We Know When Life Begins
by Candice Watters on 11/03/2008 at 9:20 AM
Robert George has a column Monday on National Review Online that links to undisputed evidence that life begins at conception. No longer is it defensible for politicians to say that determining when life begins is merely a matter of private belief -- as if it's an unknowable secret.
George asks,
Is it actually the case that no one can tell you with any degree of authority when the life of a human being actually begins?
No, it is not.
Your life began, as did the life of every other human being, when the fusion of egg and sperm produced a new, complete, living organism — an embryonic human being. You were never an ovum or a sperm cell, those were both functionally and genetically parts of other human beings — your parents. But you were once an embryo, just as you were once an adolescent, a child, an infant, and a fetus. By an internally directed process, you developed from the embryonic stage into and through the fetal, infant, child, and adolescent stages of development and ultimately into adulthood with your determinateness, unity, and identity fully intact. You are the same being — the same human being — who once was an embryo.
Why does this matter? Because it removes the best excuse people have had for blurring the facts in order to advance a political agenda that says some people deserve to live. And others don't. George continues,
Perhaps because the debate over when human life begins has never been about the biological facts. It has been about the value we ascribe to human beings at the dawn of their lives. ... The scientific evidence is simply too overwhelming for there to be any real debate on this point. What is at issue in these debates is the question of whether we ought to respect and defend human beings in the earliest stages of their lives. In other words, the question is not about scientific facts; it is about the nature of human dignity and the equality of human beings.
Tomorrow, when you go into the voting booth and are poised to fill in the blanks or pull the lever, remember that the most important issue -- who gets to live -- is at stake in new and dramatic ways. Only this time, it's not true that we can't know when life begins. No longer is it accurate to say "this is a matter of personal belief." It's now scientifically established and verifiable. As George concludes his article,
In view of the established facts of human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development, the real question is not whether human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages are human beings. Plainly they are. The question is whether we will honor or abandon our civilizational and national commitment to the equal worth and dignity of all human beings — even the smallest, youngest, weakest, and most vulnerable.
As history reveals, a society that today says some people aren't worthy of life, may very well one day say no one is.
1. Kate said the following at 10:19 AM on Nov 3:
Women, Native Americans, slaves, people with developmental disabilities, children, Jews during the Nazi era, etc. were always scientifically and spiritually human beings, just as zygotes have always been. The history of oppression and lack of legal or social rights and "personhood" for these groups has depended on how a society decides which "human forms" should have which rights at a given time. This is not a scientific issue, it's a social issue. It doesn't matter what the scientific "fact" is, what matters is how people interpret it. (and I always have to note that "science" can and has been grossly misused in the past in denying "human forms" thir rightful personhood and rights!)
I don't think anyone denies the scientific information about zygotes and fertilization that you cite above. They simply attribute a different meaning to it than you. It is legal to draw that line of personhood and rights at birth, legally, period. This also seems to be a popularly accepted definition, no matter how arbitrary it may be.
Though interestingly there are some loopholes in this definition, such as how when a pregnant woman is murdered sometimes the murderer can be charged for two murders. Or when a woman has a miscarriage, people don't say "oh she lost the developing human tissue that was within her," they say "she lost her baby." When they say that, I think they mean that particular individual that was going to come into her life... not an abstract reference to her loss of her idea of having a baby. If people thought of it as the loss of an abstract idea of having a baby, then it wouldn't be so insensitive to say "oh don't worry, you can always get pregnant again."
2. Pauline said the following at 11:08 AM on Nov 3:
Thinking about the possibility of my daughter being pregnant with a life-threatening pregnancy and having 4 small children at home, is when I become a proponent of my daughter and her husband having the right to choose to end the pregnancy.
3. IMO said the following at 11:19 AM on Nov 3:
Pauline,
That is definitely an extreme example. But for me, your point is taken.
But will you call spade a spade? or will you sugar-coat that decision?
4. Emily said the following at 11:55 AM on Nov 3:
I wish someone at Boundless would address the issue, not of whether abortion is WRONG (clearly it IS. I have no doubt of that) but whether our government should try to legislate that morality. And do we as Christians really need to impose our beliefs on others? This is my conundrum. I cannot seem to resolve it. I cannot vote for legalization of abortion. But, neither can I, in good conscience, campaign against it.
5. Justin said the following at 12:09 PM on Nov 3:
As history reveals, a society that today says some people aren't worthy of life, may very well one day say no one is.
Even if abortion was illegal, America would still be a society that says some people aren't worthy of life via the death penalty.
6. Bethany Pledge Erickson said the following at 12:17 PM on Nov 3:
I think I would like to second Kate (#1) here, and say that we should keep in mind that we cannot allow science to have the determining say in these matters. The science of eugenics helped justify the killing of retarded people, gay people, and Jews. In our own country, people were involuntarily sterilized - and science said this would help speed natural selection.
We can be glad that this time science works in favor of life, but we should not allow the debate to be framed in purely scientific terms.
I know, Candice, that you have moral/theological/philosophical reasons backing up your pro-life convictions. I sense that you are happy just to find yet more evidence in your favor.
All I am saying is that science simply does not "prove" things like this, anymore than evolution "proves" that God does not exist. In the long run, we in the church would argue against the ability of science to make metaphysical claims.
And yes, the personhood of a zygote is a metaphysical claim. The problem is that there is a difference between being alive and being deemed "human" (or a perceived difference, anyway). Science does not distinguish between the two because it does not acknowledge the existence of the soul. That's why the Church has to.
7. Pauline said the following at 12:48 PM on Nov 3:
Granted, my example is extreme--but not unheard of. Please explain how a decision like that could be sugar-coated.
As laws exist now my daughter could choose to end her pregnancy and live to raise her 4 children and be a wife to her husband.
If abortion became illegal, would I lose my daughter and have 4 motherless grandchildren?
Do I want to be the judge of someone's intentions? No.
When faced with personal black and white decisions, convictions change.
8. Kari said the following at 1:08 PM on Nov 3:
hmmm... good way to put it. Call a spade a spade.People might should not say "end the pregnancy" but instead say "murder the child". Even if it IS a life threatening pregnancy... that doesn't change the nature of the act.
I have always told my sisters that if I were ever in that type of situation, I would have to let God choose who would live and who would die. I fully trust Him to make that choice for me. If He wants to save me, or save my baby, or save both of us, or allow both of us to die-- at least the Author of the universe is making that allowance, and it isn't me making a deadly human choice with only small human understanding.
9. Margaret said the following at 1:26 PM on Nov 3:
For a long time I've been against abortion in the form we have it in this country now. I think abortion itself is a horrible and invasive surgical procedure, that should, only if absolutely medically necessary, be performed by physicians in a hospital. Having walk-in abortion clinics and treating abortion as a form of birth control devalues the life of both the parents and the child. If a woman has a legitimate reason for terminating a pregnancy (and there are a very few reasons for that), then she should have that option available... but only under careful physician supervision. I really wish we recognized abortion as the major medical/surgical procedure that it is.
10. Sharon said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 3:
I don't think that being pro-life means that you have to sacrifice your own life for your unborn child. If the mother's life was in danger, I think that she should be allowed the choice to terminate the pregnancy, especially if the baby wouldn't be able to survive outside of the mother's womb.
I just don't agree that abortion should be allowed for any other reason.
11. Ted Slater said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 3:
Emily (#4) -- the law is built on morality.
A key purpose of government is to "punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good" (1 Peter 2:14). This definition requires that morality be the foundation of good law.
Stealing is illegal because it is morally wrong. Murdering is illegal because it is morally wrong. And so on.
12. IMO said the following at 1:53 PM on Nov 3:
Pauline,
Let me clarify.
You said, "...end the pregnancy."
So if your daughter ends the pregnancy, what will you be calling it? Abortion? Murder?
Or do the words change, now that your conviction has changed?
I hope I have cleared up my comment. I, in no way, am saying this is a "sugar-coated decision."
13. BDB said the following at 1:56 PM on Nov 3:
Emily (#4) wrote:
>>And do we as Christians really need to impose our beliefs on others? This is my conundrum. I cannot seem to resolve it.<<
We did it with slavery. Now, it didn't happen all at once - there was an abolitionist movement for more than 100 years in the U.S. first. Generations of trying to persuade people to do the right thing.
To my knowledge, the U.S. Civil War was the first time when a majority ethnic group fought itself over the status of a minority ethnic group.
14. Dan Gill said the following at 1:57 PM on Nov 3:
Kate and Bethany, I think you may have missed the original point. The point is not that science is the final arbiter of when life begins, but that one can no longer hide behind the lie that "we don't know when life begins." It is undisputable fact that the embryo contains all of the genetic material and coding that will remain with that person through a whole life. It is common for those who will not oppose abortion to hide behind the "We don't know" fiction. The truth is, we do know. There is no reason to believe that life begins at any time after conception.
15. Ted Slater said the following at 2:22 PM on Nov 3:
Pauline -- I understand your point. I'm personally in favor of allowing pregnant women the option of aborting their child if carrying their child to term is truly life-threatening. Not allowing a woman to defend her life just strikes me as cruel.
Although some people say there should be no exceptions, and others might say that aborting the child exhibits lack of faith, I think most people would see such self-defense as tragically justifiable.
16. BDB said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 3:
Just to speak to the "life of the mother" example, an ectopic pregnancy is potentially life-threatening to both mother and child.
17. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:10 PM on Nov 3:
Pauline and Ted,
For the life of me, I can't think of many areas where abortion is safer than carrying a baby as long as possible for a life-threatening pregnancy.
I know they exist, and again they make up a VERY tiny portion of all abortions...almost zilch.
Ectopic pregnancies, Fallopian pregnancies - both the majority can be carried to at least the point that the child is viable without being life threatening.
However, I think a medical procedure that is done to save the life of a mother that results in a death of a baby is a thousand times different than supporting "abortion on medical terms".
My cousin has a cancerous tumor growing in her brain but wanted a baby so badly she is foregoing treatment for as long as possible. She's 26 weeks now - her baby has a 70% chance of survival if removed from her so she can continue with her medical treatments. So far, her tumor has not reached irreversible damage. When her pregnancy becomes life threatening, she will not be having what we call an "abortion" where you KILL the child. Everything will be done to keep her and her child alive. However, there are people out there who will use that excuse to kill the child in them...which is ridiculous because at that point, abortion is just as physically strenuous as giving birth.
I'm not against doing what it takes to save a mother's life, but I am against not doing everything humanely possible to save BOTH lives.
18. Becky said the following at 3:44 PM on Nov 3:
BDB #16 Ectopic pregnancy is ALWAYS fatal not potentially fatal. You can not carry a child to tern in your fallopian tubes.
I have a question. If a fertilized egg is alive what about all those frozen fertilized eggs from IVF treatments? What should be done with those? Should we make IVF illegal? If its a person inside the womb than certainly its a person inside a test tube.
19. Rose said the following at 3:53 PM on Nov 3:
Christina, and ectopic pregnancy (aka a fallopian/tubal pregnancy) occurs in ~2% of pregnancies. It's when the fertilized ovum implants in the fallopian tube (or elsewhere in the abdomen in <1% of ectopics). When the baby begins to grow, the tube ruptures and the mother runs a significant risks of bleeding to death. It is the leading cause of maternal mortality *in the first trimester*, when there is no possibility that the baby can survive outside the womb. Ectopic pregnancy is also the most common *medical* reason for 1st trimester abortion. There is no way that the majority of these pregnancies could be carried to viability without causing the death of the mother.
Kari (#8), if you had 4 small children, and you were diagnosed with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, would you really elect to leave your 4 kids motherless and your husband a widower so that God could decide which (if either) of you he wanted to save? Especially if your baby was at 10 weeks of gestation, and it was obvious that neither of you could possibly survive? Although I cannot imagine chosing an abortion, as Ted says above, there are cases where most of us would consider it "tragically justifiable". And in a case where both mother and baby would surely die, and leave a motherless family, there are those who would consider refusing medical treatment to be truly irresponsible. (Unless you're a Christian Scientist, in which case your theology is quite clear on the subject ;-) )
20. Kate said the following at 4:02 PM on Nov 3:
I think Dan Gill #14, that you missed our points.
I am not saying it's incorrect to look at this science and see evidence that human life begins at conception. In fact I believe this to be truth.
However, my issue is with presenting the science as "proof" of what constitutes a person, because even science is social interpreted. As I alluded to and Bethany described in more detail, science must be suspect as a definition of "personhood" due to a historical precedence of people to use that which they called science to say that many people were in fact people with rights, a conclusion which they used to justify all kinds of atrocities done to these "non" people.
It's not so much that pro-choice people and our federal law are saying embryos, zygotes, fetuses and so on are not alive or do not represent unique packages of human DNA that are growing into human bodies... it's that they are saying that these live human tissues do not become a "person" with the right to life until birth.
This is a socially constructed definition which I find to be rather arbitrary and wrong... but very convenient for those who benefit from it (both women who don't have to bear children they don't want and societies/governments that don't have to support as many impoverished children).
I think starting with something like "hard science" as proof of what should constitute "personhood" distracts from the real forces that define it, which are what the real problems are here. (social) The article cited here does actually discuss such things later on after the "scientific proof" part but I think it could have done without that due to its distracting nature and likelihood of inspiring trigger-responses of rejection of the arguments from people who don't already believe human life at conception is a person with rights.
21. Laura said the following at 4:09 PM on Nov 3:
I will be thinking about who gets to live in the voting booth tomorrow.
I will also be thinking about the HIV+ Congolese orphan I sponsor, and how the access that he and millions of children like him get to anti-retroviral drugs depends on the decisions made by politicians and donors in Washington. I'll be thinking about the children of parents who work so hard to farm tiny plots of land in villages in Africa and Latin America and Southeast Asia, only to see no material benefit at all because of unfair trade practices that mean they can't get fair prices for the fruits of their labor. And I'll be thinking about our elderly neighbors who have to decide whether to buy lifesaving medicine or to eat each month.
"Life" is so much more than just the abortion issue.
22. Reno said the following at 4:11 PM on Nov 3:
The 'most important issue' is based on political promises. Changing the laws of abortion from federal to state will not change the eroding view of humanity and the increasing disregard for human life in all stages.
I will remain a principled voter - and will support a view of men as God sees man, his image. My relationship with God will inform my vote, not an attempt to wield the church as God's sword in politics - see Judas.
When the world see Christians as 'single issue voters' they see people uninterested in lives and salvation of those around them, but passionate for their ideology to reign. This is NOT true, but that's the message that is increasingly sent. Not the message that Jesus sent. How long until 'candidate pledges' become reality in the church. Oh that already happened. We cannot trust in man to save men.
We will be disappointed. I guarantee it.
23. Eliza said the following at 4:23 PM on Nov 3:
Ted #15,
Many laws are based on universal morality, but not all laws (like drug or illegal firearms possession). Likewise not all immoral things are illegal.
**********
Regarding life of an embryo, I think a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that life begins at conception. Although a zygote cannot live on its own and has no heart, lungs or brain. Is a heart, lungs and brain what constitutes life? They have to be working...although sometimes one or two can be working without the others. Is that person still "alive"? What role does consciousness play? When does our soul enter our body and when does it depart?
My opinion is that this is much more a philosophical discussion than a scientific one. People will use the science to prove themselves right, whatever their perspective. Unfortunately to me (and it appears that many here agree with me), the answer is simply not that obvious.
24. Reno said the following at 4:31 PM on Nov 3:
When does the mass of cells gain a soul?
I agree with #6: We do not know when 'human life' as defined by the soul, begins. We know where it is from - God. To state that science does is a misnomer. It is a metaphysical question that science is inherently incapable of answering. To think it does is a fundamental misunderstanding of science that leads to far more evil than good. Science can only explain and define 'natural causes.' Hypothesis, experiment, proof, no supernatural intervention. Once the supernatural is involved, science is simply unable to answer the questions. Our claim is that human life - possession of a soul is unique and supernatural, which is why it must be protected. Now we can guard against taking life - including preventing abortions based on arbitrary lines. But the mystery remains. The day that science is allowed to define life, is the day that science begins to create life.
25. DJS said the following at 7:15 PM on Nov 3:
21. Laura
I already posted something similar to this on another thread, but this is too critical to miss.
First of all, let me freely admit that the issues that governments face today are vastly different and more complex than those a hundred or a thousand years ago.
However, the role of our government is to protect American citizens, provide the most critical services, and provide law and order so that business may prosper. That is the Biblical model of government. Only after the American government has done all of that can we look to the interests of people in other countries.
The problem comes in when Christians expect the government to be a quasi political/religious entity. It is not! Accept government for what it is. Obviously our government should never directly harm other people (I know we have, but we should not), but if certain policy designed to benefit and protect American citizens have indirect adverse affects on other countries, that is simply government and politics at work.
As Christians we should look to politicians who are willing to stay within the Biblical mandate of government as closely as possible, and then outside of politics we should strive to help those less fortunate in our country and in other countries.
How does this apply to abortion? Simple! In America, the greatest threat to "life" is abortion. And we as voters have a chance to possibly help stop it through voting for a President who will be appointing some Supreme Court Justices. All other violations of "life" in other countries are only controlled by us indirectly and to be honest it is the government of those people who are letting them down. If a government were to look to the interests of every person in the world, it could never function and would quickly be defeated and discarded.
If we will not stop the killing of unborn babies here in the U.S. which is right in front of us, how can we honestly try to stop the death of a farmer in Asia? That is so hypocritical of us. It's so easy to whine about how our government hurts people across the globe, but it's another matter to stand up at work or around friends and declare why you are against abortion.
I realize that there has been little progress in the battle for abortion but let me encourage everyone to do a little research on William Wilburforce. He struggled for 20 years to abolish the slave trade before he was successful. Boundless obviously feels the call for this fight, and I pray that they will not give it up.
26. Jonathon said the following at 7:33 PM on Nov 3:
Emily #4,
You said, "whether our government should try to legislate that morality. And do we as Christians really need to impose our beliefs on others?"
There is a logical error here which comes from an inherent attitude of the culture we live in. The reality is not that we as Christians are trying to "impose our beliefs" on others; others are trying to impose their beliefs on the life of a baby. We as Christians are asserting the baby's right to live, rather than imposing our beliefs on the poor defenseless "victim" of an unexpected pregnancy. The culture we live in has spun this issue so that the real point is lost. And frankly, it really ticks me off.
27. Jonathon said the following at 7:40 PM on Nov 3:
Justin #5,
You said "Even if abortion was illegal, America would still be a society that says some people aren't worthy of life via the death penalty."
That's a false analogy. Criminals on death row have earned their punishment (in the eyes of the law) by their actions. Babies in wombs have "earned" their punishment simply by virtue of what they are, or what they represent: an inconvenience, unintended consequences, etc.
(For clarification, I am not talking about the few cases of rape or where the mother's life is in danger; that's a different argument)
28. Jonathon said the following at 7:48 PM on Nov 3:
Bethany #6, you wrote:
"the personhood of a zygote is a metaphysical claim. The problem is that there is a difference between being alive and being deemed "human" (or a perceived difference, anyway)."
Reno #24, you wrote:
"When does the mass of cells gain a soul?
I agree with #6: We do not know when 'human life' as defined by the soul, begins."
I also agree that we do not know when the soul "begins." But is that even the right way to think about it? If we aren't sure when a soul "began" (assuming souls actually begin at a certain point in time), then shouldn't we err on the side of not killing a human? I don't know, sounds like common sense to me.
IMHO, a lot of the opposition to abortion (and other sin) is just creative excuses to get around what we already know deep down is the truth. We justify because the truth is uncomfortable, and takes real courage and strength to deal with.
29. Texas Craig said the following at 8:20 PM on Nov 3:
Reno:
Great comments! Both of your posts really hit the key issues that make the abortion issue such a difficult one to discuss and come to consensus on.
Peace and grace!
30. Daniel B said the following at 1:02 AM on Nov 4:
"I wish someone at Boundless would address the issue, not of whether abortion is WRONG (clearly it IS. I have no doubt of that) but whether our government should try to legislate that morality."
Of course the government should legislate that, same as it legislates all other types of murder.
It's vastly different from, say, the government trying to legislate against adultery or drunkenness.
31. Jo said the following at 3:11 AM on Nov 4:
Christina #17:
"However, there are people out there who will use that excuse to kill the child in them..."
I don't think anyone uses "I will probably die if my pregnancy continues" as an EXCUSE to abort a child. Assuming it's a true statement, I think anyone who decides to abort in that situation will go through as much of a mourning process as someone who miscarries, possibly more so with the added feelings of guilt that such a decision will inevitably carry.
My friend's Christian sister-in-law recently had to have an ectopic pregnancy terminated. She was in her first trimester and her life was in danger. I don't know much about these things, but I don't think such a scenario is as rare as you claim.
32. Jo said the following at 3:21 AM on Nov 4:
Christina, just to add - I do understand and partially agree with the point you're making, I think if there's any chance of a baby being viable the aim should be to save both mother and child. But I do think the mother's life should take priority for this reason:
The mother is already a viable human being. Her life is not more valuable, but it is more certain. To put the mother's life more at risk by trying to save a baby who has a high chance of dying anyway is not something that should be enforced.
Alternative example: A man runs from a burning building. Another person is still trapped inside, but the man knows if he goes back for him, they may well both be killed. If the man DOES try and save the other person, he will undoubtedly be called a hero. But no one will condemn him if he decides not to take that risk.
33. Sarah P. said the following at 8:05 AM on Nov 4:
I had to weigh in on the question of "legislating morality." It's a tricky one, and there are many ways to approach the same point.
"Morality" is a system of morals, or judgments as to right and wrong. On first glance, it would look like civil government is certainly legislating morality, since it enacts laws against murder, etc. But it also enacts traffic laws. Is going over the speed limit essentially an issue of right and wrong? If not, then either our government legislates two kinds of laws or civil law is based on a different principle than morality.
I would suggest that all civil governments enact laws sheerly pragmatically, in order to keep themselves running in an orderly fashion. It just so happens that God created the world and all human interactions with an underlying, unavoidable network of morality. When our network of civil law matches the invisible network of God's intentions for humanity, life works much better.
So in the case of murder laws, it is fairly obvious to even the most secular observer of the world's order that open violence does not lead to a healthy society. Thus, illegalizing murder isn't "legislating morality." It is a pragmatic judgment of what does or does not work.
Allowing abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, etc. does not damage society as visibly, especially in the eyes of people who don't admit that life has inherent value. The damage to civil society caused by these practices, and by aberrant sexual behavior, doesn't become blindingly obvious until much further down the line.
So it is true that we Christians, if educated in the world and solid in God's Word, can see more clearly what "works" to maintain civil society for everyone. If we truly believe that God created the world and holds its order together, we must assent that things he hates will destroy a people. We Christians can deny those things quite pragmatically, even before we "see" the results in society. Just as you don't have to touch something hot to know that it will burn you -- but a small child who has not yet been told about hot things does not yet know.
The "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
34. IE said the following at 8:23 AM on Nov 4:
Reno (#22)stated: "The 'most important issue' is based on political promises. Changing the laws of abortion from federal to state will not change the eroding view of humanity and the increasing disregard for human life in all stages.
I will remain a principled voter - and will support a view of men as God sees man, his image. My relationship with God will inform my vote, not an attempt to wield the church as God's sword in politics - see Judas.
When the world see Christians as 'single issue voters' they see people uninterested in lives and salvation of those around them, but passionate for their ideology to reign. This is NOT true, but that's the message that is increasingly sent. Not the message that Jesus sent. How long until 'candidate pledges' become reality in the church. Oh that already happened. We cannot trust in man to save men.
We will be disappointed. I guarantee it."
I completely agree with this statement. What I pray for is a change of heart in people's lives-- that they would come to know Jesus in a real and life-changing way. That's what creates a genuine and lasting change in lives, mindsets, attitudes and decisions.
I'd also add that I pray that people would become as passionate about valuing the people all around us as they are about their pro-life convictions. I have had to examine myself in this respect. How can I proclaim my convictions about preserving the life of the unborn when I am not so caring about the people in my community who are living in very poor conditions. Indeed my pro-life conviction and position must be one for all people, at all stages of life. The same fervor I have about protecting the life of the unborn lives is the same fervor I must have about those who I can see all around me.
BDB #13: I encourage you to go back and review the history of the American Civil War. It was not until 1862 that ending slavery became just "one" of the articulated goals of the war. The American Civil War was not primarily about "freeing" blacks.
35. Texas Craig said the following at 8:27 AM on Nov 4:
Should we try to legislate our morality? Of course we should! Most laws are a reflection of someone's "morality." Why is murder outlawed? Because we, as a society, deem it unacceptable. Stealing, child abuse, drug use, etc. are all acts deemed morally wrong and, therefore, banned by society. Why is alcohol allowed, but marijuana banned in the U.S.? It is purely a morality issue, because we tried banning alcohol and society did not like that. Too many people find the use of alcohol to be morally acceptable to have it banned.
The problem we have now in the U.S. is that we are not as culturally homogenous as we once were. Thus, it is getting harder to find consensus on what the "common morality" is. So, you have segments of society fighting with each other to determine what "morality" will govern. But, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that we ought not legislate morality. The only question is "whose morality will win the day?"
As for the death penalty, it is not a fair comparison with abortion. If you are going to make that comparison, then let's also compare it to other things related to children. For example, it would be child abuse if I locked my child in a cell for 18 hours a day, so we should not do that to convicted criminals either (sarcasm to make my point). Abortion and capital punishment have no relation to each other at all.
There are all kinds of things we do to criminals that would be morally offensive if we just grabbed someone off the street and did it to them (i.e., taking away their freedom and locking them up, requiring manual labor, etc.). But, true justice demands punishment for wrong behavior. Thus, it is acceptable to impose punishment upon those who have been given due process and found guilty of a crime.
Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that man's life is more valuable than God's holiness, righteousness, and justice. In so doing, we elevate ourselves and diminish God. As the scripture says, our life is but a vapor. We love others because God loves them, but we also love justice and righteousness because God demands it.
As it says in Ecclesiastes 8:11:
"When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong."
I shudder when I think of the direction our society is going, where we often treat the guilty better than the innocent. But, at the same time, it is the way of man and will likely continue. Therefore, we should put our hope in God and continue to be a light in a dark world.
36. Lisa said the following at 9:07 AM on Nov 4:
People ridicule us for being one-issue voters. But let's think about this. What if we were talking about slavery? What if you could still "own" people and do with them what you will? If you saw slavery for the moral issue that it is and understood that it must be stopped, would you really care what the pro-freedom candidate's position was on economy or environment or anything else? The truth of the matter is that neither candidate is likely to end abortion. But one will do more to protect those laws that have made abortion slightly rarer, and that is a step in the right direction.
37. Krinda Joy said the following at 9:16 AM on Nov 4:
Apparently this is a hot topic...can I just point out Psalm 139 since it seems that the SCRIPTURES (God's holy, ordained Word) is often left out in our decision to support/stand-against abortion. "For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb...my frame was not hidden from You when I was made in that secret place...Your eyes saw my unformed body..." (13-15) Each child God knits togehter WHILE STILL UNFORMED, which means it's LIFE reguardless of the stage the child's in because God's hand is upon him/her! For me to agree to abortion is to agree to end a life God has His hand upon. Scripturally, abortion can never be suported.
38. Laura said the following at 9:23 AM on Nov 4:
DJS #25, I cannot read the Bible and believe that God is okay with the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor. That applies to nations as well as individuals. If you seriously believe that the Bible teaches that government should only benefit its own citizens and that it doesn't matter who else gets hurt in the process, then we have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose and goals of government that won't be worked out here.
FYI, I have studied Wilberforce's life. His commitment to viewing every human life as equally valuable, no matter where one's citizenship or origin lies, is what inspires me.
39. Susan Woodward said the following at 6:31 PM on Nov 4:
I am watching the election results with great interest (as is most of the country). I am a registered democrat and have been for many years. For many years, I have touted that I was anti-abortion but pro-choice. It wasn't until a few years ago that I began to listen to Dr. Dobson on the radio. His broadcasts began to slowly change my mind on this position. Biblically, there are many issues that are black or white (with no in between). I only regret that my many years of "straddling the fence" have been at the expense of innocent children. I want to thank Dr. Dobson and countless others who at the risk of their personal reputation and many attacks, have fought for the right for unborn children to experience life. I am still a registered democrat. I did not vote democratic in the presidential nomination. Americans have silently accepted abortion as a right or instituion in this country. We must remember that the devil is in the details. I wanted to tell Dr. Dobson that there are people that are listening...he is making converts...I am one of them. Thanks
40. Joseph said the following at 9:40 AM on Nov 5:
Emily- I can share you sentiments perhaps I might suggest my meathod of political and issues of faith.
While I believe abortion is wrong in almost every case, the sole exception being the life of the mother at stake, I would be politically satisfied to cease tax payer funds supporting abortion and the dissolution of elective abortions.
Either stance I do not believe to be so radical as to enforce my morality upon people. The liberatarian side of me says to let them have freedom to do what they want, the Christian side of me tells me to pray for them in whatever they choose, the conservative side of me says I can tolerate things I vehemently disagree with, but I do not have to support them with my tax dollars.
41. Tom said the following at 1:30 PM on Nov 5:
What happened to Christians relying on the Bible as the source for the answer to the question of when life begins? Genesis 2:7 (NIV) states "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Seems clear to me.
42. jessie said the following at 2:44 PM on Nov 5:
I know a woman with pregancy induced lupus. She is Pro-life and would not even consider a termination . ( as is her RIGHT)
Her baby died after 1 day. she spent 6 months in the hospital on dialysis.She did everything in her power to not miscarry and when they did an Emergency C-section, the bleeding would not stop and she has no more changes of having a baby.
I want doctors to tell women this. That they KNOW the total risks and challenges. I do not women to be ignorant of their chances when a doctor says that it is a risky pregnancy. Everyone is expecting a miracle. What is more, as a pre-med student I KNOW. that if the mom dies, the baby will probably die too.
In the OT. If a man hurt a woman and it resulted in her baby dieing, he had to work for her and pay a fine.
43. To Tom said the following at 3:04 PM on Nov 5:
It's clear to you because the scales have fallen off your eyes and you are able to see the truth around you..
44. Ted Slater said the following at 3:17 PM on Nov 5:
Tom (comment #41) -- yes, life has been associated with breathing. But Scripture also indicates that life exists prior to breathing air.
It can be argued convincingly that life begins at conception. I believe that. I would, though, like to present an additional case that when a creature has its own blood, it's living.
Scripture says clearly that "the life of a creature is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, etc.).
In the case of humans, a short while after conception, the pre-born baby has its own blood type distinct from her mother. Her heart is beating a mere 3 weeks after conception, cycling this blood through her tiny body.
I think a death takes place when a fertilized egg is discarded. But for those unconvinced by the arguments supporting that position, perhaps they would be convinced by the argument I present above, that life is in the blood, and that shedding another's innocent blood is murder.
45. Eliza said the following at 4:38 PM on Nov 5:
Ted #44,
But you just said that a fertilized embryo does not have its own blood, and that would be the sign of life, right? So how could discarding a fertilized embryo in extremely early stages (1 - 2 weeks) be considered killing?
Also, if conception is defined as fertilization rather than implantation of a fertilized embryo, couldn't breastfeeding be considered an abortifacient itself? After all, studies show that it (along with hormonal birth control methods like the pill which mimic hormone levels during pregnancy) actually thin the uterine lining, raising the likelihood that the embryo will be prevented from implantation.
So fertilized embryos are routinely lost, even when practicing natural family planning or simply breastfeeding.
The US FDA defines "pregnancy" as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. So when they say a birth control method is "not an abortifacient", they might be defining "conception" differently than many people.
46. Jeremy said the following at 5:30 PM on Nov 5:
Ted (comment 44):
Yes, there is one verse referring to life as in the blood, a verse in the context of killing and eating animals. The verse Tom cited, however, is much stronger evidence, as it is in direct reference to humans and the beginning of human life. There are a number of other passages as well that equate life with breath, as well as many more that speak of the significance of birth. Perhaps one of the most compelling points is that the event from physical life that Jesus chose to associate as the start of one's new spiritual life, is birth.
I think the more convincing case from Scripture is that the soul is first present at birth, but surely we can all agree that it is not a clear-cut issue. It is more than a little baffling to me that so many make a huge fuss about this point while ignoring or minimizing many other clearer issues.
47. Katie P. said the following at 9:32 PM on Nov 5:
Emily (#4): It is most certainly the government's job to legislate issues of justice, and since abortion is an issue of justice, the government should legislate it, and we should care that it does. If a government can't condescend to protect its weakest, must vulnerable citizens, what kind of a government is that?
48. Mark said the following at 12:48 AM on Nov 6:
If your 13 year old daughter gets raped, will you insist your daughter complete the pregnancy? I would love to know.
If the doctor says to you, your wife is bleeding internally. We either take the baby or both die, what will you say? I would love to know.
49. Matt from DC said the following at 7:51 AM on Nov 6:
While we're bring out what the Scriptures have to say about when life started here are two of my favorites that I haven't heard yet:
Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
What point would I make with these verses? That there is an additional Biblical indicator other than breath and blood flow. It is when God addresses you as a you that we are not talking about part of a mother or a father, but a new human life.
50. Ted Slater said the following at 2:32 PM on Nov 6:
Eliza (comment #45) -- do not twist my words. Please re-read what I wrote, and you'll see that I was providing an "additional case" for those who are unconvinced that a fertilized egg is a living creature.
Jeremy (comment #46) -- I provided not one, but three verses supporting my point that "life is in the blood." Please look those verses up before you dismiss what Scripture is saying. Start here, where it says that "the life of every creature is its blood." Does it really say "every creature," or just "animals"?
To be blunt, I can tell you don't know much about pregnancy, that you're merely talking hypotheticals. If you were more informed, you would know that the baby moving around inside a mommy's belly, pushing his elbows and feet against her womb, is in fact ... a baby.
Jeremy, let me ask you something. If a friend has a miscarriage, are you going to express condolences, or are you going to dismiss it as merely the passing of a clump of cells and tell her to just get over it?
Let me ask you something else. Is Scripture wrong when it says that the baby inside Elizabeth's womb leaped at encountering Jesus inside his mother's womb? When Elizabeth told Mary that "the baby in my womb leaped for joy" upon meeting the RECENTLY CONCEIVED Jesus, was she mistaken?
Got that? Jesus has just been conceived, and yet the pre-birth John the Baptist was already leaping for joy at his encounter with Him.
Jeremy, this is indeed a "clear-cut" issue; life does not begin at birth. I find it "baffling" that anyone would argue otherwise, baffling that anyone would dismiss me as "making a huge fuss" for crying out against pre-birth murder.
51. Jeremy said the following at 2:52 PM on Nov 6:
Of course this can't turn too much into an argument or my comments will begin to be blocked, but let me address at least the last point, because it exemplifies the lengths to which people will go to try to make Scripture fit their notion of when a soul is first present.
When John lept within his mother's womb, this was CLEARLY the work of God. Surely you are not arguing that within Elizabeth's womb, John was able to hear Mary arriving and was prescient enough on his own to repond physically. Of course not, such a position would be ludicrous. So clearly this was an act of God; the question is whether God's action through someone or something indicates that in fact that person/thing has a soul. I think mentioning the story of Balaam's donkey is enough to demonstrate that it does not.
This is exactly the temptation when we come at Scripture with preconceptions; to ignore obvious facts about the passages in question, to not note that "he knit me together in my mother's womb" is both clearly a metaphor and, in the sense meant (God's creative action), could equally apply to an unborn animal. I am not arguing for the soul being first present at birth; I really don't know if that is true. But I think it IS a serious problem to distort Scripture to try to make it fit what we want it to say, rather than allowing it to be authoritative.
52. Eliza said the following at 5:34 AM on Nov 7:
Ted,
I didn't think I was twisting your words. You said, I think a death takes place when a fertilized egg is discarded. But for those unconvinced by the arguments supporting that position, perhaps they would be convinced by the argument I present above, that life is in the blood, and that shedding another's innocent blood is murder..
But my point is--a fertilized embryo does not have its own blood. So that argument doesn't make sense to me.
By the way, I was thinking about this this morning, and I realized that believing that conception begins at implantation and not fertilization would suddenly make stem-cell research totally acceptable. I think.
53. Esther said the following at 6:43 AM on Nov 8:
When my baby sister died at birth (from severe congenital defects), both of my parents were heartbroken and each have said that they would have gladly given their lives to allow Charity to live. Even though it would have left three older children (myself included) parentless. Not that it would have made a difficult situation better, and, at 5, I probably would have felt they'd abandoned me, but now I find it comforting to know that they love each of us so much as to sacrifice everything.
What would Jesus' parable mean if he was fine to have the 99 sheep safe, and the lost lamb was somehow expendable? I rejoice that our God loves even those who are lost and forgotten.
54. allison said the following at 7:27 AM on Nov 9:
I have been really seeking God about this, I know that Abortion is wrong and an injustice. And murder and that God wants it out of our lives. And I agree about this being an important issue. But I do think that God is concern about other injustices as well, Now I believe human life trumps others, but people have been violated as well, and I believe what we are seeing in our land is a result of the injustices and oppressions of the past. I agree it's time to move on, but God is not one sided, their are just priorities.
55. Victoria said the following at 12:06 AM on Nov 10:
Here's the part that troubles me. After 8 years of having a pro-life president nothing has been done to reduce the number of abortions in our country during Mr. Bush's terms in office. If you carefully watched Pastor Rick Warren's interview of both candidates, Barack Obama specifically detailed how he was going to strive to reduce the number of abortions in our country via improved economics, health care, support of adoption, etc. John McCain directly said that while he absolutely believed abortion is wrong, he would do nothing to make it illegal and mentioned no plans to reduce the current trends. Why on earth would these prolife men (Bush and McCain) do nothing? I'm not advocating either political party, the privilege of a democracy is that we each have our own vote to cast and voice to be heard. I was troubled both by Obama's pro-choice position and McCain's openness about his willingness to let it continue.In the commotion of political debates let us not take the eyes off ourselves. It is not until Americans collectively and individually decide to change their views and take the iniative to get and pass new laws we will see change. Sadly Californians again voted against parental notification in our latest election. When our hearts our changed, our votes and laws will be also.As a disclaimer, I am as prolife as they come. But I have not always been. I chose to have an abortion (or if it makes you somehow feel better to call it "like it is" - murder my own child) because it was a convenient fix to what I saw as a "problem." It is was only after I developed a relationship with Christ that my heart changed. The Lord has since blessed my husband and I with an amazing son and carried us through the heart breaking loss of two of our unborn children. It is only when we open our hearts and share our lives with these pregnant women that we can shed a glimmer of light into the darkness.