Not Just “A Bible-Thumper” When It Comes to Abortion

Someone close to me invited an open argument to support “a case for making a law about the health decisions involving a woman's body that is not Biblically based.” The assumption being that Christians are only pro-life because of a few misinterpreted Bible verses.  In Jeremiah 1:5 the prophet wrote that the word of YHWH came to him and said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” And Psalm 139:13 the psalmist says of YHWH, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  The assertion against using these Bible verses is that just because God said he knew Jeremiah before he was actually born does not necessarily mean that God knows everyone before they are born.  And just because a psalmist wrote that he believed he was knit together in his mother’s womb does not validate that he really was or that anyone else ever has been.

As for why the courts should be involved in this matter, it is because “My Body, My Choice” has a major conflict with our US Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It goes without saying that “all men are created equal” is a phrase meaning “all mankind” which of course includes women and children. The question for debate then is, “How soon after conception is that fertilized egg considered a separate living entity, part of mankind, endowed with any rights?”  I will support a woman’s right to make her own health decisions for her own body, but she does not have the right to make harmful decisions for the health of another body that for 9 months will be living inside of her.  (BTW, I also support everyone's right to make their own health decisions for their own body such as the right to refuse to have questionable substances injected into their bodies and not lose their job over it.)

Have you ever seen a pregnant woman holding a "My Body My Choice" sign?  I searched for one to no avail.  The technological advances over the past 50 years have no doubt played a part in the shift of belief about when life begins.  Improvements in ultrasound and facts surrounding the development of a baby in the womb have steadily supported the inhuman violence inflicted upon the unborn as being the killing of a human soul.  

The "my body my choice my rights" argument has lost its punch as it has become more evident that the rights of one of the two (or more) bodies involved in this issue are being ignored.  A fetus will have a heartbeat at 6.5 to 7 weeks after conception but has been detected as early as 5.5 to 6 weeks. Blood cells begin developing in the 5th week of pregnancy.  Where there is blood there is life!  Blood is one of the unifying identifiers for all living creatures.  The average adult has about 1.2 to 1.5 gallons of blood flowing throughout the body.  A newborn baby has about 1 cup of blood.  A baby in the womb has 89 to 105 ML per kilogram of body weight.  That means that a 1-pound baby in the womb has about 43 ML of blood which is only about 2 tablespoons. But where there is blood, there is life!

So, the debate is still about when we, as a society consider human life to be……..????......something that it would be morally wrong to destroy.  In the “pro-choice” camp the answer is very simple: it is totally up to the mother—if she wants the baby, then it should live.  If she does not want the baby, then it should die.  To them, it’s not a question of whether or not the baby in the womb is intrinsically worthy, valuable, or endowed with any inalienable rights.  It’s just a question of whether or not the baby is wanted.   

But to those in favor of abortion on demand, my previous paragraph would arouse great anger because I used the word “baby” four times.  They are shouting, “Of course, no civilized society would kill babies!  We are not barbaric pagan child-sacrificers!  A baby in the womb is not a baby!  It’s a fetus that is not viable, has no soul, and has no consciousness!  For a normal person to go through with an abortion, they have to allow their mind to be convinced that a fetus is just a blob of organic material whose extraction is along the same lines as clearing a bowel obstruction or blowing their nose.  Normal people don’t kill babies.  So, are we talking about a baby or a blob?  

But, are we becoming a society that would kill what everybody agrees is a baby?  Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia 2019 talked casually in a radio interview about his administration’s position on a 40-week abortion bill up to the time of birth. In answering the question of what would happen if a botched abortion ended up with a live birth his answer was unbelievable.  He said, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, (Again, if the baby is wanted or not is the determining factor.) and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."  He used the terms "mother" and "infant." This “discussion” would certainly not have anything to do with the woman’s body or her health, but whether the BABY lying there should live or die.

I have seen videos of women bragging about their abortions as if it were a rite of passage to have one. One of the most blatant examples I have ever seen of someone convinced that a fetus is nothing to be valued was a video of a girl disrupting a pro-life exhibit.  There were hundreds of small representational crosses on the ground on a public place (not sure where).  She was gleefully skipping through the display pointing at various crosses saying, “That’s mine!  That’s mine, too!”

It cannot be argued that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus, if nature is allowed to take its course, will become human life whether one believes it is already human life or not.  A big argument I am hearing from the left for why abortions should be on-demand at any point prior to birth sounds extremely socialistic.  That argument claims that there are too many children born into poverty. Poor, uneducated people have no business flooding our school systems with unwanted children who are suffering the woes of poverty and abortion is a natural way to stem the flood.  Their argument also infers that all these poor, problem children in our schools are only there because their ignorant mothers did not do the right thing and abort them when they had the chance. 

Their claim is also that pro-lifers are really only pro-birthers because they don’t want to put forth any effort or spend tax dollars for welfare programs to take care of all of these problem kids for whom life is so awful. (BTW, this is totally not true. Every crisis pregnancy center I know trying to give an alternative to abortion offers financial, emotional, and spiritual aid to any mother, unwed or married who chooses to carry her baby through birth and beyond.) Working Americans are already spending .8 trillion dollars annually to help those on welfare.  This does not even include all of the money and personal interventions that charities, churches, and individuals put forth to help those in poverty who have babies.

So, the Left’s best solution is to not bring more poor children into the world.  If life is so awful for all these poor unwanted children, then I suppose it’s just a shame that those 52 poor people who died in a tractor-trailer trying to cross the border were not just aborted before they could be born. It would have saved them from so much grief.  Don’t think that this sounds absurd because there are many today who seriously want the population of the world to be decreased drastically….for the good of mankind.  (One of the admitted proponents of depopulation is Bill Gates.)  Whatever organization erected the Georgia Guidestones believes the best future for this earth is for the entire population of this planet to be reduced to 500 million (not kidding, look it up).

One of the biggest reasons to oppose abortion is the “What if factor.”  Of the 63.6 million known abortions that have happened in America, what if we have prohibited the births of children who would have grown to become the world’s greatest contributors to making the world a better place?  We will never know (in this life) if that child would have found the cure for cancer, or that child would have been the greatest composer, diplomat, teacher, pastor, writer, peacemaker, or philosopher.  There is unlimited potential for good in the womb.  I suppose one could counter, “Ah, but what if we aborted the would-be Hitler, Stalin, Jack the Ripper, or Jeffrey Dahmer? We will never know that either, will we?”  No, but that brings up the bigger question of who has the right to interrupt the destiny of each created life?  If I were to use the Bible, I could make a case for the answer.  But for someone disregarding the Word of YHWH, they are still regarding a god of their own making. If choosing life or death for another without any due process of law, someone is claiming god-like authority.  

There must be laws in this country to protect the unborn, even if that will have repercussions for the parents, our society, and especially for the host mother.  The vast majority of abortions are from pregnancies outside of marriage by couples who have unprotected, consensual sex in the immoral heat of passion. Yes, pregnancy becomes a bigger, unfair problem for the girl because the guy's body is not involved after conception. Guys that will not take the responsibility for the pregnancy are the scum of the earth (IMO). 

Discussions about abortion always include the special circumstance of abortion in the case of rape. If a woman becomes pregnant by rape or incest, the perpetrator should be castrated IMO.  But there are women who were raped and chose not to abort--wow, that is an incredibly strong woman of strong convictions! But who would blame a girl or woman if she ended her pregnancy in that case?--and that will always be available. But still, even a rape victim who becomes pregnant and has an abortion may still deal with trauma and lingering guilt because she will know that the life within her did nothing wrong to deserve death.

No, abortion is not a woman’s right to choose.  And this can be argued by a Christian without using the Bible at all. But if I were to use the Bible to address anything to support being pro-choice, I can only reference Joshua 24:15: “CHOOSE you this day whom ye will serve…as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”  If it only affects you, then yes, "Your Body, Your Choice." I do pray you will make the right choice.