The Sanctity of Life- Missing for 42 Years & Feared Dead
Just a few days ago, a young man entered his English class at Umpqua Community College and opened fire, killing nine people. Our president, along with many others, was quick to take the opportunity to appeal for stricter gun regulations, believing that tragedies like this could then be prevented. I suggest that all the gun laws in the world would not have prevented this from happening. Several factors lay behind the shooter’s decision to commit his heinous act. The first factor is motive. Why was it that he desired to see these people killed? As I am writing this, there have been some suggestions as to why he did this, but no official or definite conclusions have been stated. Something though, bothered this man to make him want to take the lives of these nine people. Had there been laws that could have removed all guns from the face of the earth, this young man would still have been motivated to do what he did and would have found some other method of accomplishing his desire.
A second factor is the issue of morality. In every decision that each of us make concerning issues in our lives, there is a moral standard that allows us or forbids us from acting in certain ways. Why is it that this man thought it was morally permissible to take the lives of nine innocent people? Could it be that our government has legislated that it is morally acceptable to murder innocent people? Not only that, it often promotes the idea through the funding of agencies that do that very thing. I refer to abortion. It is a logical step that if you deem it morally permissible to kill innocent ones in one realm, then killing innocent ones in a slightly different realm will also be permissible. I find it ironic that the majority of people who are advocating the enacting of gun laws for the purpose of eliminating senseless killings like that at Umpqua, are vehemently opposed to laws that forbid the senseless killing of the unborn. How can we say that it is morally acceptable to take the lives of innocent children as long as they are in the womb of a mother, and then in the next breath be appalled when the same act is committed to a child outside the womb? The only answer that those who permit abortion can offer is that what is in the womb of a woman is not a living human being, and if so, then a woman should have the right to do whatever she desires to her own body. Abortions then, may actually be necessary to preserve her well-being. Frankly, if what is found in a woman’s womb is something less than a living human being, then I would have no opposition at all to a woman having an abortion. I would not want the government deciding what I should or shouldn’t do. But the abortionist’s morality fails if what is in the womb is a living human being, AND IT IS!
IS WHAT IS IN THE WOMB A LIVING HUMAN BEING- WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?
These questions can be answered by three different arguments. The first is the philosophical or logical argument. Let’s start with the obvious. If you are reading this, you are a human being and alive. And regardless of your ability to read, you 
have been in such a state since the very moment you exited your mother’s womb. No one disputes that. So if at some time in the womb you were either non-human or not living, when did that change take place? What physiological, psychological or spiritual transformation occurred and when did it happen that caused you to possess life and be classified as human? According to statistics from the Center For Disease Control, 91% of all abortions occur within the first trimester of pregnancy (before the 13th week). Practically no abortions occur before the 6th week of pregnancy. At 6 weeks, what is in the womb looks like this (on left). Without question, what is there is alive and bears resemblance to a human being. All that 
is needed for the human characteristics that are present to develop is time. In fact, within a few weeks the humanity of the child in the womb is visually undeniable. The only issue that those in the pro-choice to murder crowd can raise is the issue of viability. It is argued that since the child cannot survive on its own outside the womb, it is therefore lacking a necessary characteristic of humanity. But wait. For the first few years of the child’s existence after birth it is not able to survive on its own and is dependent upon someone else to provide all the necessities of life and we have laws that mandate such. Viability does not determine humanity.
A second argument is that of medical science. Recently, Bill Nye “The Science Guy” produced a YouTube video proclaiming that Pro-Life people are ignorant of the science that is involved in reproduction. His claim is that since possibly hundreds of fertilized eggs are naturally or spontaneously aborted by not attaching to the uterine wall, then humanity cannot possibly begin at conception. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that one is taking a human life by aborting a fetus. Mr. Nye’s argument has no merit, not only from a logical perspective, but also from a medical science perspective in which he seems to think he is an expert (even though his expertise is in engineering). From a logical perspective, Nye’s argument fails on at least two counts. If Nye is correct that the spontaneously aborted fertilized ovum is not human, then what describes the child that dies naturally during the birthing process? Was that child something other than human? Or how about the child that dies in the womb of the mother from some complication of pregnancy? Would anyone dare say that child was something other than human? Simply because a fertilized egg may not survive until birth does not mean that it is anything other than human.
The second area in which Nye’s argument fails is in the difference between a spontaneous or natural abortion and that which a woman receives from an abortion provider. Nye’s argument is that if human life begins with conception and abortion is the taking of human life, then someone needs to be accountable, legally or criminally, for the death of hundreds of unborn human beings. But wait. To be held accountable the man and/or the woman had to in some way participate actively in the killing of the fertilized egg. What did the man or the woman do to cause this? Nothing. What could the man or the woman have done to prevent the spontaneous abortion from occurring? Nothing. So how then can they be held accountable? That a fertilized egg had even come into existence would be beyond the certain knowledge of the man and woman. Yet when an abortion takes place, the woman (and possibly the man) knows of the existence of the child and purposely chooses to end its life.
Apparently the “Science Guy” did not consult the science books in making his claim. Robert George and Patrick Lee wrote an article that appeared online at www.nationalreview.com stating, “All the texts used in contemporary human embryology and teratology, developmental biology, and anatomy concur in the judgment that it is at fertilization, not — as Nye ignorantly claims — at implantation, that the life of a new individual of the species Homo sapiens begins.” They then give three examples, one of which I cite here, and the other two later.
“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.)
According to these authors, there are dozens of other credible texts that state the same. They then challenge Nye to produce one credible text that substantiates his science that life begins no earlier than with implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. As far as I know, no such text has been produced.
Not only is it logical to think that life begins at conception, and not only does medical science concur, but the biblical declaration is the same. In at least three ways the Bible states that human life begins with conception. The first way is that of analogy. There is a parallel between the impartation of eternal (or spiritual) life and that of physical life. The Apostle John writes, “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” (1 John 5:11-12) Here he links the possession of eternal life with the possession of Jesus Christ. The question then becomes, how does one possess Christ? This is answered in the following verse. “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13) Here John equates having believed on the name of Jesus Christ with possessing Him. Then, how does one believe? The Apostle Paul answers that question in his letter to the Romans stating, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (10:17) A message is proclaimed dealing with sin and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon Calvary’s cross for its penalty. The one who hears the message recognizes their spiritual need for salvation and Jesus’ provision of it with His shed blood and believes the message and receives Him as Savior. Peter describes this with these words, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23) What is interesting is that the Greek word that is translated “seed” is the word sperma. The analogy then is that when the sperm of the Word of God is joined with ovum of the faith of the hearer, immediately spiritual life begins.
The second way that the Bible treats the inception of life is by how it treats the issue of death. The Old Testament saint, Job, asked the question, “Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?” (Job 3:11) The phrase “give up the ghost” is a euphemistic phrase for death. While it is a euphemism, it is also theologically correct. In the New Testament, the Greek word that is translated “ghost” in many places is translated as “spirit” in many other places. Sometimes it refers to the Holy Spirit and sometimes it refers to the human spirit. In dealing with the issue of what constitutes genuine saving faith, James states, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26) If the body without the spirit is dead, then a living body is one that possesses a spirit. Back to Job. In order for Job to give up the ghost at birth he would need to first possess a spirit prior to birthing. If he then possessed a spirit in the womb, he was a living human being.
A third way in which the Bible deals with the inception of life is found in the Mosaic regulation concerning injury to a pregnant woman. Exodus 21:22 states, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Moses says that if no “mischief” follows, that is, if no physical harm is done to either the woman or the child, the husband can sue for damages from the premature birth up to an amount that judges would deem reasonable. But “… if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” (Ex 21:23-24) Should the mother or the baby suffer any type of physical trauma, then the guilty person would be culpable of an equivalent consequence- an eye for an eye, etc. If life is required of the guilty person, then life of the child had to exist while yet in the womb. And since there is no indication here of an animal sacrifice as payment, then the life had to be a human life. One other note concerning this passage is that there is no condition of when this could or couldn’t happen within the pregnancy. The law did not specify if this happens in the third trimester or any other time of the pregnancy. It then must encompass the entirety of the time of the woman’s pregnancy.
There is no room for dispute then. Logical argument, the consensus of medical opinion and the declaration of Scripture all concur that human life begins at conception.
SHOULDN’T A WOMAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER SHE DESIRES TO HER OWN BODY?
From a legal perspective, the answer to this question is yes, but with certain limitations. For example, should I desire, I can decide to become intoxicated by consuming a large amount of alcohol without penalty of law. However, should I decide to go for a drive in my car after becoming intoxicated, I face the possibility of being arrested and paying whatever consequence the law mandates for my stupidity. Even though I may not have caused injury to another person or their property, I put them at risk to injury and, therefore, I became liable to penal consequence. And should I have caused injury, the consequence of my action would increase proportionately. As someone has said, I have every legal right in the world to flail my arms in the air wherever I desire, up to the point they come into contact with another. Then my rights come to an end. But the logic of this argument is only valid for the abortionist if the child in the womb is truly “her own body.” It is not!
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that the child in the womb is part of the woman’s body. It would then be no different than any other part of her body. Let’s consider fingernails. If a woman decides to allow her fingernails to grow, she has every legal right to do so. If she decides to clip her nails, she also has every right to do so. The nail that was clipped would still be part of her body after being detached from it. And because of that she would still retain the right to do with it whatever she desires. If she decides to throw it in the trash can or wash it down the sink, we would think that what she was doing was totally acceptable. If she decided that she had been attached to it for so long that she couldn’t bear not having it in sight and wanted to keep it in a glass case for posterity, we might think she’s nuts, but we would grant her the privilege of doing with it whatever she desired because it was part of her body. If the child in the womb is part of the woman’s body, then the child outside of the womb is still part of her body and, consequently, she should have the right to do with it whatever she desires even though it is no longer attached to her. If a woman is only affecting her own body in obtaining an abortion, then logically the child that exits the womb is at risk of having his or her life terminated by its mother, for it is still part of her body.
Medical science also refutes the notion that the child in the womb is part of the mother’s body. To the other two citations in the National Review article I now refer.
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.” (Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765, March 20, 2012.)
“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” (Emphasis added; Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Mueller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 8).
DNA has been used to both convict and acquit people associated with crimes. Should a sample of my skin be taken from my hand, or a saliva swab from inside my mouth, or a piece of my toenail be analyzed, the DNA markings would all be identical and identify me. However, should a DNA sample be taken from a mother and another from the child in her womb they would be very similar, but not identical. The child in the womb is not part of the mother’s body, simply a distinct human being temporarily attached to it.
CAN’T AN ABORTION BE JUSTIFIABLE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ANOTHER?
Apart from saving the actual physical life of the mother, the answer to this question is an absolute NO for two reasons. The first reason deals with how we define quality of life while the second deals with the circumstances of what makes the sacrifice of a life justifiable. As stated before, our actions have consequence attached to them. It seems that many today want to do whatever they want without being culpable for the consequence of their actions. CDC statistics from 2011 state that 85.5% of women who had an abortion were unmarried. I doubt the statistics have changed drastically since then. I am not stating that the woman who had an abortion became pregnant because she was unmarried, but that in that she was unmarried she had chosen not to follow the biblical path of reserving herself to the man that she would commit to spending the rest of her life with and who would do the same with her. According to statistics from the National Abortion Federation, only 25% of unmarried women who had an abortion were living together with their partner. That means that 60% of women who had an abortion were involved in “one night stands” or at the most, short-term relationships. According to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, 51% of women that had an abortion had used some form of contraception in the month that they became pregnant. That does not mean that they necessarily used it properly, only that they used it sometime during that month. This then means that 49% of women who became pregnant did so without doing anything to prevent it. But even for the other 51% it is known that there is no 100% certain means of preventing conception apart from abstinence. Oral contraceptives, which are the most popular means of birth control, have a failure rate between 6 and 8%. Actions, or lack of responsible actions, have consequence. The consequence of these irresponsible actions is sometimes an unintended pregnancy. It is morally reprehensible to take the life of the child created due to the irresponsible actions of the mother. (At this point I am only dealing with the woman consenting to intercourse. I will deal with rape and incest victims separately.) No one is guaranteed a certain quality of life, especially that “quality.”
The question then is asked about the quality of life that the child might experience and whether it is fair that a child should suffer because the actions of its parents. If by quality of life we mean an economic standard of living that the average person possesses today, then we have a significant problem. Practically everyone living 150 years ago did not possess a standard of living that the average person enjoys today. How is it that they survived?
Quality of life also pertains to a person’s physical/medical wellness. Until relatively recently, the medical wellness of the child in the womb was unknown until the time of birth. Consequently, once the child was born, everyone had to live with the medical problems. But does this necessarily mean that quality of life was diminished for either the child or those who were required to provide care for it? That question I can answer from personal experience.
For fifty-eight years of my life I was privileged to have a brother who was mentally retarded. Unfortunately, I did not realize that this was a privilege until later in my life. At first I thought it was a hardship. In my younger days, (about the time I was 8 years old) I did not understand why my brother was unable to learn like me. He had advanced to about the intelligence of a 5 year old. I would have loved to have had a brother that I could talk to about life and a brother who could play football with me, but due to his limitations, he was not that kind of brother. I decided one day that I was going to correct the situation. I went to my mother and told her that I was going to teach my brother, figuring that I would get through to him and he would learn from me, and in time, I would have that brother that I wanted. I started teaching him math- simple addition. The first day we worked with adding numbers up to five and after about 20 minutes of instruction, I gave him homework to do. The next day we got back to class and I expected he would have completed his homework. After all, he had nothing else to do all day. To my dismay not one question was answered. So I tried again, going over the same material and assigning the same homework. Day three brought the same results as day two. I decided to give it one more shot and well, you guessed it, day four turned out the same. Thoroughly frustrated, I went to my mother to complain, hoping that she would encourage my brother to do his homework. It didn’t happen and I consequently gave up. I was upset, I was frustrated, I was disappointed and discouraged and worst of all, my brother was happy as he could be. It didn’t matter to him one lick that he didn’t know how to add numbers. All he knew was that he was having a ball living and enjoying every day to the maximum. And he did so every day, without exception for sixty years. All too late I realized that God’s purpose for the two of us was not that I should teach him mathematics, but that he should teach me about the really important things in life. What I initially thought was a hardship, turned out to be a blessing.
God uses “hardships” in our lives for that very purpose. The Apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 12, “And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.” (2 Cor. 12:7) Paul was a greatly gifted person. Some say he possessed the greatest theological mind ever. But as my mentor in Bible College was accustomed to saying, “Man is the most curious of God’s creation. Pat him on the back and his head swells.” The danger existed that Paul could have gotten carried away with his greatness. In fact, at one point people did worship him as God, which he quickly put an end to (Acts 14:11). The thorn in the flesh did not hinder Paul’s ministry, it kept him on track. And with the hardship of the thorn came the grace of God to endure it (2 Corinthians 12:8-9).
What about the woman who becomes pregnant because of rape or is the victim of incest (paternal rape)? In that she did not choose what happened to her, shouldn’t she be afforded the opportunity to opt out of the consequence of carrying a child for nine months and then giving birth to it? While I grieve for those who have been abused in such a way, I cannot agree that she has the option of having an abortion. There are times when taking the life of another is justifiable and doing so preserves the lives of others. But the times of taking the life of another are conditioned by the guilt of that one in committing a crime worthy of death. What crime did the baby in the womb commit? Some might say then, that they cannot bear the thought of living with a reminder of a brutal act for the rest of their life. To that I would then respond that the child can be given up for adoption. But some, unfortunately will say that they also can’t live with the thought of having given up a child and not knowing what happens to it. My response to this is that you mean you can live with the thought of murdering your child but not entrusting its life to another? I’m sorry, something is desperately wrong there.
The only possible circumstance that might allow for an abortion is when the physical life of the mother is in serious jeopardy. Even here, I personally would not permit it, but trust God to accomplish His purposes whatever they might be. I understand that not everyone will have the same faith that I do (and I do not mean that in a critical way) and so I must allow them to pursue a course of action that they believe will hopefully preserve the life of one. Fortunately, this situation occurs rarely.
It has been forty-two years since the Supreme Court ruled in the Roe vs. Wade case which legalized abortion. When the decision was made, there were few, if any, mass shootings such as with Umpqua. Since that time we have increased the number of regulations concerning the possession of firearms, yet the number of tragedies involving guns continues to grow. As long as we allow the murder of approximately 1 million innocent lives each year, and then proclaim that it falls under the legal category of “reproductive rights,” in order to satisfy our carnal desires, how can we expect that we will not see people saying they have the right to take the lives of those who would interfere with the pursuit of their desires?