Scripture that Speaks to Abortion - That is followed by an appeal to the religious among us that are confused about what the Bible has to say about killing children. It seems that clarity among the church is needed to provide a scriptural response to abortion.
Quotes from Embryologist - Since some readers of this post may not find religious arguments convincing, I follow the religious arguments up with what science has to say about the subject. Many professors, scientists and doctors are quoted giving sound scientific reasoning against abortion. Included in this section is the testimony given in support of the unborn. This section is thanks to the hard work my friend Scott Klusendorf which is found on his organizations website: https://prolifetraining.com/.
The 1981 Senate Hearing on the Start of Life - Following that are quotes from additional professionals during the 1981 (April 23-24) Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings on the question of when human life begins.
The above quotes by professionals in the field of Embryology show that abortion is an issue of science. Although the Bible also provides authoritative direction with regards to abortion don't let anyone shut you out by claiming it is a religious issue. It is a scientific issue in which virtually all embryologist agree, life begins at conception.
Scott Klusendorf Debate w/ Malcom Potts (UC Berkeley) - Scott reveals enlightening answers to pro-choice arguments in this analysis of his debate.
Christians Who Are Anti-Abortion and Yet Pro-Choice - The scientific arguments are followed up with yet another philosophical appeal to the religious who say they are anti-abortion but that they are also pro-choice. The answer for this comes from Marc Newman, author of "Contenders - A Church-Wide Strategy to Unmask Abortion, Defeat its Advocates, Empower Christians, and Change the World".
A
Syllogism
It is wrong to kill another human being.
The unborn are unique individual human beings.
Therefore it is wrong to kill the unborn.
God's
Mercy and Grace
This study must be preceded with encouragement for those who have previously supported the killing of unborn children. They are forgiven the moment they have a change of heart and ask God for forgiveness.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
When we turn in our mind from sin, God forgives us, we are purified from unrighteousness. We are no longer condemned because of that past sin. All that is required of us at this point is to sin any longer.
Joh 8:3-11 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group (4) and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. (5) In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" (6) They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. (7) When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." (8) Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. (9) At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. (10) Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" (11) "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Scripture
that Speaks to Abortion
God clearly sees the unborn as children.
God knew Jeremiah before he was born, and indeed appointed this unborn child a prophet to the nations. Indeed, God has a plan for each human ever conceived.
Jer 1:4-5
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, (5) "Before I formed
you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I
appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Isaiah echoes the understanding from God that Jeremiah had.
Isa 49:1 Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my mother's womb he has spoken my name.
Isaiah
was also records the calling of the Lord before birth.
Isa 49:5 And now the LORD says-- he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength--
David also records the same understanding that Isaiah and Jeremiah had.
Psa 139:13-16
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's
womb. (14) I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (15) My frame was
not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was
woven together in the depths of the earth. (16) Your eyes saw my
unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
John the Baptist, while still in Elizabeth's womb, recognized the Holy Spirit in Jesus.
Luk 1:41,
Luk 1:44
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb,
and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (44)
As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my
womb leaped for joy.
Scripture Shows God's Contempt For Those that would Kill Their Children
There is zero doubt that unborn children are innocent, and there is ample proof that abortion is a bloody mess. It should be sobering to anyone that read this that God is not pleased with the shedding of innocent blood.
Pro 6:16-17
There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to
him: (17) haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent
blood,
Sacrificing
children to the gods in the Old Testament is no different from what
abortion does today. Children are offered up in the interest of a
better life for those who engage in such activity.
Deu 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
Psa 106:37-38 They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. (38) They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by their blood.
Eze 16:20-21 "'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? (21) You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols.
Jer 32:32-35
The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they
have done--they, their kings and officials, their priests and
prophets, the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem. (33)
They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught
them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline.
(34) They set up their vile images in the house that bears my Name
and defiled it. (35) They built high places for Baal in the Valley of
Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I
never commanded--nor did it enter my mind--that they should do such a
detestable thing and so make Judah sin.
Lest there is any doubt, God enshrined the value He placed on life in the Ten Commandments.
Exo 20:13
"You shall not murder.
Quotes
from Embryologist
From
Scott's Website - https://prolifetraining.com/
The
science dealing with the issues surrounding abortion is Embryology.
Embryologist have established a set of facts about developing
humans.
People
who support abortion are either ignorant of this scientifically
presented fact, or are willing to put this fact out of their mind in
order to attempt justification of the frame of mind that says, "I
am going to do what I want, when I want, and if something goes wrong,
I am going to make another human being suffer the consequences of my
wrong doing."
The
secular science of embryology has conclusively determined that the
unborn are unique human beings from the point the zygote appears at
conception. It is wrong to kill other human beings. Abortion kills
another human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Robert
P. George.
“Human embryos are not creatures different in kind from human
beings (like rocks, or potatoes, or alligators), they are, rather,
human beings—distinct living members of the species Homo sapiens—at
the earliest stage of their natural development. They differ from
human beings at later developmental
stages not in virtue of the kind of entity they are, but rather by
degree of development.”
The
following is a string of additional quotes by scientists,
Embryologist, who all confirm that a zygote is a unique and distinct
human being. This human being is not constructed by it's mother, but
rather is fed by it's mother and develops on it's own.
Keith
Moore and T. V. N. Persaud,
in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, a widely
used embryology text - "A zygote [fertilized egg] is the
beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at
fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with
a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell—a zygote.
This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each
of us as a unique individual.”
In
Before
We Are Born:
Essentials of Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders,
2008, p. 2): "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and
a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
From
Human
Embryology & Teratology
(Ronan R. O’Rahilly, Fabiola Muller [New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996],
5-55): "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under
ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is
thereby formed[.]"
T.
W. Sadler’s Langman’s
Embryology, states, “The development of a human begins with
fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and
the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the
zygote.”
Dr.
Watson A. Bowes
of the University of Colorado Medical School stated, “The beginning
of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple
and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception.”
The
subcommittee report
concludes, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that
conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being
that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is
overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical,
biological, and scientific writings.”
Gregory
Koukl -
“Living things do not become entirely different creatures in the
process of changing their form,” writes Gregory Koukl. “Rather,
they develop according to a certain physical pattern precisely
because of the kind of being they already are.”
And
in another source (Ronan
O’Rahilly and Fabiola Miller,
Human Embryology and Teratology [3rd edition, New York: Wiley-Liss,
2001, p. 8]): "Although life is a continuous process,
fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary
circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed
when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the
oocyte."
In
yet another textbook (William
J. Larsen,
Essentials of Human Embryology [New York: Churchill Livingstone,
1998, pp. 1, 14]), we read the following: "Human embryos begin
development following the fusion of definitive male and female
gametes during fertilization[.] … This moment of zygote formation
may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic
development."
The
word “embryo” is defined as such (Considine,
Douglas
[ed.], Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, 5th edition, New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943): "Embryo: The
developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the
completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes
a separate organism. … At the moment the sperm cell of the human
male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a
fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun[.]"
And
yet another textbook (Carlson,
Bruce M. Patten’s
Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996,
p. 3) states: "Almost all higher animals start their lives from
a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)[.] … The time of
fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or
ontogeny, of the individual."
National
Geographic
put together a television program (“In the Womb,” 2005)
documenting the development of the baby throughout pregnancy. In the
introduction of their program, they sum up the scientific knowledge
of the beginning of life in the following way: "The two cells
gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception
[fertilization], when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created,
a human signature that never existed before and will never be
repeated."
The
1981 Senate Hearing on the Start of Life
In
1981 (April 23-24), a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on
the question of when human life begins. Appearing to speak on behalf
of the scientific community was a group of internationally known
geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell – namely,
that human life begins at conception (fertilization) – and they
told their story with a complete absence of opposing testimony
(Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981).
Dr.
Micheline M. Mathews-Roth,
Harvard Medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by
references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that
human life began at fertilization. "It is incorrect to say that
biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to
say that an individual human life begins at conception."
“Father
of Modern Genetics” Dr.
Jerome Lejeune
told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization
has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter
of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence. Each
individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr.
McCarthy de Mere,
medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified:
"The exact moment of the beginning of person-hood and of the
human body is at the moment of conception."
Dr.
Alfred Bongiovanni,
professor of pediatrics and obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, concluded: "I am no more prepared to say
that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I
would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of
puberty … is not a human being. … I have learned from my earliest
medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr.
Richard V. Jaynes:
"To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined
scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Dr.
Landrum Shettles,
sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization,” notes:
"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind."
And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth
[about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing
abortion."
Professor
Eugene Diamond
stated: "… either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or
they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."
Gordon,
Hymie, M.D., FRCP,
chairman of medical genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester: "By all
criteria of modern molecular biology,life is present from the moment
of conception. … Science has a very simple conception of man; as
soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man."
C.
Christopher Hook, M.D.
Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate
School of Medicine: "When fertilization is complete, a unique
genetic human entity exists."
The official Senate report reached this conclusion: "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
Scott
Klusendorf Debate w/ Malcom Potts (UC Berkeley)
Outline
of Scott's Rebuttal re: Science of Embryology
"One
reason Potts completely melted down in front of 600 of his students
was that I hit him very hard in his own area of
expertise—embryology—demonstrating that he either did not know
his science or was deliberately misleading. I was not sarcastic or
disrespectful. But I continually pounded away on this question: “Why
are all the other embryologists in the world wrong? Don’t you need
to explain why they are wrong? You could be right, and I’m open to
hearing that. But simply pulling rank on me won’t work. Give me a
good argument why you are correct, and I will concede this debate.”
Of
course, he never did.
Below
is an outline of his claims, and my responses to them. I began my
rebuttal by quickly reviewing my opening case:
I.
Review My Thesis: The unborn are distinct, living, whole humans. They
are not constructed externally like a car, but develop themselves
from within. Various embryology textbooks, like those cited in my
opening speech, confirm this.
II.
Dr. Potts’s response to my scientific case is not persuasive. He
simply tried to pull rank on me. Here's what he said:
"No
absolutes in embryology, only judgment calls."
Including
that one? Self-defeating (like saying, “my brother is an only
child”).
If
we don’t know if the unborn are human, we shouldn’t kill them.
But
Potts does know. In our previous debate (last November), he pointed
to a picture of an early embryo and said, “This is what you and I
looked like after conception.” Thus, he just conceded my case!
"Absence
of consensus—people disagree on embryo’s humanity."
So? How does it follow that because people disagree, nobody is right?
If
disagreement means that nobody is right, Dr. Potts’s own position
is refuted. After all, many prominent embryologists disagree with
him!
Most
important, we have a consensus: Embryology textbooks uniformly state
each of us began as an embryo. Even thinkers who share Dr. Potts’s
support for abortion agree (Alan Guttmacher, Ronald Dworkin, David
Boonin, Peter Singer).
It’s
not enough for Dr. Potts to pull rank on me: he needs to explain why
my scientific case is flawed.
"No
embryo is a living human until primitive streak emerges at 18 days"
Odd
claim: Dr. Potts just told us we can’t know anything about
embryology (no absolutes, only judgment calls) but now he says that
we can’t be individual human beings before 18 days.
For a guy
who says we can’t know anything about embryology he sure claims to
know a lot!
Miscarriages—“Nature
is the biggest abortionist.”
Potts commits the Is/Ought Fallacy: How does it follow that because nature spontaneously aborts high numbers of embryos that a) they are not living human beings, or b) I may deliberately kill them through elective abortion?
Many
3rd World countries have high infant mortality rates; does it follow
that those infants who die sooner have less of a right to life than
those who die later? Admittedly, these miscarriages are tragic. But
as liberal journalist Andrew Sullivan points out, just because
earthquakes happen doesn’t mean mass murder is justified.
Hydatidiform
Moles—“All acts of fertilization do not result in human
organism.”
Confuses necessary and sufficient conditions: I’m not arguing that everything that results from sperm/egg union is human, only that all humans conceived without the aid of reproductive technologies came about that way.
Hydatidiform
Moles do not start of as embryos and morph into tumors. Rather, they
result from flawed or deficient conceptions and are intrinsically
tumors from the beginning.
Ignorance—“Biological
life is continuous, and any divisions between life and non-life are
arbitrary judgement calls.”
This is demonstrably false. Just because life is continuous between generations does not mean we can’t tell when an individual human begins to exist. Dr. Potts still hasn't refuted the huge numbers of embryologists who disagree with him.
Abortionists
know what they are killing—Warren Hern: “We have reached a point
in this particular technology (D&E) where there is no possibility
of denials of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before
one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the
current like an electric current.”
Planned
Parenthood Brochure (1961—“Plan Your Children for Health and
Happiness”): “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has
begun.”
California
Medicine (1970): "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The
result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very
considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize
abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if
they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It
is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary
because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet
been rejected."
Soul
confusion—“Embryologist can’t say when life begins anymore than
an astronomer can say what happens to the soul after death.”
True,
science can’t tell us if embryos (or anyone else) has souls—that’s
a philosophical question—but the science of embryology can tell us
when each of us began (conception).
As I said earlier, many of
Pott’s colleagues disagree with him on the empirical question of
when life begins.
We
don’t need decide if embryos have souls before deciding to protect
them. The law doesn’t take a position on whether 35-year olds have
souls, but it still forbids intentionally killing them.
“Ectopic
pregnancy proves unborn are not human, as every doctor in the world
will kill that embryo to save the mother.”
From
the fact a doctor saves a woman’s life by treating ectopic
pregnancy, with the unintended result the embryo dies, we are to
conclude what—that the embryo wasn’t human and intentionally
killing him is okay?
Treating ectopic pregnancy and elective abortion are not parallel. In the first case, the death of the developing human is foreseen but not intended. In the second, the death of the developing human being is both foreseen and intended.
Christians
Who Are Anti-Abortion and Yet Pro-Choice
Thank
you to Marc Newman for the answer to this question some time back.
Marc is the author of a book titled, "Contenders; A Church-Wide
Strategy to Unmask Abortion, Defeat its Advocates, Empower
Christians, and Change the World".
Question:
Does the Contenders book help address the issue of Christians who say
they are against abortion, but also say they are pro-choice? I've
been running into more and more of them.
Answer: When Christians say they personally oppose abortion, but don't want to legislate for others, they demonstrate ignorance on the nature of moral reasoning. Moral claims are not about likes and dislikes. Rather, they are about what is right or wrong regardless of one's preferences. Imagine if I said, "Stan, I personally oppose spousal abuse, but what you do with your wife is none of my business. I am pro-choice on wife beating." You would instantly recognize that I was morally untutored. You don't oppose spousal abuse because you dislike it. You oppose it because it's objectively wrong even if someone else likes it. So, the next time a Christian tells you that he personally opposes abortion, but wants it to remain legal, ask "Why do you personally oppose abortion?" When he replies that it intentionally kills an innocent human being (the only reason for opposing it that makes sense), reply: "Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You personally oppose abortion because it intentionally kills innocent human beings, but you think it should be legal to intentionally kill innocent human beings?" Let the question just hang there..
No comments:
Post a Comment