The End of the Innocents: What Everyone Needs to Know About Abortion
Abstract
This essay sets forth the scientific, philosophical, ethical, and theological reasons why abortion should be an absolutely unthinkable “choice” for any civilized society. The three-point argument may be summarized as follows:
1) The science of embryology, aided by technological advances in medical photography and ultrasonography, demonstrates empirically and conclusively that the unborn are unique, genetically distinct, whole, living human beings from the moment of fertilization (i.e., the instant that a male sperm and female egg unite); therefore, abortion procedures (surgical or medical/chemical), which are amply documented via graphic images and videos, undeniably entail the intentional, violent killing of living human beings (i.e., principally by dismembering them alive, burning or poisoning them to death with chemicals, or, in the case of late-term or partial-birth abortions, brutally stabbing the baby’s neck, suctioning her brains out, and crushing her skull).
2) Careful philosophical and moral reasoning reveals that there is no essential, ontological, or anthropological difference between a human being at an earlier stage of development (e.g., zygote, embryo, or fetus) and that same human being at a later stage of development (e.g., infant, toddler, teenager, adult) that would make it morally justifiable to kill that person in one stage of life but not in another, because the only differences between a pre-born human and a post-born human are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, and those differences are completely irrelevant to the question of one’s humanity, dignity, worth, or right to life. (We could also add other factors, such as ability, age, appearance, ethnicity, gender/sex, health problems/defects, nationality, perceived usefulness to society, and whether or not a child is wanted by its biological mother or father, none of which would disqualify a pre-born child from the human race or justify killing him or her, any more than such considerations would justify killing post-born human beings.)
3) Last but not least, the Bible teaches that all humans have intrinsic, sacred value and dignity because all human beings are made in the image of God and, for the same reason, forbids the intentional destruction of innocent human life. Consequently, since science and philosophy establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pre-born are indeed living human beings who are of the same essence and nature as post-born human beings, then we can know for certain that the commands of Scripture which forbid the shedding of innocent human blood also logically apply to the lives of the most innocent members of the human race: unborn children.
Originally published in 2015
Last revised on 9-27-23
Prologue
In May 2013, pro-life advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief when at least some measure of justice was served with the sentencing of Dr. Kermit Gosnell to life in prison without parole.
Now, you may be thinking, “Hey, that sounds interesting. But, umm . . . who’s Kermit Gosnell?”
If you’re not familiar with that name, I can’t say that I blame you. After all, Fox News and the syndicated CBN NewsWatch were virtually the only TV news outlets that closely followed this appalling story, at least until journalist Kirsten Powers and a bevy of Twitter users took the mainstream media to task for their dubious under-reporting of this unprecedented human rights case. But even after being publicly shamed, the major left-of-center networks (especially ABC, who didn’t even bother to acknowledge the story for a whopping 56 days) scarcely mentioned the Gosnell trial, all the while devoting inordinate coverage to political squabbles and the usual celebrity gossip frivolity. So, in case you missed the basic facts surrounding this story, allow me to spend the next few paragraphs filling you in before segueing to the broader subject of this article.
Kermit Gosnell was an abortionist who operated a nightmarish abortion clinic in West Philadelphia for more than three decades, over which time it is estimated that tens of thousands of babies, as well as several women, were killed under his “care.” Gosnell’s clinic was so unsanitary and shockingly macabre that government authorities dubbed it a “house of horrors” after having raided and investigated the sordid facility in February 2010.
Remarkably, the raid on Gosnell’s clinic was prompted not by complaints of medical malpractice or illegal abortions (even though 46 lawsuits had been filed against Gosnell since 1979 but were curiously overlooked by state regulators), but because Gosnell was suspected of illegally prescribing pain-killers to patients. That crime, though, as bad as it is, seems benign when contrasted with the unimaginable inhumanity that investigators came face to face with on that dark day.
I won’t go into much of the lurid details here; but if you have the stomach for it, you may read the official Grand Jury Report. [Note: Pages 19–22 are especially disturbing.] What strikes me as particularly ghoulish is that Gosnell kept the extracted organs and limbs (severed feet seem to have been his favorite keepsake) of deceased babies stored in multiple jars and proudly displayed in what amounts to a “trophy case” — a bizarre and assuredly demonic hobby, if there ever was one. Some fellas collect stamps. Others collect comic books and baseball cards. “Doctor” Gosnell, in keeping with serial killer idiosyncrasies, collected the dissected cadavers of children he murdered and later mutilated. Truly, human depravity has no boundaries.
In addition to being convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the 2009 lethal overdose of an abortion patient (i.e., a mother), as well as over 200 state abortion law violations, Gosnell was found guilty of the first-degree murder (read: infanticide) of three out of seven newborn infants he had been accused of savagely killing by stabbing their necks with scissors and severing their spinal cords after they had been delivered alive.
According to the testimony of various staff members, this barbaric practice, which Gosnell casually referred to as “snipping,” was a standard business procedure at his Women’s Medical Society clinic. One eyewitness, former employee Steven Massof, who also performed abortions at the clinic for a period of five years despite not having a medical license, testified that he personally saw over 100 born-alive babies killed in this grisly fashion. Moreover, the Grand Jury Report “documents multiple murders of viable babies [i.e., babies able to survive outside their mother’s uterus]” and states that “the evidence makes a compelling case that many others were also murdered (cf. pg. 25 of the Grand Jury Report).”
[Note: An award-winning documentary series, 3801 Lancaster, covers Gosnell’s bloody story and features eyewitness testimony from some of his former patients. The first film in the series can be viewed here, and you may learn more about the project here.]
What lessons should a civilized society learn from this stomach-turning trial (and others that are sure to follow), particularly with regard to the morality of abortion?
Let’s explore that question.
A “Complex” Issue?
Abortion may be the most divisive, “hot-button” talking point in modern society. Without a doubt, the issue invariably evokes strong emotional responses any time it is raised. Understandably, many people would prefer never to broach the subject because, let’s face it, working through weighty, controversial moral problems is not an easy task. But isn’t that always the case with the things that really matter in life? Religion and politics, for example, are widely considered to be the two most taboo topics of human discourse. However, when you get right down to it, nothing could be more important than what those two categories encompass: theology (the study of God and ultimate meaning) and morality (questions of justice and right & wrong behavior).
More often than not, abortion is mischaracterized as a “complex” issue for which there are no easy socio-political solutions. In point of fact, however, while the circumstances that influence a woman to consider aborting her child may be difficult (e.g., financial struggles, emotional/psychological unpreparedness, fear, or intense pressure from a boyfriend or parent), there is nothing whatsoever complicated about knowing and understanding precisely what transpires when an abortion is conducted.
Furthermore, ascertaining whether or not the act of abortion is morally wrong can be settled rather easily, too. We simply need to know the answer to one fundamental question:
What is the unborn?
Before one can answer the question, “Is it okay to kill this thing?” one must first know what the thing is.
To be clear, this is the crux of the abortion controversy. You see, if the unborn is not a human being, then abortion deserves no more justification than having a tooth pulled or one’s tonsils removed. And, again, if the unborn is not a member of the human family, then no one should be concerned about reducing the number of abortions that occur or keeping them “rare” and “safe.” (Think about it: If the unborn is not a human being, what would be the harm in governments deregulating and expanding abortion on demand? Why not make them permissible and accessible in as many circumstances as possible, as long as they only help improve a woman’s health?)
Conversely, if it turns out that the unborn is a human being, then abortion should be absolutely unthinkable.
But how can we be sure that abortion truly ends the life of a human organism, and is there any mystery or uncertainty as to when human life begins or at what point a human being “qualifies” for human rights protections?
To answer these questions, let’s first take a look at the scientific evidence.
Scientific Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Unthinkable
Scientifically, the biological field of embryology and astounding advances in medical photography and ultrasonography confirm with certainty the irrefutable fact that (1) the unborn is a living organism (e.g., they grow and develop, undergo cellular reproduction, metabolize by turning energy into food, respond to stimuli, etc.) and that (2) human life begins at the moment when fertilization occurs (not to be confused with implantation, which happens later) — that is, when the 23 chromosomes of a male sperm and the 23 chromosomes of a female ovum (egg) unite or fuse to produce a unique, living, entirely human, self-directed individual who is genetically distinct from his or her parents, complete with a unique DNA code and his or her own blood supply. Eventually (i.e., between the third and sixth months of gestation), this new human being also will develop a one-of-a-kind set of fingerprints.
“At the instant of fertilization, your baby’s genes and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If [the sperm] has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.” —WebMD.com article titled “Conception & Pregnancy”
What is meant by “self-directed” is the amazing fact that the unborn actively organizes and develops itself from a fertilized egg to full maturity in accordance with the goal-directed genetic instructions “programmed” within it. As a matter of fact, if allowed to live and develop to maturity, a 1-celled tiny human (fertilized egg) will eventually become a 37.2-trillion-celled adult human!
Please pay attention to a vital point here: The unborn is not part of his mother’s body, such as an organ or an appendage or a wart. Rather, the unborn is actually a discrete, whole, body-soul entity with a separate genetic code all of his own.
[Note: On that last point, ponder this: Did you know that the DNA that makes you the unique person you are today was already in place when you were a single-celled conceptus? What’s more, all the genetic information you will ever have throughout your entire life, from “zygote” to senior citizen, was present the instant you were conceived. Thus, each of your inherited characteristics — including sex/gender, eye and hair color, potential height, and even certain personality traits — were determined at that earliest stage of human life. Somehow, the word “awesome” just doesn’t cut it. Without question, God’s ingenuity is absolutely unrivaled!]
At the beginning (i.e., the first few weeks or so) of prenatal development, this tiniest of persons is technically called a zygote (from a Greek word meaning “to join” or “to yoke,” in reference to the reproductive union or joining together of ovum and sperm). Then, from the time following fertilization through the 8th week of gestation, he or she is scientifically referred to as an embryo (from a Greek word meaning “to swell” or “to grow,” in reference to the fact that the unborn is a living, growing organism), followed by the term fetus (from a Latin word meaning “offspring” or “young one,” which is self-explanatory) from the 9th week of pregnancy through birth. Finally, once the child exits mom’s womb, he or she is referred to as a “newborn” or infant (from a Latin word meaning “unable to speak”).
[Note: Although I do use the terms at various times in this essay because of their familiarity, in general, I think we would all do well to abandon the use of dead languages (i.e., Greek and Latin) when discussing subjects as sobering as human rights and bioethics in the present age. For one, clarity is imperative to communicating truth, and archaic nomenclature is unhelpful and oftentimes confusing to modern English-speaking people. Furthermore, when we use these arcane words to describe the unborn, a more diabolical problem arises. The impersonal, crass, alien, science-fiction-sounding terms “zygote” and “fetus” have the unfortunate side-effect of dehumanizing and depersonalizing the child in the womb. (Using the popular euphemism “product of conception” or “POC” has the same effect.) To be certain, abortion-choice advocates are well aware of this linguistic power, and a great number of them deliberately use these terms as part of their strategy to distract people — including themselves — from an inconvenient truth: the empirical and axiomatic fact that abortion takes the life of a living human being.]
In addition, according to the fundamental scientific law of biogenesis, life comes only from life, and species reproduce only after their own kinds. What this means in practical terms is that cats produce cats, dogs produce dogs, horses produce horses, ducks produce ducks, and humans produce humans. The unborn species growing inside of a pregnant human, therefore, cannot be anything other than a human.
As you will learn from the following citations, standard medical literature (e.g., encyclopedias and medical journals) and biology/embryology textbooks have supported these basic facts of human reproduction and human development at least as far back as 1964, almost a decade before the Roe v. Wade decision:
“Starting at 10-and-a-half weeks’ gestation [i.e., during the first trimester of pregnancy], when something touches the fetus’s hand, he starts to close his fingers. Typically, the fetus moves all of his fingers together, except the thumb. Over the next few weeks, he starts to bend his fingers more deeply and move his thumb, as if he were grasping an object. By 15 weeks’ gestation, the fetus moves each finger separately and spontaneously explores his environment with his fingers. By 16 weeks, he will have a weak but effective grasp that will become so strong that by 27 weeks’ gestation, he will be able to support his own body weight momentarily by grasping!” —Tryphena Humphrey, “Some Correlations Between the Appearance of Human Fetal Reflexes and the Development of the Nervous System,” in Progress in Brain Research, Edited by Dominick P. Purpura and J. P. Schadé, Vol. 4, Growth and Maturation of the Brain (1964, pp. 93–135)
“The baby is, in fact, a living creature from the instant of conception, but its movements are first sensed by its mother about the eighteenth week of pregnancy. . . . [During the process of sexual reproduction, several hundred million] sperm cells are deposited near the mouth of the womb. These sperm cells may travel further, enter an oviduct, where one [and only one!] of them may meet with and fertilize one of the female egg cells. At once, by process of self-division, the fertilized egg cell (called a zygote)—in reality, a new, living individual—will begin to grow, feeding mainly on the food which it finds within itself. Leaving the oviduct, this fertilized egg cell fastens itself to the inner wall of the womb [i.e., implantation, which clearly occurs after the new living human individual has already begun to exist] . . . . The new human being exists as soon as the sperm cell has fertilized the egg cell, at which time the sex is determined. [Please notice here that a person’s sex is irreversibly determined at the moment fertilization occurs and is not, therefore, something that a doctor or a parent or anyone else “assigns” or “socially constructs” at some later point.]” —The New Illustrated Medical and Health Encyclopedia, Edited by Morris Fishbein, M.D. (1970, pp. 1076 and 1130, emphasis mine)
“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. . . . The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” —J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics (1974, pp. 17 and 23, emphasis mine)
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created, which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” —E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd Edition (1975, p. vii, emphasis mine)
Modern textbooks teach the same:
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) 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.” —Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd Edition (2001, p. 8, emphasis mine)
“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.” —Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th Edition (2008, p. 2, emphasis mine)
“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm [male gamete] fuses with an oocyte [female gamete or “egg”] to form a single cell—the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. The zygote, just visible to the unaided eye, contains chromosomes and genes that are derived from the mother and father. The zygote divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth, and differentiation. . . . The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes came from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from those in the cells of either of the parents. This mechanism forms the basis of bi-parental inheritance and variation of the human species. . . . The embryo’s chromosomal sex is determined at fertilization by the kind of sperm (X or Y) that fertilizes the oocyte. Fertilization by an X-bearing sperm produces a 46, XX zygote, which develops into a female, whereas fertilization by a Y-bearing sperm produces a 46, XY zygote, which develops into a male.” —Drs. Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. (Vid) Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th Edition (2016, pp. 11 and 29, emphasis mine)
Accordingly, to deny the “humanness” or “aliveness,” if you will, of the unborn child at any stage of development or at any point during the gestation period (first, second, or third trimester of pregnancy) is to argue against the incontrovertible, long-established findings of science, the veracity of which has been made positively undeniable thanks to the powerful visual aids of 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D ultrasounds and advanced medical photography.
THE UNBORN AT VARIOUS STAGES OF PRENATAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
As you look at the following photographs of the unborn, please keep in mind that every day, somewhere in this country, scores of incontestably human beings just like the ones pictured here are being violently killed in each of these developmental stages and through all three trimesters of a woman’s pregnancy—and this is “legal.”
[Sources: WebMD.com, MedicineNet.com, JustTheFacts.org, and CloudNine4D.com]
FIRST TRIMESTER
6 weeks (1.5 months)
8 weeks (2 months)
12 weeks (3 months)
SECOND TRIMESTER
16 weeks (4 months)
20 weeks (5 months)
24 weeks (6 months)
Note: This is Lyla. She was delivered prematurely at 21 weeks of development and is now—as of October 2020—a healthy 6-year-old girl. In this photo, she was at 24 weeks of development. You may read her amazing story here. Bear in mind that babies are being brutally killed via elective abortion at this same age and later. In fact, in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, which was officially overturned on 6-24-22 (all praise and thanks be to the one true God!!!), it was asserted ignorantly and wrongly that a baby is not “viable” (i.e., able to survive outside her mother’s womb) until 28 weeks of gestation! Today, we know better.
THIRD TRIMESTER
28 weeks (7 months)
29 weeks (7 months)
32 weeks (8 months)
36 weeks (9 months)
[Note: If you would like to view still images or motion pictures/movies showcasing the captivating beauty and divine wonder of prenatal development through all nine months of gestation, I heartily recommend the following website: Just the Facts. Moreover, to watch a week-by-week slide show that describes the highlights of a baby’s development from zygote to infant, click here. See for yourself what the Bible means when it says that human beings are “fearfully and wonderfully made” and “skillfully wrought” by our Creator (cf. Psalm 139:13-16). Modern science — the ally, not the adversary, of Christianity — clearly and powerfully affirms this divine truth. As you behold the inimitable craftsmanship of the One who formed you in your mother’s womb and knew you before you were even conceived, ponder this question: Now that we are privileged to observe with our own eyes this sublime, wondrous process that practically screams to us, “YES, there is a God!” how could anyone continue to believe that the extraordinary complexity and intricacies of human physiology arose originally from non-intelligent, non-living matter (i.e., the theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation) and the blind, fortuitous, mindless, impersonal, purposeless, undirected forces of nature? I don’t have enough faith to buy that nonsense, and neither should you!]
“Conception to Birth Visualized” by Alexander Tsiaras
Pretend, though, for a moment that the scientific evidence were not as clear as it is. What if doctors could not be sure when human life begins?
As a general rule of safety and ethical responsibility, when in doubt, one should always err on the side of caution. More importantly, where human life is concerned — even the so-called “potential” for human life — one should always err on the side of LIFE.
Throwing caution to the wind and proceeding to destroy something that has even the possibility of being a human life would be recklessly negligent, perhaps even indicating malice aforethought.
Consider this: Imagine that you and a friend go on a hunting expedition together and the two of you get separated. After about an hour or so, you hear some rustling in the bushes and aren’t sure whether it’s the game you’re hunting or your friend. Question: Would you not first make absolutely sure that it’s not your friend in the bushes before firing your gun? I certainly hope so!
Alternatively, suppose you were working on a demolition crew and were assigned to demolish an old apartment complex. Would you not conduct an absolutely exhaustive search of every room in that building to ensure that no human being is inside before you ignite the dynamite or send the wrecking ball crashing through the structure? That would be unthinkable, wouldn’t it?
The bottom line is this: If a person honestly has any uncertainty whatsoever regarding the humanity or viability of the unborn, then he or she should never proceed with a decision that, if mistaken, would result in the death of a human being. There’s no room for error here. This is a risk no civilized society should be willing to take.
By eight weeks in the womb, the baby boy or girl sucks her thumb, recoils from pricking — so, let’s get our mind around this. At eight weeks, if we needed to take a little sample from the baby, she’s already got her own blood — it’s not mom’s blood; it’s not dad’s blood — and, so, we’re sticking a little needle up there just to prick the heel to get some information about what’s going on with the baby; and the baby will, at that prick, pull up its leg — will avoid pain! So, she/he feels pain at eight weeks. At eight weeks, she responds to sound. At eight weeks, all of his organs are present. His brain is functioning. (There’s new evidence that says that maybe they’re even dreaming.) Her heart is pumping. Her liver is making blood cells. Her kidneys are cleaning fluid. She has a fingerprint that is her own. And — look at me — virtually every one of the one million abortions that happened last year in the United States happened after this. —Matt Chandler, Pastor, the Village Church (emphasis mine)
Seeing Is Believing
For many people, the reality of abortion will never register in their hearts until they actually see what abortion does to its victims. This is because the term “abortion,” like many English words, has lost all meaning. Thus, to awaken the desensitized or deadened conscience of the masses, it has become necessary in our complacency-prone culture to restore meaning to that word by tactfully using graphic images of real-life abortions.
As pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf once remarked, “I’m convinced that the American people will tolerate abortion as long as they don’t have to see abortion.”
I believe he’s right, and that is why I have decided to share the following video, simply titled “This Is Abortion.” Although this clip is just over one minute in length, the visuals are gruesome and disturbing. Nevertheless, I encourage everyone reading this to watch the video in its entirety so that you may fully grasp why abortion is such a grave moral injustice against humanity — one that must be abolished wherever it is practiced. Sometimes, words just aren’t enough. Sometimes, seeing is believing.
[Note: If your computer, tablet, or mobile device cannot play the clip embedded above, please click here or try this alternate video.]
THE MOST COMMON SURGICAL ABORTION METHODS
ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED
Besides “surgical” abortions, there are also “medical” or chemical abortions, which consist of a woman taking an abortifacient or “abortion pill,” such as Mifeprex (RU486), to end the life of the developing baby, usually within the first 7–9 weeks of pregnancy. A couple of days later, the woman must then use a “vaginal suppository,” such as Misoprostol, to ensure that the child — now dead from the abortifacient — is completely expelled from her vagina. Of course, the patient is literally informed on one website that Misoprostol “helps expel the pregnancy.” Yes, you read that correctly. They don’t want to admit that a dead human being’s little corpse will be expelled from the mother’s womb, so they resort to using utterly nonsensical language instead. According to this same self-proclaimed “kind” and “compassionate” abortion clinic, the woman “can expect to experience painful cramping and heavy bleeding for several hours.”
God, have mercy . . .
Philosophical / Ethical Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Unthinkable
The chilling irony of the Gosnell verdict is this: Had Gosnell killed those three fully delivered babies only seconds earlier when each baby was still positioned inside her mother’s body, he would not have been convicted of murdering those children. In fact, the only reason Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of first-degree murder in this case is because he killed those particular babies after they had been fully delivered alive.
Apparently, according to Judge Jeffrey Minehart, it was at that point — and not a moment sooner — that the babies became human beings worthy of legal protection.
When addressing members of the jury in the Gosnell trial, Minehart informed them that “state law defines a live baby as one that is fully expelled from the mother and showing signs of life such as breathing, heart beat, or movement. If a baby shows those signs, that baby is a human being (emphasis mine).”
Let me get this straight. In the view of Pennsylvania legislators, where a baby is located at the time it is killed is the determining factor that separates a human from a non-human and a murderous act from a harmless medical procedure? Am I missing something here? Is there a morally significant distinction between infanticide (i.e., the killing of a living and fully delivered baby) and abortion (the killing of a living but undelivered or partially delivered baby) that makes the first an abominable crime against humanity and the second an acceptable form of women’s “reproductive healthcare”?
As an aside, this egregious double standard is by no means peculiar to PA. Most states have fetal homicide (or feticide) laws that make it a crime to kill pre-born children for just about every act except an abortion. For example, even in California, the abortion capital of America, a person who kills a pregnant woman can be tried for a double homicide. Significantly, neither the humanity, nor the personhood, nor the inalienable rights of the unborn victim are questioned in that scenario. If, however, the same pregnant woman carrying the same unborn child consents to have her child aborted in CA, then the same state government won’t lift a finger to protect the life of the unborn. The only difference between the two scenarios is the mother’s consent. Incredible.
The irony gets even worse. In California, if an abortionist angrily assaults a pregnant woman (say, in a parking lot) and the baby in her womb dies as a result, that abortionist would likely be tried for the murder of an unborn baby (or “fetus”). Yet if that same individual (i.e., the abortionist) were to take a pair of forceps and rip apart that same baby in the womb of that same woman — provided he first obtains her consent — not only would their actions not be considered murder, but the baby in the womb also would not be considered a human being worthy of life. Can anyone explain that twisted logic to me?
Why is the killing of a baby ex utero (i.e., outside the womb) lawfully treated as the murder of an innocent human being, while the killing of that exact same living baby in utero (i.e., inside the womb) is lawfully treated as a morally innocuous medical surgery and a woman’s fundamental right?
For that matter, why is it illegal in many states to perform abortions on third-trimester babies (i.e., 6-9 months along) but still legal to kill babies in the second (3-6 months) and first (0-3 months) trimesters? Why the arbitrary age or size discrimination?
Let’s think this through carefully.
1) Is it because the smaller size of an early-term baby somehow makes her less human or less worthy of protection than a larger, late-term baby?
Riddle me this: Am I more human or do I have more value and a greater right to life than my 3-year-old nephew, simply because I’m bigger than he is? Put another way, do we have the right to kill people because they are smaller than we are?
2) Is it because the unborn does not necessarily look like a human being at earlier stages of development from our perspective?
Riddle me this: When you were a baby or a toddler or an adolescent, did your looks remain the same across each of those developmental stages? Is it reasonable to conclude that because your appearance changed naturally over time that you were somehow not fully human, not truly a person, or not deserving of basic human rights when you were younger and looked different from the way you look now in adulthood?
3) Is it because the pre-born is less conscious or self-aware than the post-born?
Riddle me this: A 2-year-old girl is less self-aware and cognitively developed than her 7-year-old brother, but does that make big brother more of a person or more valuable than his little sister? (Also bear in mind that the human brain continues to develop through a person’s mid-20s. Are people under the age of, say, 25, not fully human or not truly persons who have the right to live?) And do people become non-human or non-persons when they’re sleeping or when they’re anesthetized during an operation, for example? If your mother was in a serious car accident and wound up in a coma for several months, would it be okay for the medical staff to terminate your mom’s life to make room for another patient in need of a bed, having concluded that your mom is no longer a human worth saving, seeing as how comatose people are unconscious and apparently not self-aware?
4) Is it because the passage through the birth canal magically transmogrifies the unborn from a non-human, expendable “blob of tissue” or “clump of cells” into a valuable human person whose life is suddenly worth protecting?
Riddle me this: Does your essential nature, humanity, personhood, or intrinsic value change whenever you exit and re-enter your home? In other words, do you stop being “you” whenever you change location? And do you really have a good reason to believe that you were some one or some thing different in nature or essence before you exited your mother’s womb at birth?
5) Is it because an embryo or fetus is dependent on its mother and would not survive on its own, without help?
Riddle me this: Does degree of dependency determine a person’s humanity, worth, or right to live? Children are dependent on their parents for several years following birth, but does that give moms and dads the right to kill their kids whenever they become a burden or an inconvenience, financial or otherwise? (Watch out, teenagers!) Consider the ill, infirm, elderly, physically disabled, mentally handicapped, or those with other special needs. How about insulin-dependent diabetics or oxygen-dependent COPD patients? Conjoined twins share each other’s bodily systems. A great number of people depend on caretakers for their entire lives. Does the fact that these “dependents” cannot live on their own without some form of assistance or community (and who among us truly can?) somehow make them sub-human, less valuable than “independents,” or unworthy of life?
[Note: I must give credit to Greg Koukl and Scott Klusendorf for teaching me the importance of asking these thoughtful questions.]
I hope you will agree that the answer to each of these questions is an emphatic NO!
Ladies and gentlemen, the reasons our society is so mystifyingly inconsistent on the abortion issue might be summarized by three key words:
Ignorance (“I don’t know!”)
Indifference (“I don’t care!”)
and
Denial (“I refuse to believe that!”)
Many of us are simply uninformed regarding the hard facts surrounding abortion, which is to say, we’ve failed to do our “homework” on this subject. (The purpose of this article is to eliminate that ignorance!)
Others of us, due at least in part to the Truth-denying postmodern, relativistic milieu in which we live, simply do not care or do not see what the big deal is about abortion:
Why should it matter to me since I’ll never have one?
Who am I to judge?
Right and wrong are matters of personal opinion anyway, aren’t they?
If you don’t like abortion (as if it’s a flavor of ice cream), then don’t have one!
The rest of us simply don’t want to accept reality if it means we don’t get to live the way we want to live. But when the inescapable moral law of God written on every human heart collides with our desires for unrestricted personal autonomy and unfettered sexual “freedom,” all of us, without exception, have a nasty tendency to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18-25), even when that truth is staring us square in the face. (Some of you are doing this right now.)
Philosophically speaking, as demonstrated through the rhetorical questions posed above, there is no essential difference between the kind of thing you were as a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus and the kind of thing you are today as an adult human that would have made it morally justifiable to kill you when you were still in your mother’s womb, but morally wrong to kill you today.
In other words, if it is wrong to kill you now, it was also wrong to kill you when you were a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., because you were the same living human being then as you are now — except that you are bigger, have changed locations (i.e., you moved outside your mother’s womb), are more developed, and are probably less dependent on your mom (or at least not dependent on her in the same ways).
As Harvard-educated philosopher Steven Schwartz once cleverly deduced, the only differences between the human you were as an embryo and the human you are now as an adult are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (SLED). Not one of these four extrinsic factors, however, counts as an adequate reason to devalue or disqualify a person from the human race, let alone justify taking a human being’s life. An individual’s perceived usefulness to society, also known as the “utilitarian view” of humanity, is equally irrelevant to the value or dignity of a human being. Why? Read the next section titled “Theological/Biblical Reasons” to find out.
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. . . . I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a “mother”? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn — for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will’s moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have. —President Ronald Reagan, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, 1983 (emphasis his)
Theological / Biblical Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Unthinkable
[Note: If you are skeptical as to whether the Bible is a reliable moral, theological, or historical authority, please click here.]
Two crucial questions remain: (1) What makes human beings valuable in the first place, and (2) Why is it morally wrong to destroy innocent human life?
The answer to both of these questions is vitally important:
Human beings are created in the image of God and are endowed by their Creator with transcendent and intrinsic value, which is to say that human worth comes from God and from within human nature rather than from some material or extrinsic/external consideration (e.g., function, looks, health, performance, or ability). Moreover, because of our unique relationship with God, the Very Source and Giver of life, humans possess certain privileges or “rights” that are inherent to our very essence, the most basic and paramount of which is the right to life, or the right not to be murdered.
[Note: The right to life is primal and is the necessary prerequisite to all other rights. Without it, all other human rights are meaningless. Obviously, if you don’t have life, then you don’t have anything at all! Thus, as far as governments are concerned, there is nothing more important or more deserving of protection than a person’s right to life; it naturally takes precedence over all other human rights claims.]
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him — male and female, He created them (Genesis 1:26-27, NASB, emphasis mine).
Scripture teaches that all humans have inestimable value and sanctity precisely because we are made in the image or likeness of our Maker. Indeed, God specially created human beings to be similar to Him in a variety of ways and, more importantly, to have a personal relationship with Him, which is something nothing else in the entirety of the created cosmos can experience or enjoy. This is why human beings are the most valuable and sacred of all living creatures. The Latin term for this teaching is imago Dei, and this fact forms the sole basis for what we call “human rights.” Indeed, it is God alone who is in a position to impart dignity, worth, and rights/privileges to His image bearers. Both the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2; 5:1; 9:6) and the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:7, Colossians 3:10, and James 3:9) affirm this foundational doctrine.
Furthermore, because humans bear God’s image, the shedding of innocent human blood is an assault on the imago Dei and is, therefore, a grave offense to the Creator and is strictly forbidden. In fact, human life is so special in the eyes of God that He tells us that even an animal is to be put to death if it kills a human being (cf. Genesis 9:5 and Exodus 21:28–32). (Also see Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17, and Proverbs 6:16-17, for example.)
“There are six things which the LORD [Yahweh] hates — yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood . . .” (Proverbs 6:16-17, NASB, emphasis mine).
** To take the life of another human being with premeditation or with intention (a.k.a. malice aforethought) is the biblical (and legal) definition of murder, and it is an extremely serious sin against both God and those who bear His image. **
Eastman’s 1897 Bible Dictionary adds the following details:
Willful murder was distinguished from accidental homicide [manslaughter] and was invariably visited with capital punishment (Num. 35:16, 18, 21, 31; Lev. 24:17). This law, in its principle, is founded on the fact of man’s having been made in the likeness of God (Gen. 9:5, 6; John 8:44; 1 John 3:12, 15). The Mosaic Law prohibited any compensation for murder or the reprieve of the murderer (Ex. 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11, 13; 2 Sam. 17:25; 20:10). Two witnesses were required in any capital case (Num. 35:19-30; Deut. 17:6-12). If the murderer could not be discovered, the city nearest the scene of the murder was required to make expiation for the crime committed (Deut. 21:1-9).
D. Glenn Saul further expounds on the biblical understanding of murder in this excerpt from the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (2003):
Jesus removed the concept of murder from a physical act to the intention of one’s heart (Matt. 5:21–22). According to Jesus, murder really begins when one loses respect for another human being. Spitting in the face of another, looking with contempt upon another, or unleashing one’s anger are signs that a murderous spirit is present. Jesus forces us to move to the spirit behind the prohibition of murder. We are compelled to do all that we can do to protect the life of our neighbor and help it flourish. The writer of 1 John pushed Jesus’ teaching to its ultimate: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him” (1 John 3:15, HCSB).
HANG ON! WHAT ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY?
In no way, however, does God’s mandate never to shed innocent human blood invalidate capital punishment, which is the divinely authorized shedding of guilty human blood. [Note: The term “innocent” in this context doesn’t mean sinless or without a sin nature; rather, it means “not guilty of wrongdoing and not deserving of punishment, particularly punishment by death.”] In fact, the existence of capital punishment proves the point that human life is sacred — so sacred, in fact, that the only penalty commensurate to the heinousness of homicide (i.e., murder) is the execution of the murderer. Understand that murder is the ultimate assault on the imago Dei (image of God), and is, therefore, a grave affront to the God who made humans in His image. By committing that most severe of all evils that one human can commit against another, he (i.e., the murderer) deservedly forfeits his own right to life.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man” (Genesis 9:6, NASB, emphasis mine).
“For the One who seeks an accounting for bloodshed remembers them; He does not forget the cry of the afflicted” (Psalm 9:12, HCSB, emphasis mine).
God created government and entrusted governing authorities with the power to execute criminals if the punishment fits the crime. Does this make God Himself a murderer, or is He contradicting Himself? The answer to both questions is “no.” As the sovereign, absolutely just Author and Owner of all life and the Supreme Judge of humanity, God is the only Being who has the right or prerogative both to start and to stop a human life, which really amounts to His transferring a soul from one destination (earth) to the next (heaven or hell, ultimately). However, God also has the right to delegate His authority to others if He so desires, and this is exactly what God did when He instituted earthly government and granted governing officials the right to administer capital punishment in qualifying situations.
[Note: For more on this, read Genesis 9:6, Romans 13:1-7, and 1 Peter 2:13-17, as well as Greg Koukl’s article “Reasons for Capital Punishment” and the GotQuestions entry titled “What does the Bible say about the death penalty/capital punishment?“]
To be clear, there is no objective grounding or logical basis for human value, equality, dignity, identity, meaning, or rights apart from God, the Creator. In an atheistic/materialistic universe, these things could not exist and would be utterly unintelligible.
Furthermore, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson, we learn that governments exist for the solitary purpose of defending — not determining or denying — people’s God-given, inalienable rights:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .” —The Declaration of Independence (1776)
The government’s singular role is to secure human rights — that is, to promote justice by enforcing laws designed to protect the citizenry from people who would infringe upon their God-endowed rights to life, liberty, property, and so forth. Again, the transcendent Creator God is the sole source and guarantor of human value and rights. Thus, governments (i.e., people) have no power or authority to grant value or rights to other humans, nor can they take them away. (This is the meaning of “inalienable,” by the way.)
Consequently, while a woman has the legitimate right to make many choices in this country (e.g., to vote, to marry whom she wants, to work or get an education where she pleases, etc.), she does not have the right to make a choice that would result in the infringement or destruction of another person’s inalienable rights. More to the point, no woman (or man or child, for that matter) has the right to kill another human being — that is, a fellow image bearer of God — without proper ethical justification (e.g., self-defense, police use of lethal force to stop or thwart an act of violence against another, capital punishment, or military compliance with just war theory).
Put another way, nobody has the liberty to commit murder (i.e., the unjust intentional killing of another human being). Therefore, the right to life of the innocent pre-born child — who, remember, we are now in a position to know conclusively is a distinct human person from fertilization onward — overrides and annuls his mother’s Supreme Court-invented “right” to choose to terminate his life via elective abortion.
With that said, since we now know with scientific certainty that the unborn meet all the necessary criteria for what it means to be truly alive and truly human from the moment of fertilization, then we can know with equal certainty that the biblical commands that forbid the shedding of innocent human blood also apply to innocent humans in the womb. Period.
HOW DOES GOD PERSONALLY VIEW THE UNBORN?
Both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible reveal with vivid and moving language that God views the unborn no differently than He views human beings outside the womb — that is, as incalculably valuable, sacred, and precious in His sight. The most profound and wondrous of all such examples is that God the Son Himself voluntarily condescended to become a pre-born child—even a fertilzed egg/zygote! Consider the following passages of Scripture (and these are by no means exhaustive) and their implications with regard to abortion and infanticide:
OLD TESTAMENT
JOB 10:8-12
Your hands fashioned and made me altogether,
And would You destroy me?
Remember now, that You have made me as clay;
And would You turn me into dust again?
Did You not pour me out like milk
And curdle me like cheese;
Clothe me with skin and flesh,
And knit me together with bones and sinews?
You have granted me life and lovingkindness;
And Your care has preserved my spirit (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: As he continues to come to terms with the suffering his Maker had permitted into his life, Job uses strikingly expressive language to describe God’s active involvement and loving care in delicately crafting, forming, and preserving his life from start to finish. The same could truly be said of every human being seeing as how the same God created all of us.
PSALM 22:9-10
Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb;
You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts.
Upon You I was cast from birth [literally, “a womb”];
You have been my God from my mother’s womb (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: In this passage, the psalmist David confidently confirms that even when he was inside his mother’s womb, he belonged to God. We have no reason to believe that this awesome truth doesn’t apply universally to all children in the womb and not exclusively to King David.
PSALM 139:13-16
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: In this magnificent psalm of praise, David conveys with the utmost awe and wonder the fact that the all-knowing, providential Creator was directly and intimately involved in planning, creating, and fashioning every detail and moment of his existence, from the time he spent in his mother’s womb all the way through the very end of his life. Moreover, David acknowledges that he was foreknown by God even prior to conception. Once again, there is no reason to believe that David thought this was true only of his own life and not the life of every human being.
EXODUS 21:22-25
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: This passage dealing with the civil penal laws that applied to the Israelites living under the Mosaic Covenant demonstrates that God considers unborn children to be of equal worth to their mother and, therefore, equally as human and equally as valuable as adult human beings.
In their book When Critics Ask (1992, pp. 79–80, emphasis mine), Drs. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe offer several helpful insights into this sometimes mistranslated and needlessly controversial passage that, given the topic at hand, are simply too edifying not to share here:
EXODUS 21:22–23 — Does this passage show that unborn children are of less value than adults?
PROBLEM: According to some translations of the Bible, this text teaches that when fighting men cause a woman to have a “miscarriage,” they “shall be fined” (v. 22, RSV). But, if the fighting men caused the death of the woman, the penalty was capital punishment (v. 23). Doesn’t this prove that the unborn was not considered a human being, as the mother was?
SOLUTION: First of all, this is a mistranslation of the verse. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translated the verse correctly as follows:
When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth, but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens—that is, if the woman dies or the children—then you shall give life for life. —Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967
This makes the meaning very clear. It is a strong passage against taking the life of an unborn baby, affirming that the unborn are of equal value to adult human beings.
Second, the Hebrew word (yatsa) mistranslated “miscarriage” in a few translations actually means “to come forth” or “to give birth.” It is the Hebrew word regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for a miscarriage, though it is used of a still birth. But, in this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature, birth.
Third, there is another Hebrew word for miscarriage (shakol), and it is not used here. Since this word for miscarriage was available and was not used, but the word for live birth was used, there is no reason to suppose it means anything else than a live birth of a fully human being.
Fourth, the word used for the mother’s offspring here is yeled, which means “child.” It is the same word used of babies and young children in the Bible (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3). Hence, the unborn is considered just as much a human as a young child is.
Fifth, if any harm happened to either the mother or the child, the same punishment was given, “life for life” (v. 23). This demonstrates that the unborn was considered of equal value with the mother.
[Note: For a deeper study of this particular passage, see Greg Koukl’s insightful article titled “What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion.”]
ISAIAH 49:1, 5
The LORD [Yahweh] called Me from the womb;
From the body of My mother, He named Me. . . .And now says the LORD [Yahweh], who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, to bring Jacob back to Him so that Israel might be gathered to Him . . .
Significance: Stunningly, this is a Messianic prophecy, which means that the prophet Isaiah is here describing the awesome truth that the coming Messiah, God the Son, would somehow become a human being and be formed in the womb of a woman and be divinely called and named while in utero. For more on this amazing point, see my comments below on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke!
JEREMIAH 1:5
Before I [God] formed you in the womb, I knew you,
And before you were born, I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: In this remarkable verse, the prophet declares in no uncertain terms that God personally foreknows and foreordains human life, as well as the special purpose/calling of an individual person before he/she ever begins life in the womb.
NEW TESTAMENT
GALATIANS 1:15-16
But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles . . . (NASB, emphasis mine)
Significance: In these verses, the Apostle Paul, like Jeremiah before him, reinforces the fact that God foreknows, foreordains, and sets apart or sanctifies pre-born people by His grace to accomplish His glorious will in the world.
LUKE 1:15
For he [John the Baptist] will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: Here, an angel visits Zacharias (also called Zachariah or Zechariah) in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and announces that God is going to bless Zacharias and his infertile wife, Elizabeth, with a son in their old age who, in fulfillment of biblical prophecy, will serve as the forerunner to Israel’s long-awaited Messiah. Significantly, the angel explicitly says that the Spirit of God will fill this miraculous child—that is, John the Baptist—while he was “yet in his mother’s womb.”
Throughout the biblical record, there is no instance or indication anywhere that the Holy Spirit ever entered or resided within or “filled” anyone or anything other than a living human person, because human beings are the only creatures God made in His own image. Indeed, it is only the body of an image bearer of God that can be called “a temple of the Holy Spirit” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19). Accordingly, it would be both inconsistent and unfathomable of God to give His Spirit to a non-living, non-human creature or a mere “clump of cells.” No, the fact that God gave His Spirit to John when he was in utero, still developing in his mother Elizabeth’s womb, powerfully demonstrates the awesome value, love, and purpose the Almighty Creator has for pre-born children.
MATTHEW 1:18-25 and LUKE 1:26-38
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus (NASB, emphasis mine).
. . . the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was very perplexed at this statement and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son; and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason, the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: Gospel writers Matthew and Luke here inform us that Almighty God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, loved His enemies so much that He condescended to leave the glory of heaven, lay aside His divine privileges and prerogatives (for approximately 33 years), and humble Himself to the lowliest, most vulnerable, and most helpless extent possible by becoming a pre-born human, for the ultimate purpose of sacrificing His perfect life so that sinful rebels such as you and I could be spared the just penalty our sins deserve (i.e., eternal punishment in hell) and instead be reconciled forever to the holy God whose laws we’ve repeatedly broken in thought, word, and deed.
That’s right: Long before He was born as a baby in a manger on that first Christmas in Bethlehem, God the Son, the Lord of all creation, volunteered to be supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of a young virgin—a woman whose very life He had planned and created, mind you—and personally submitted to going through all the various stages of human gestation and development—a wondrous biological process that He Himself invented!
Getting more specific, the eternal, self-existent, uncreated Second Person of the Trinity willingly became a *fertilized egg* or, as embryologists might say, a single-celled “zygote.” Next, He developed into an “embryo,” and later a “fetus,” and after the nine months of pregnancy were completed, God Incarnate eventually traveled down Mary’s birth canal and continued life as an infant, and then as a toddler, and so on through adulthood. (Try to wrap your mind around that!)
Notice also in the text how many times these Gospel authors, both inspired by God, refer to the unborn Jesus with personal pronouns (e.g., “He,” “His,” “Him”) and as a “baby,” a “Child,” and a “Son.” Truly, on the basis of these two passages of Scripture alone, it would be utterly preposterous for anyone to claim that God the Father did not consider His own Son to be an actual human person while He was in Mary’s womb or that Jesus’ value as a pre-born human was less than that of Mary or Joseph! Likewise, it would be equally ludicrous to surmise that the Lord Jesus would Himself deny the humanity, personhood, or inherent value of unborn children when He was once one Himself.
But let’s continue exploring Luke’s Gospel account, as it gets even better.
LUKE 1:39-45
Now at this time [i.e., when Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy], Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord” (NASB, emphasis mine).
Significance: Luke’s account of Mary visiting Elizabeth powerfully draws attention to the awesome work of God the Spirit in the miraculous pregnancies of these two godly Jewish women, but it also contains some truly marvelous, but often overlooked, evidences for the humanity and personhood of the unborn.
If you will recall, Luke informs readers in the verses preceding this passage that Elizabeth was six months pregnant with John the Baptist when the angel Gabriel gave Mary the news (i.e., the Annunciation) that she would soon conceive Jesus. From this we can infer that John was approximately half a year older than Jesus (i.e., humanly speaking). Thus, to put this in modern terms, upon Mary’s visitation, Elizabeth was in her second trimester of pregnancy (i.e., 4-6 months of gestation) and Mary was in her first trimester (i.e., 0-3 months). In other words, at the time, John the Baptist was a “fetus” (i.e., older than eight weeks), and Jesus of Nazareth was likely an “embryo” (i.e., eight weeks old or younger).
Bearing this in mind, note carefully the personal characteristics that Luke and Elizabeth ascribe to both John and Jesus while each was still developing in his mother’s womb.
John, who was roughly 24 weeks along here, is clearly referred to as “the baby” and is said to have “leaped” in Elizabeth’s womb “for joy,” thereby conveying not only awareness (sentience) of but also excitement (emotion) over the sound of another person’s voice.
However, I contend that it goes even deeper than that, for while the text indicates that John responded to the sound of Mary’s greeting, the passage also strongly implies that it was the fact that Mary was carrying his Lord and Messiah in her womb that caused the unborn John to react so joyfully. Indeed, I believe John, by God’s supernatural enablement, was aware even as a “fetus” that he was in the presence of Deity.
Additionally, Elizabeth tells Mary that Jesus, who was most likely in an embryonic state at the time (though possibly still a “zygote”), is “blessed” and, incredibly, refers to the pre-born holy Child as her “Lord”!
Clearly, as King David, the prophet Jeremiah, the Apostle Paul, and other biblical writers also emphatically affirm, whatever a person is destined to be and to accomplish outside his mother’s womb—be it king, prophet, apostle, or Messiah and Savior—was foreknown and settled as fact in eternity past by the sovereign, omniscient, eternal God of all life. Is it not, then, grossly blasphemous to doubt, much less to deny, the humanity, personhood, or worth of any unborn child at any stage of human development, particularly that of the pre-born Christ child?!
Think about that very carefully.
Simply put, God morally forbids abortion because it is equivalent to murder—the intentional (in fact, pre-meditated) killing of innocent human life. He has made His moral will on this issue perfectly clear for all people to know, both through the special revelation of holy writ and through the general/natural revelation of conscience and reason. At the end of the day, then, no other opinions on the issue matter. God’s laws transcend and overrule man’s laws.
“Behold, children are a gift of the Lord;
The fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3, NASB, emphasis mine).
“God has made it very clear: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit murder. And we shall not commit murder of our neighbor or our brother, our mother or father, or of ourselves. We are not our own. It’s interesting that in Roe v. Wade, the argument was given that they simply wanted women to have the autonomous control of their own bodies. Now, isn’t it fascinating that Humphry, in Final Exit, posits his argument [in favor of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide] simply on the fact that a person needs to have the autonomous control of his own body. But my friends, the problem is, it’s not your own.
“‘Know ye not that you are bought with a price, and ye are not your own?’ Nor is your life simply some chemical or biological accident — some concatenation of amino acids in some ancient, primordial slime. But it is a divine gift given unto you by God! It is sacred and inviolable. And it is not to be taken and flung back into the face of God, thanklessly!
“We are doubly not our own. We did not create our life; it was created by God. And beyond that, God even came into this world and died in great agony to redeem it. So, it is twice His — by creation and redemption. It is not our own autonomously to do with as we will. ‘Ye are not your own’!” —Dr. D. James Kennedy, from the sermon “Modern Myths: Suicide is a Viable Option”
[Note: For a fine summary of the Bible’s teachings against abortion from an eminent Bible scholar and expositor, I recommend Dr. John MacArthur’s article “Is Scripture Clear About Abortion?“]
What About the “Hard Cases”?
Let me be clear: Sexual assault and abuse (rape, molestation, incest, etc.) are horrible, repulsive sins and very serious human rights violations that should never be treated as anything less. In pursuing justice, a morally just society must hold the perpetrators of sex crimes accountable while at the same time demonstrating the utmost compassion and care to the victims of those crimes.
But what happens in the rare cases when sexual violence results in the conception of a new human life? Suddenly, the woman who was sexually assaulted is joined by another innocent survivor of the assault whose life is also unquestionably impacted by the assailant’s crime. How, then, should a morally just society treat both of these innocent survivors of sexual assault? Again, I would argue that both the woman and the pre-born child should be equally treated with the utmost compassion and care.
Many abortion-choice advocates believe that the mother who survives an act of sexual assault ought to abort the baby conceived in the assault because, they reason, going through with the pregnancy and having to look at that child would be too emotionally and psychologically painful for the woman/girl to bear.
That raises a key question: How should a civilized culture treat human beings who remind us of a painful event? I mean, is it morally justifiable to kill those people if it might help us feel a little better about past trauma? “Out of sight, out of mind,” right? Or, to put it more simply and directly, as philosopher Peter Kreeft once phrased the question:
Does hardship justify homicide?
This is a question of crucial importance. What sense does it make to inflict capital punishment (!) on an innocent bystander (i.e., the baby) of a crime for the sins of the criminal (i.e., the rapist/the child’s biological father), whose punishment — if there even is one, since rapists often get away with their crime(s) — is usually much less severe than the death penalty?
Moreover, wouldn’t killing the baby only serve to protect the abuser’s or rapist’s reputation — as well as enable him to continue repeating his crimes undetected — while significantly multiplying and exacerbating the holistic suffering of the woman who survived the assault?
Indeed, this seems to be the routine scenario in the majority of the “hard cases.” Consider the following testimony from Edith Young, who was raped by her stepfather and pressured into aborting her child:
Her mother and stepfather procured an abortion for her without telling her what was to happen. Twenty-six years later, she still had emotional and physical scars from her incest and abortion experience. She said, ‘The abortion has not been in my best interest. It only saved their reputations; solved their problems,” and “allowed their lives to go merrily on.” —Aborted Women: Silent No More, David C. Reardon, (Chicago: Loyola Press, 1987) (emphasis mine)
Furthermore, do two wrongs ever make a right? In other words, can one act of evil (e.g., rape) be remedied or magically erased by a second, even more horrific and violent act of evil (i.e., brutally murdering an innocent, defenseless baby)?
Finally, wouldn’t the haunting memory of choosing to destroy the life of her very own child considerably compound the mother’s existing trauma by adding a lifetime of devastating guilt, depression, and shame? Indeed, this appears to be the shared experience of the majority of post-abortive women who became pregnant as the result of rape or incest. Having discovered this truth for herself, one rape survivor reasoned that by choosing to give her baby life instead of selfishly ending her baby’s life through an elective abortion, she actually chose what she called “the easy route.”
Bottom Line: In order for any society or government to be truly just, it must be committed to protecting the lives of all people, especially those individuals who are most vulnerable to harm or exploitation. The helpless child who was conceived by an act of rape or incest is no less human, no less valuable, and no less made in the image of God than a child who was conceived by consensual pre-marital, extra-marital, or marital sex and is just as human and every bit as entitled to the inalienable right to life as her mother is. For these reasons, I contend that it would be grossly unjust and immensely evil intentionally to kill an innocent baby, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that child’s conception.
[Note: At this point, you may be thinking, “What about the life of the mother?” Please refer to my commentary here on the critical distinction that exists between “elective abortion,” whose design and goal is always to destroy an unborn child’s life, and legitimate “lifesaving maternal healthcare,” whose goal is to save the lives of both the mother and the child, if possible, yet which sometimes results in the undesirable and tragic death of the unborn child.]
One remarkable fact that the mainstream media never reports and which abortion proponents routinely dodge is that the majority of women who reportedly conceived a child through rape or incest have courageously and selflessly chosen to give their baby life, rather than death, and have never regretted that decision. According to Dr. David C. Reardon, “In the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion.”
Some of these women of course decided to select a loving, adoptive family (of which there is no shortage) to care for their baby instead of raising the child themselves. Adoption is a beautiful, life-giving alternative to the deadly “finality” of abortion, as it allows the birth mother, who may not be ready for motherhood, to return to her life as a non-parent, while at the same time ensuring that her biological child is alive, loved, cared for, and given the opportunity to fulfill God’s good, unique, and significant plan for his or her life on this earth.
Quite the opposite of what the general public assumes to be true, testimony after testimony reveals that these brave women — who understandably tend to prefer to be labeled “survivors,” as opposed to “victims” — view their “unplanned” children as irreplaceable, heaven-sent “blessings” and “gifts” who came from the benevolent hand of an always purposeful, redemptive, and caring God who specializes in bringing good from evil and beauty from ashes.
Four such survivors tell their amazing, life-affirming testimonies in the first video featured below. In the second video directly beneath it, several children (now adults) who were conceived in rape share their incredible stories.
[Note: According to structured surveys that the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute conducted in 1987 and 2004 with abortion patients, the percentage of women who reported that rape or incest contributed to their decision to have an abortion was only 1% or fewer than 0.5%, respectively. A more recent private study reveals that the actual number of abortions performed state by state for reasons of rape or incest is actually much smaller than the well-known Guttmacher figures. Regardless of whose stats are more accurate, however, innocent human beings certainly can and do come into being as the result of sexual assault; and many of them are being put to death for no fault of their own. And yes, I understand that in certain states, convicted rapists are inconceivably given custody or visitation rights over their biological children, and I agree that this is morally insane and inexcusable. Such laws absolutely need to be changed ASAP, and I believe that convicted rapists should be, at the very least, lawfully required to pay child support; however, here’s the thing: We can improve those laws without having to exterminate innocent babies who are conceived by circumstances beyond their control. This isn’t an either/or scenario!]
“The greatest act of love is sacrificing your own life to save the life of another. The opposite of this, which [to be logically consistent] would be the greatest act of hate possible, is sacrificing another person’s life to save (or simply to benefit) yourself. Maternity is laying down your life for another; abortion is laying down another’s life for yourself.” —Stephanie Gray Connors
Abortion Should Be “Safe”?
No one with a healthy, functioning conscience would use the word “safe” to describe an abortion unless that person is being dishonest or is ignorant of what an abortion entails.
Please understand that a successful abortion, by design, always violently destroys the life of at least one human being — that is, the unborn child. Furthermore, women also sometimes die from abortion, often from health complications caused by this invasive, unnatural, violent, and traumatic “procedure.”
[Note: For more on this, refer to Abort73.com’s abortion facts sheet and scroll down to the subheading “Abortion Fatality.” FYI, they use the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute for all their abortion statistics.]
Moreover, copious testimonies from post-abortive women demonstrate the holistic (mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual) harm that abortion frequently inflicts upon mothers. And though they are often overlooked, the biological fathers of aborted children suffer in numerous ways, too. Assuredly, a single abortion impacts more people than most of us realize — mothers, fathers, grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, church congregations, communities, and on and on.
Finally, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here when I suggest the following:
Poisoning and burning a baby alive with a toxic solution, dismembering a living person piece by piece, and stabbing the back of the skull and suctioning the brain out of a living human being are exceedingly too horrific to be described as merely “unsafe.” Truly, such actions are incomparably inhumane, sadistic, abhorrent, and EVIL, regardless of how “clean” are the instruments used, how “board-certified” is the abortion provider, or how “sanitized” is the facility in which such barbarity transpires.
Abortion Should Be “Rare”?
What sense would it make to reduce the number of incidents of a particular behavior if the behavior in question isn’t harmful or wrong? If abortion doesn’t take the life of a human being, then why should it be made “rare”? When the majority of abortion-choice proponents make this claim, they’re either being disingenuous or are simply parroting talking points they’ve heard others say. You can quickly find out for sure by saying something along these lines:
“I’m glad you think abortion should be rare, because it indicates that you understand abortion isn’t good for society. But why is that exactly? [Help them think through the reasons behind their natural disapproval of abortion.] And since you obviously think something about abortion isn’t right, would you be willing to support legislation that would outlaw abortions except in the rare cases of pregnancies resulting from sexual assault/rape? Although I personally don’t believe there should ever be any exception for intentionally putting a baby to death, an abortion ban that allowed for these exceptions would at least put an end to the vast majority of elective abortions in this country (i.e., over 99%), thereby saving the lives of untold millions of pre-born children. Wouldn’t you want to see that happen? After all, at least until fairly recently, most Democrats and ‘pro-choicers’ claimed that they believe abortions should be ‘rare.’ Well, outlawing this practice in all but the exceptional cases, such as rape and incest, would make abortions truly rare in this country. You’d be in favor of that, right? If not, and you’re really 100% pro-abortion ‘on demand, without exception, and without apology,’ then why even bring up the rare rape/incest cases in the first place?”
This is a very reasonable and appropriate question to ask someone who claims she believes abortions should be rare. If the individual says “no” in response to this proposal, she has proven she doesn’t honestly want abortions to be made “rare” after all. Again, she is probably just repeating a popular pro-abortion slogan that she’s never taken the time to think about carefully.
By the way, Barack Obama, the most extreme and unyielding pro-abortion president (possibly politician) in the history of our republic [although the Biden/Harris administration is now, in 2022, giving him a run for his money], claims from one side of his mouth that he believes abortions should be “rare.” However, in practice, literally every time he was given the opportunity actually to make them rare, Obama’s decisions instead resulted in the de-regulation and expansion of elective abortions in America. In other words, the president who claimed he wanted to see fewer abortions in this country only helped give us more abortions.
[Note: To get a better idea about President Obama’s radical abortion views, I highly recommend Professor Robert P. George’s article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and “President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation,” courtesy of LifeNews.com.]
“On this fundamental issue, I will not yield; and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” —Barack Obama, from a speech given to Planned Parenthood (July 17, 2007)
Of all his offenses (and they are many) against the most helpless and defenseless members of the human race, what takes the cake for me is Obama’s two-time refusal to support a law designed to provide basic lifesaving healthcare to infants born alive after failed abortions.
In effect, then-Senator Barack Obama twice voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.
If the picture isn’t clear enough for you, let me put it this way: As a state legislator, Barack Obama voted to protect men like Kermit Gosnell. Clear enough?
From President Obama’s point of view, which is disturbingly shared by an ever-growing number of his fellow Democrats, a baby who survives a failed abortion remains a target “marked for death.” From their perspective, the woman (or man, as is often the case) who paid to have that child aborted is guaranteed the right not merely to a choice, but to a corpse — that is, a dead baby — even if that baby has completely exited his mother’s womb. If the mother does not want her child and the abortion doesn’t get the job done, then that child must be exterminated some other way instead.
Infants who manage to survive failed abortion procedures are murdered passively or indirectly by neglect, starvation, or refusal of basic lifesaving medical attention, or they are actively murdered via suffocation or a more vicious means, such as Kermit Gosnell’s savage stabbing and mutilation methods. When it comes to the wickedness that a human being can perpetrate against fellow humans, I cannot imagine anything more cruel, wicked, inhumane, or Satanic than this, yet a large percentage of pro-abortion lobbyists and lawmakers (especially within the Democratic Party) believe these unconscionable and medically unnecessary acts of literal infanticide, which some are now astonishingly calling “after-birth abortion,” should also be legally permissible.
Abortion Should Be “Legal”?
The notorious Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and the lesser known, but arguably more impactful, Doe v. Bolton (both decided on January 22, 1973) “legalized” abortion on demand in America, for all practical purposes, through all nine months of pregnancy. I say this because Doe made it possible for a woman to obtain an abortion under virtually any circumstance and at any stage of pregnancy, as long as she cites “health” as the reason for aborting her child.
[Note: In the irony of ironies, neither of the plaintiffs in Roe (the late Norma McCorvey) and Doe (the late Sandra Cano) ever actually had an abortion. McCorvey gave her baby up for adoption; and Cano never even sought an abortion, but a divorce! What’s more, both of these women later testified that their cases had been based on fraud and deceit (McCorvey was never actually raped, as she had originally claimed; and Cano, who had always been opposed to abortion, had her name attached to the Doe v. Bolton case against her knowledge). In addition, both of these women went on to become staunch defenders of the unborn and labored to overturn their infamous anti-life cases, to no avail. Incredible.]
Pro-life educator and activist Scott Klusendorf summarizes the import of these two historic cases and explains why changing present abortion laws is just as important as changing people’s minds on the issue:
In Roe v. Wade, the court said [that] during the first six months of pregnancy, the state may only legislate against abortion to protect the woman, not the fetus. Roe also said that, during the final three months of pregnancy [i.e., the third trimester], the state may act to protect the unborn, provided the woman’s health is not jeopardized. Notice the key word there: “may.” [In other words, a state may intervene to protect the unborn; but no state is obligated to do so.]
But, then, Doe v. Bolton defined ‘health’ so broadly that you could drive a Mack truck through it. It could mean physical health, mental health, emotional health, or anything.
People’s hearts need to be changed on abortion, but laws regarding abortion also need to be changed. The laws are unjust — that is, they are not in compliance with the will of God. We don’t just [need to] change hearts [which only God can do, but He often does so through human instruments]. We also need to change laws.
[Update (6-28-22): The Supreme Court of the United States officially overturned Roe V. Wade on 6-24-22!!! All praise and thanks be to the one true God for mercifully giving American voters the privilege and power, through our elected representatives, to stop the slaughter of the innocents on a state-by-state basis! As wonderful as this historic victory in the battle for human life is, however, please understand that it will still be legal, in varying degrees, in the vast majority of American states (at least 37) to destroy the lives of innocent human beings in their mother’s womb. This is morally unacceptable, and so, in a real sense, the fight to abolish human abortion—and to make this egregious evil as unthinkable in the minds of people as human slavery now is—has only just begun.]
Key Takeaway: In this essay, I have offered empirically verifiable scientific facts, careful philosophical reasoning, and a straightforward argument based on the clear moral and anthropological teachings of the Bible to make the case that an abortion unjustifiably destroys the life of an innocent human being. For that reason, no government should lawfully permit, much less promote through taxpayer funding, this most heinous crime against humankind.
Thus, the next time you hear an abortion-choice advocate say, “Abortion should be safe, rare, and legal,” remember that what they’re actually saying is, “Violently killing innocent human beings should be safe, rare, and legal.” Absurd, is it not?
No Sin Is Unforgivable
Whether you’re a woman who has had an abortion, a man who has coerced or condoned an abortion, a counselor who has deceived a woman about the living human growing inside her, a parent or friend who has encouraged or pressured a woman to abort a baby, or a physician who has personally taken the life of an unborn child, the first thing you need to realize and acknowledge is this BAD NEWS:
You, like the rest of fallen humanity, are guilty of doing great evil in the eyes of an absolutely righteous and perfectly just God whose holiness demands that all evil be punished and that justice be served for every offense.
“. . . just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and [physical & spiritual] death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned . . .” (Romans 5:12, NASB, emphasis mine)
“There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one. . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:10-12, 23, NASB, emphasis mine).
“The person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:20, NASB).
“For the wages of sin is death . . .” (Romans 6:23, NASB).
“. . . without shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22, NASB).
The second thing you need to understand and accept as true is this incomparably GOOD NEWS:
Jesus Christ, the sinless God-Man who lived a life of flawless obedience to God the Father, took your place on an instrument of execution (i.e., a Roman cross), voluntarily suffered the death penalty to satisfy God’s righteous anger toward you for the crimes you have committed against Him and others, and physically rose from the dead both to prove He is truly God and to confirm the Father’s acceptance of His perfect sacrifice, is offering even now to pardon all of your wrongdoings (past, present, and future, which includes abortion), remove all of your guilt and shame, cleanse your conscience, make you a brand new creation, give you HIS own righteousness, adopt you into His eternal family as His daughter or son, and use your life on earth in magnificent ways to carry out His awesome rescue plan for this broken world.
Think you deserve any of those generous gifts? Think again! As hard a pill as it may be to swallow, what every human being really deserves is eternal punishment in hell. Hence, it should make sense that if one rejects the only provision — that is, faith in Christ — that God mercifully has made available to save us from His just judgment of sin, then that person will get exactly what he or she deserves in the afterlife.
“. . . it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment . . .” (Hebrews 9:27, NASB, emphasis mine)
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him [i.e., not just mentally assenting that Jesus is the Son of God, but wholeheartedly trusting in Him alone for salvation] shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God. . . . He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath [or judgment] of God abides on him” (John 3:16-21, 36, NASB, emphasis mine).
This is what makes God’s grace truly “amazing,” as John Newton’s famous hymn proclaims, for without it, we would all be completely without hope. However, when we humble ourselves before the Lord (our ultimate Judge) and confess to Him (i.e., agree with Him about) our sins with sincere and contrite hearts, God responds by pouring out His unmerited (i.e., you cannot earn it through your performance) favor and lovingkindness on an infinitely undeserving race of rebels who are idolaters, blasphemers, murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars at heart. Yet the greater our sins against Him are, the greater Jesus’ grace abounds toward those who turn to Him in genuine faith (i.e., trust) and repentance (i.e., turning away from and forsaking your sins) — and the greater the glory God receives in the end:
“. . . but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more . . .” (Romans 5:20, NASB, emphasis mine)
“. . . God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5, NASB, emphasis mine).
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9, NASB, emphasis mine).
“. . . if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Romans 10:9-10, NASB, emphasis mine).
“And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21, NASB, emphasis mine).
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9, ESV, emphasis mine).
“For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man, someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified [i.e., legally acquitted in God’s court and credited with Christ’s righteousness] by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:6-11, NASB, emphasis mine).
“For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more” (Hebrews 8:12, NASB, emphasis mine).
You see, humanity’s greatest need is to be made spiritually alive and transferred out of a wrong relationship with God (i.e., separation from Him on account of our sins), which is how each one of us begins life, and placed into a right relationship with God (i.e., reconciliation with Him through faith in Christ, who bears all our sins upon Himself and covers us with His holiness). In his thoughtful article “Can God Forgive Abortions?” best-selling author Randy Alcorn expounds on all of this with pastoral delicacy, clarity, and biblical fidelity. I highly recommend it.
“Jesus answered and said to [Nicodemus, a pious man and religious leader], ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [i.e., born spiritually or born of God], he cannot see the kingdom of God‘” (John 3:3, NASB, emphasis mine).
“For [God] rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13, NASB, emphasis mine).
Still, if there was only one resource I could share with abortion survivors and anyone who desires to experience the redemptive power and holistic healing of Christ, it would be this poignant work of art from the outstanding Anchored North Films:
After you have personally made peace with God by confessing your sins to Him, receiving Christ’s forgiveness, and trusting Him exclusively as your Lord and Master, commit to doing the right thing by the grace and power of God’s Spirit from this point forward. Join the fight to end abortion and help promote a culture of life wherever you live. By sharing your story and the liberating love and mercy you have received from God, you could be a source of immense comfort and hope for other abortion survivors, as well as an influential force in dissuading others from making this disastrous decision.
Let’s Review
1) The science of embryology, aided by technological advances in medical photography and ultrasonography, demonstrates empirically and conclusively that the unborn are unique, genetically distinct, whole, living human beings from the moment of fertilization (i.e., the instant that a male sperm and female egg unite); therefore, abortion procedures (surgical or medical/chemical), which are amply documented via graphic images and videos, undeniably entail the intentional, violent killing of living human beings (i.e., principally by dismembering them alive, burning or poisoning them to death with chemicals, or, in the case of late-term or partial-birth abortions, brutally stabbing the baby’s neck, suctioning her brains out, and crushing her skull).
2) Careful philosophical and moral reasoning reveals that there is no essential, ontological, or anthropological difference between a human being at an earlier stage of development (e.g., zygote, embryo, or fetus) and that same human being at a later stage of development (e.g., infant, toddler, teenager, adult) that would make it morally justifiable to kill that person in one stage of life but not in another, because the only differences between a pre-born human and a post-born human are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, and those differences are completely irrelevant to the question of one’s humanity, dignity, worth, or right to life. (We could also add other factors, such as ability, age, appearance, ethnicity, gender/sex, health problems/defects, nationality, perceived usefulness to society, and whether or not a child is wanted by its biological mother or father, none of which would disqualify a pre-born child from the human race or justify killing him or her, any more than such considerations would justify killing post-born human beings.)
3) Last but not least, the Bible teaches that all humans have intrinsic, sacred value and dignity because all human beings are made in the image of God and, for the same reason, forbids the intentional destruction of innocent human life. Consequently, since science and philosophy establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pre-born are indeed living human beings who are of the same essence and nature as post-born human beings, then we can know for certain that the commands of Scripture which forbid the shedding of innocent human blood also logically apply to the lives of the most innocent members of the human race: unborn children.
Rest assured, it is most certainly not above anyone’s “pay grade” to know when human life begins or when human beings are entitled to human rights. (Sorry, Mr. President.) Rich or poor, employed or not, all of us can and do know the answer to this simple question. Medically and scientifically, that case was closed a long time ago, in fact. Frankly, a little common sense and moral intuition should have been enough to settle the matter; but now you know the basic scientific, philosophical, and theological reasons why abortion is morally wrong and why no one can continue to feign ignorance about the greatest human rights issue of our times. ALL who have read this article are now without excuse!
“Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter. Oh, hold them back! If you say, ‘See, we did not know this,’ does He who weighs [judges] the hearts not consider it? And does He who keeps your soul not know it? And will He not render to man according to his work?” (Proverbs 24:11-12, NASB)
Now, What Will YOU Do with the Truth?
One question remains, though: Now that you know the truth about the unborn, will you defend these little ones by laboring to end human abortion?
In the pagan nations of the ancient Near East, parents sacrificed their children (i.e., burned them alive, usually) to “appease” their false deities, such as Molech (see, for example, Leviticus 18:21 and Jeremiah 32:35) — an abhorrent practice that incurred a special outpouring of God’s judgment upon the nations responsible.
Today, parents sacrifice their children to less conspicuous “gods” that go by various names, such as “Choice,” “Convenience,” “Progress,” “Sexual Liberty,” and “Reproductive Freedom.” In America alone, the mortality rate of aborted children is more than 2,000 per day, more than 1 million per year, and well over 53 million since 1973, when a so-called “constitutional right” to abortion was fabricated out of thin air by the governmental overreach, interpretive gymnastics, and jurisprudential dereliction of seven unelected, unaccountable Supreme Court justices — all of whom were men, by the way. (Be sure to recall that last point the next time you hear someone make this strange claim: “Men shouldn’t have any say about abortion!”)
[Note: The actual death toll of aborted babies in the U.S. is even higher than these numbers (i.e., well over 60 million, as of 2022). One reason we can be sure of this is that California, which performs more abortions annually than any other state, has not submitted abortion stats to the Centers for Disease Control in several years. New Hampshire and Maryland also apparently have not volunteered this data in some time. See here and here for more about this.]
As a matter of fact, the leading cause of death in America is neither heart disease, nor cancer, nor smoking. Contrary to popular belief, the biggest killer of Americans is abortion, and by a considerable margin:
These are hair-raising figures, folks, and they should drive us to our knees in humble confession and repentance to the Almighty, whose patience with the wicked, although great, does have an expiration date.
“When the LORD [Yahweh] your God cuts off before you [Israel] the nations [of Canaan] which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’ You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates, they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:29-31, NASB, emphasis mine).
May the Lord Jesus Christ, the Author of every human life and the Grand Designer of human development (both prenatal and postnatal), transform America’s “culture of death” and mercifully redeem (not “bless”) the USA, a nation that still, after half a century of bloodshed, lawfully permits and selfishly rationalizes the wanton slaying of innocent little human persons by the thousands per day — that is, thousands of sacred souls whom our Creator lovingly and carefully knit together in their mothers’ wombs, tenderly fashioned in His own likeness, and graciously granted the gift of, and right to, LIFE.
How long will God’s people remain silent, apathetic, uninvolved, or willfully ignorant of the facts presented here and many other places in this Internet/Information Age? How long will we choose to live in denial of the moral atrocities occurring right under our noses, when we are the only people on the planet divinely commanded—and divinely empowered—to be the salt and light of this sin-darkened world? WHO will stop the evil, if not us?
“In the end, it’s not enough to regulate abortion; it must be abolished. And it’s our prayer that the tragedy of the Gosnell story will move us closer to that day. Will you join us in praying for a day when our nation cherishes and protects life, especially those tiny members of the human race still in their mothers’ wombs?” —Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family
Join me in praying for the universal abolition of human abortion and an unprecedented national and global spiritual Awakening that will, among other things, cause ALL people everywhere to view this egregious sin the same way that we now view human slavery—that is, as absolutely unthinkable and intolerable.
Encourage your church leaders and fellow Christians to expose this great darkness and engage the battle to expel it.
Get informed and learn how to make the case for life — “from the womb (i.e., the beginning of life) to the tomb (i.e., the natural end of life)” — persuasively and articulately.
[Note: For additional help with this, refer to the recommended resources featured in the final section of this document.]
Educate others with the truth you have learned.
Become politically active and resolve to vote only for 100% pro-life, pro-family politicians who have a proven, consistent, uncompromising, pro-life track record.
[Note: No matter what their lips may say, the extremely rare Democrat candidates who claim to be “pro-life” have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to part ways with their party and protect unborn children when the going gets tough. And even if one of them were to try, they could not realistically make any difference when 99.9% of their party is unreservedly committed to keeping abortion legal and to expanding it. The indisputable reality is that unrestricted access to abortion “on demand and without apology” is held to be a sacrosanct right/idol within the modern Democrat Party, and this is a cause they have literally made a central part of their official political platform: “We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right [i.e., to abortion without restriction].” This position was publicly and unequivocally reaffirmed during the 2012 Democratic National Convention, where the participants also literally booed God, angrily and vociferously at that. By their own words and actions, repeated year after year, representatives of this particular political party adamantly and shamelessly express contempt for the moral will of Christ on almost every social and moral issue. To put it mildly, wherever the Democrat Party may have been positioned on the ideological and moral spectrum prior to the 1970s, it is now positioned far to the left of that location and continues to veer further and further left by the hour, it seems. Make no mistake: The Democratic Party of the 21st century is definitely NOT your great grandfather’s Democratic Party.]
Speak for and defend those who cannot speak for or defend themselves (cf. Psalm 82:3-4).
Get involved with and/or financially support pro-life organizations and ministries (refer to the recommendations at the end of this document).
Volunteer to offer your services at life-affirming crisis pregnancy centers.
Prayerfully consider going that “extra mile” and commit to adopting unwanted children and/or counseling women and men outside abortion clinics or at other medical facilities, or on the Internet, or anywhere else you possibly can.
Spread the truth about abortion via e-mail, social media, blogging, etc.
Share this blog post!
Please, just stop doing nothing!
“Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17, NASB).
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” —attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for ‘good’ men to do nothing.” —Edmund Burke
Recommended Resources
1) Abort73
3) The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf
4) Stand to Reason’s Articles on Abortion
5) “The Sound of Abortion” by Peter Heck
6) 180 Movie by Ray Comfort and Living Waters Ministries
7) “LIFE: An Inalienable Right” by Dr. D. James Kennedy
8) “Is Scripture Clear About Abortion?” by Dr. John MacArthur
9) “Can God Forgive Abortions?” by Randy Alcorn
10) “Back to Science Class for the Science Guy” by Dr. Robert P. George & Patrick Lee
11) “Taking the Easy Route After Rape” by Alan Shlemon
12) Save the Storks – a wonderful pro-life organization that offers free and confidential pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, and STD screenings to women in need
13) Pre-Born! – an exceptional Gospel-centered ministry committed to glorifying Jesus Christ by leading and equipping pregnancy clinics to save both babies and souls, particularly by providing donor-supported ultrasounds.
14) “Why Adoption Is a Redemptive Pro-Life Option” by Jenn Hesse
15) How to Choose an Adoption Agency by National Council for Adoption
16) Nightlight Christian Adoptions – a pro-life, Christ-centered adoption agency that offers free counseling and 24/7 support to women facing unexpected pregnancy
Upholding Truth 