memory.
1. Ballot Bowl 2008