|
|
|
When Does Life Begin?
by Bob Sperlazzo, Editor
Informed Christian Digest
Question:
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who
already had eight kids, three were deaf, two were blind, one
mentally retarded -- and she had syphilis, would you recommend
that she have an abortion?... If you said yes, congratulations
-- you just killed Beethoven!
.
The question of human life's beginning is an important and
fundamental question, because it affects the basis for our
response to abortion, infanticide and even stem cell research.
Does life begin at the moment of conception, or at the first
heartbeat, or at the first evidence of brain activity, or at
birth, or even later as some have suggested?
.
God's Opinion?
.
Obviously, none of us has all the answers to everything, but we
can go to the Word of God and find answers on this topic. What
does God think about abortion and the related matters? One
passage of Scripture that stands out to me as we consider this
is Psalm 139:13-16:
.
"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my
mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full
well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the
secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the
earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for
me were written in Your book before one of them came to be."
.
It's interesting to note that the psalmist is seeing things from
God's point of view as he writes. He clearly implies that God's
hand is involved in the whole process, being "fearfully and
wonderfully made," and that God saw his "UNFORMED body" (i.e.,
the very earliest stages before the body even had a form). If
God gives this kind of worth to what is often referred to as a
"fetus," how can we not do the same?
.
And the last line is remarkable -- that all of his days were
written in God's book BEFORE they ever began. This should cause
us to think twice about taking a life at any stage of
development, after conception (the moment a sperm enters an egg
and the spirit and soul of the child is born), because that
would be to violate God's "written" plan for that person. (For a
second witness, compare these verses with Jeremiah 1:5.)
.
Taking a Life
.
One of the reasons that I am against abortion and infanticide is
the fact that they are making a choice to kill a living human
being, created in the image of God. And throughout Scripture, we
are prohibited from killing another person. Of course, groups
such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL (National Abortion Rights
Action League) have redefined the terms to imply that a baby is
not really a person until they pass through the birth canal (or
come out in some other way). But that's really a wash, because
it's the same person moments (or months) before the trip through
the birth canal as it is after. The only thing that changes is
its age and residence.
.
Jesus said, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these
little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do
always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven.... Even
so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
one of these little ones should perish" (Matthew 18:10 &
14).
.
"Reproductive Rights"
.
It has been said that "a woman should have the right not to be
required by law to bear children when they choose not to."
However, the fact is that there is NO law anywhere that requires
any woman to conceive and bear a child. I am not opposed to a
woman's right to reproductive choice. But I am
opposed to anyone's right to randomly choose the death of any
other person -- legal or not -- AFTER the choice to reproduce
has been made!
.
The freedom to reproduce begins before
the act of conceiving and bearing a child. It doesn't suddenly
appear after she gets pregnant, as if the right and
responsibility to control her body didn't really exist before
she helped to create the other person involved. Reproducing is
one thing; terminating that newly reproduced child is another.
.
A Medical Procedure?
.
The act of birthing a baby's fully-developed body and puncturing
the back of the baby's head to suction out their brains,
immediately killing the child (a common procedure known as
Partial Birth Abortion), is clearly an abomination to God. How
can this even be defined as a "medical procedure"? There is no
connection between this appalling routine and the supposed
protection of the "health" of a woman. It's a farce. If the head
of her unborn child is painfully punctured, vacuumed out and
crushed, while the baby's little arms and legs flutter around in
the air, how can that ever protect the mother's health? Please,
tell me!
.
Many medical experts have testified before congressional
committees that it is never necessary to
kill a baby that is almost entirely delivered to somehow
"preserve the life or health of the mother." The mother will be
birthing the same child either way -- one way alive and the
other way dead. So where's the choice? In fact, deliberately
creating a breech delivery, and then performing a craniotomy
(crushing the scull for easier removal), actually endangers the
mother's health more. And, it is appalling that any dignified
public official would stand in support of such a grisly and
abominable procedure in the name of the law. To do so would
clearly mark such an official as an extremist in their political
views. The American People should never stand for this Nazi-like
type of bloody holocaust experimentation. Yet, it appears that
most are content to live with it. God have mercy on us!
.
Protect the Defenseless
.
It's also been commonly repeated that "the decision to bear
children is a personal and private one, and not a matter for
government regulation or policy." Yes, thankfully, we still
live in a Nation where we have the privilege to choose to bear
our children by our own will (unlike other nations presently
that utilize extreme population control measures to deny this
decision to their people). But, our government needs never to
intervene if individual citizens will govern themselves (Romans
13:3-5). The government should merely act as a minimal "safety
net" in such cases to protect the innocent and defenseless
wherever their lives are threatened. It's a cop-out to stand
by in denial while literally millions of lives are being
eradicated. At the same time, we often hear from the very same
people is that government should be
involved in this "personal and private matter" by paying for the
entire procedure. So, which way will they have it?
.
Many in Congress have stated that they have no business
overseeing the actions of the medical community regarding
abortion or other life-related issues. They say we must allow
doctors to somehow regulate themselves, in spite of the obvious
monetary conflict of interest. Is it really the women that they
care about? We grow increasingly concerned. No human agency can
be trusted to regulate themselves without a check and balance
system, as we all well know. That's why the American people
elected the Congress, to provide an oversight of the laws of the
land -- not to let it get out of control under lack of
restraint. The horrible medical experiments of Nazi doctors
during World War II is a prime example of "medical procedure"
gone unchecked, and we should never think that we Americans are
above such atrocities.
.
The Law?
.
Many say that terminating a life is OK, because Roe v. Wade
is now "the law of the land." However, this is not at all
relevant to the matter if we're really trying to see things from
God's perspective, and not man's. The fact is, throughout
history, man has created many corrupt laws and declared
many perverse things that were totally contrary to the
will of God. That's one of the reasons Jesus had to come and
die! And to state that we must now support any and every
decision of men, simply because it has been written into man's
law, is to place man's law above God's law. No! rather, we must
seek to learn from God what HIS heart is on a matter, and
sometimes, "We must obey God rather than men," as Peter the
apostle said (Acts 5:29). There once was a law in America that
condoned the slavery of black people, who were considered
"non-persons." That law had to be abolished. So must any law
that implies "non-personhood" to a woman's unborn child.
.
Frankly, there is no law that requires abortion -- at least, in
America, that is. Our former president used to say that he
wanted to ensure that abortion was safe and rare. Forget the
"rare" part; we've already surpassed the death toll of all US
wars combined. And frankly, there are no "safe" abortions --
they ALWAYS end in at least one death (and sometimes two when
the mother dies, as too often happens). It's so easy to
disregard the health and civil rights of the children involved
in such procedures, not to mention their exploited mothers.
.
Freedom to Choose Good
.
Yes, it's true that God gives us freedom of choice between good
and evil, but in the end, we are each accountable for those
choices that we make -- whether our lawmakers (mere men) approve
of them or not. God is not a Republican or Democrat or a member
of any other party that we might formulate. God is God, and it's
our privilege and responsibility to discover Him and His heart
and desires in all things.
.
We must discern every political candidate as they measure up
according to God's standards (as best as we understand them
according to His Word), and then continue to pray for
them. Let's not blindly accept everything that's said by every
candidate or incumbent, as they quite often do not hear the
voice of God on matters. Instead, let's look for common ground
with Biblical concepts as we hear the Holy Spirit's leading
regarding the candidates and/or their party's platform (e.g.,
abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, civil rights, homosexuality,
the poor, government control/abuse, etc.).
.
Subtle Racism
.
Please carefully think about this: The primary effect of the
current law on abortion-related issues has been to allow what
turns out to be mostly poor women and minorities to abort their
offspring before birth. We are talking about a subtle form of
racism -- the annihilation of the poor and of people of color
by a modern liberal mindset that claims to work on their behalf,
while killing their offspring.
.
It is a well-documented fact that Charles Darwin was a racist
(from his writings), yet he has had a profound effect on our
modern-day thinking. Darwin's evolutionary concepts of "the
survival of the fittest" very quickly evolved into "subjugation
of the weak," and the final outcome of such is the present
"might makes right" mentality. And in their efforts to "help the
poor and the minorities in their plight in society," many
lawmakers have unwittingly bought into this systematic and
sinister aberration, and are helping the elite to exterminate
entire races and classes of people -- the very people they claim
they are trying to help. Such are the doctrines of extermination
of Margaret Sangar, a avowed racist and the founder of Planned
Parenthood.
.
Conclusion
.
When all the smoke clears, and all the excuses are exposed,
there are good and sound reasons for recognizing the worth of
every child's life from the instant he or she is created after
conception. And, God's opinions on these matters are preeminent
above all the laws and lawmakers of our time on earth. As we
have each been given the gift of life, and the chance to live
and glorify God, so also should we extend that gift and
opportunity to every other created being. It is immoral to deny
them as much, and a perversion of God's intent that the womb
should be a place where life is nurtured, not annihilated. We
may need help at times, all throughout the process, but in the
end there is NEVER any reason for an individual to terminate the
life of another person.
.
Informed Christian Digest
http://www.patriotist.com/miscarch/bs20020527.htm
Copyright 2002 Bob Sperlazzo |