Tag Archives: Abortion

Is Abortion Murder?

I know I have made my opinion known on the topic of abortion within this blog in past posts, however, some topics are important enough, worth enough, to be revisited again and again.

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C.

January 22nd is the anniversary of the 1973 Roe Vs. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion as a “Constitutional” right in the United States of America.  During those 45 years since that ruling, there have been (conservatively) 60 million abortions in the United States alone.  To put this into perspective, six million people of Jewish decent were murdered by Nazi Germany between 1941 – 1945 during World War II.  If you are generous and allow a full 5 years across WW-II for the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany (in reality, they were slightly more compressed), you would achieve nearly the same rate of 1.33 million deaths per year for both Jewish people killed in the Holocaust and abortions in the U.S. since 1973 (1.20 million/year vs. 1.33 million/year for the Holocaust and Abortions in the U.S. respectively).

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C. – march participants

While both abortions in the U.S. and the Holocaust are (were) state sponsored events (the U.S. Supreme Court sanctioned abortion in the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 as well as Government funding of Planned Parenthood – using taxpayer dollars – which sponsors abortions), the justifications that each hide behind are quite different (presumably to make one sound less horrifying than it really is).

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C. – Marchers were of all ages, gender, and race.

While the reasoning used by Nazi Germany to justify the murder of millions of Jewish people all across Europe are completely indefensible by any right thinking individual, the subtlety used to justify abortions within the United States are more cunning and deceiving.  Within the abortion argument in the United States we hide behind words like embryo and fetus.  By using these words to describe a phase of human life, we tend to isolate the subject of the abortion and make it sound less human and thus perfectly acceptable to remove and throw away.  We simply state we are terminating the pregnancy (vice acknowledging we are terminating a human life) and having safely justified our actions to ourselves, we move on.

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C. – united in cause.

But the question still remains: Is Abortion Murder?  Just because we have justified it to ourselves does not mean that it is OK.  Nor does it mean that we will not be held accountable for our actions just because we’ve excused ourselves of them.  Have we fooled ourselves into believing that the termination of a pregnancy (vis-à-vis abortion) is OK because we are not actually taking a human life, when in reality, we actually are?

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C. – pause and think.

I suppose if you are Atheistic in your world view, it doesn’t really matter.  After all, there is no God, no Moral code, and definitely no purpose or meaning to life.  Given the foundation the Atheist builds their world view upon, they really shouldn’t mind killing of any kind.  After all, with no God to answer to, and everything in existence being meaningless, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other if abortions were murder or not.  But if you are Atheistic in your world view and you are intellectually honest with yourself, then why do you care how the morals get defined?  There is no more control over which process wins here than there is with stars burning out in the heavens.

2018 National Right To Life March Washington D.C. – marching together.

If you are Agnostic in your world view you shouldn’t have an opinion unless you are directly affected by the issue.  And even then you should pick your friends carefully.  After all, if you had one influence in your life that favored abortion and another, equal influence, that opposed abortion, it would be pretty confusing for you.  The Agnostic would have to flip a coin in order to decide.

However if you are Theistic in your world view, then you must believe that all life emanates from a God, a Creator.  And if you cannot definitively define the exact moment in time when that God-given, Creator induced life begins, then you had better err on the side of caution and treat all credible instances as human life.

This is essentially what President Ronald Regan said during his time in office.  President Regan argued (from a Theistic point of view, without stating it explicitly) that if one could not determine the point that human life began (we may all agree that the individual cells are life), that you could not act responsibly in terminating that life without being potentially guilty of murder.

So is abortion murder?  Consider that the fetus stage appears human in form.  We have hands, feet, a head, a torso.  A face.  Consider that at the fetus stage that we have a human heartbeat (~6 weeks), at the fetus stage we can measure brain waves/activity (~6 weeks.  Indeed the brain needs to be developed enough at this stage to govern organs such as the heart).  Consider at the fetus stage you can begin to see rudimentary facial expressions.  There are ultra-sounds of a fetus even sucking their thumb.  At the fetus stage you may even determine the biological sex of the child.

Some have argued as to whether or not the child is sentient at the fetus stage.  We know that at the fetus stage the child reacts to stimuli such as pain.  Very early on the child can even react to the voices of its mother and father.

These are what we know, in a rudimentary way, through both science and medicine of today.  Who knows what we will be able to discover or discern in the future?

And of course there is the religious argument.  Christianity teaches that the person (the spirit – that part of you that will endure forever) is known by God (the Creator) before you are even formed in the womb.

Is abortion murder?  How can any reasonable person say that it is not?  And we destroy thousands upon thousands of lives each year in the United States alone.  Isn’t it time that this practice is stopped?

Are Your Decisions Based On Knowledge or Understanding?

Job 38:3636 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?  King James Version (KJV)

Have you ever wondered how someone could purport to hold the exact same set of beliefs as you and yet seem to be on a totally opposite page?  I have.

For example – consider the United States Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton.  Former Secretary Clinton claims to be a Christian and hold with Christian values.  And yet she strongly supports abortion (a position opposed by nearly every major religion of the world, including Hinduism and Buddhism) and has even called on people of faith to change their religious beliefs and cultural biases (YouTube Video).

Here is the quote from her speech:

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

I think to myself, “Wait-a-minute.  Abortion is wrong.  It is murder.  It stops an innocent human life before it even has a chance to defend itself.  Furthermore, there is enough teaching in Scripture to clearly make the case that it is immoral and against God’s desires for our lives.  I understand it is the law of the land … BUT, I could never support it.  I will never change my beliefs about it.  I will never bend my cultural biases regarding it.  To do so would be to deny my Faith.  And my FAITH is foremost in my life.

Former Secretary Clinton, in her remarks calling on people to alter their religious beliefs, has, in reality, just discriminated against me on Religious grounds.  Supposedly a protected category.  Which is an interesting discussion in and of itself, but is not what I want to focus on today.

What is just jaw dropping, mind-boggling, puzzling about this is: why in the world does someone who claims to hold Christian beliefs, call on people of the exact same set of beliefs to change them?  What does she understand that I don’t understand?  And why is she just as sure that her position is the correct one, as I am that my position is the correct one?  How can two separate people lay claim to the exact same moral code in their lives and yet draw two totally opposite conclusions and understandings?

Most of my Christian life I have heard pastors and teachers refer to the (allegorical) 12 inch difference between an eternity in either Heaven or Hell.  What has often been referred to as the difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge.  It is the allotted distance between the brain, and the heart, in the average human being.  However I never gave it much consideration.  The illustration has always been given as a picture of the difference between an unsaved person, and a saved person.  I have never once seen a study that described it any other way, nor have I come across any study that has applied it to any other application.

It is difficult to research common euphemisms or pithy sayings like this.  They almost always fracture into a myriad of directions the further back in time you go and it is almost impossible to source them back to single individual, time, or event.  However, that being said, I believe this one might have grown out of an understanding of Job 38:36, at least I would like to believe so.

In Job 38:36, God asks Job a question.  His question is – who was it that gave you understanding and wisdom?  And in doing so, reveals that there is a huge difference between knowledge and understanding.

You see, what Job 38:36 is saying in a nutshell, is that you put knowledge in your head, but understanding is placed in the heart.

What’s the difference?  Well consider this, if we have a law of the land, say a speed limit placed upon a particular highway, I can learn the traffic laws.  I can know how to read and interpret a speed limit sign.  I can know how to properly operate a vehicle such that it remains within the confines of the speed limit as prescribed by law.  I may even know the reasoning that went into establishing that law.  All of that is knowledge that I hold in my head.  But it takes the understanding in my heart to actually put that knowledge into practice.  It is my wisdom and understanding that guide me to following and implementing that law.

This now explains two things to us.  One is why in the world former Secretary Clinton and I can be on two totally opposite pages in life, and Two, why her call for those of us with different views to change our religious beliefs is so dangerous.  It is because the difference is between knowledge and understanding.

So NO, former Madam Secretary.  I do not, and will not change my religious beliefs and cultural biases.  Because my religious beliefs are rooted in an understanding within my heart, and not just based on the knowledge that is in my head.  My wisdom guides me in this matter and I understand that God teaches that abortion is wrong.  And that is not what I say, it is what God says.  And for me to abandon that, is to abandon God.

My prayer is that all of us would be careful with our wisdom and understanding.  You see, if God is not the one placing wisdom within your innermost parts and understanding within your heart, then who is?  Is it Satan?  Because he will step in and fill any void created by a lack of action on our part.  Our seemingly exasperating differences of opinion and our exhausting rhetoric is easily explained by the differences, not in our knowledge (the facts in our heads), but by our understanding of that knowledge (the wisdom in our hearts).

I’m not worried about what is in your head.  I’m worried about what is in your heart.

ARE YOU INTO SEX, DRUGS, & ROCK-N-ROLL?

There is a perception out there that Religion wants to limit people.  That is Religion puts people into a box, takes away their freedoms, and keeps them from having fun.  In plain terms, Religion is anti sex, anti drugs, and anti rock-n-roll.  Which leads me to todays preponderance of the evidence.  Because I personally believe that nothing could be further from the truth.

So much of Religion is perceived as wanting to take all your fun away.  However these perceptions come from either incorrectly conceived notions of what Religions actually teach, or from the correctly conceived notions that there are people all over the world that want to control your life.  We have been historically led to believe that Religion was a creation of humankind  (partially true) in order to control the behavior of society (perhaps true). However the historians that have recorded this history have recorded it from a human perspective, that is without a theological basis.  It is certainly true that some religions want to control the behavior of societies.  But if you consider the basis of religion, your world view becomes a personal thing, not something that can be, or should be, used to control other people’s behavior.  My world view certainly governs my behavior in life.  That is my religion influences my thoughts and my actions, and my interactions with others. But I shouldn’t be using it to try to control those around me.

Consider the fact that Governments try to control (limit) people all the time.  But Governments should be totally divorced from religions.  That is Governments should not try to tell me what my world view is.  Governments do enact laws that attempt to influence and control my behavior however.  Some of those laws fall within my world view, and some do not.  In the cases where they do, one cannot rightfully claim that it is religion that is limiting people, but rather it is Government that is controlling society.  In these circumstances I may be compelled to accept a certain reality in society, but I am not forced to alter my world view (my religion) because of it.

Such a case occurred in Scripture.  The tale is recounted in Daniel Chapter 3 and involved three men we know as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.  The story recounts that the King (the Government of the land) made a degree that all in the land should bow down to a golden idol created by the Government.  These three men would not bow down.  Because their world view, their religion, held (and still holds today) that they should not worship idols made by man but should rather worship the one true God and him alone.  As a result of their refusal to obey the Government of the land, they were sentenced to death by being thrown into a fiery furnace.  In the case of these three men, God chose to protect them and did not allow them to die.  But I love their response found in Daniel Chapter 3:16-18.  They told the king that even if God were to choose not to protect them, they still would not violate their world view (their religion) and bow down to the golden idol.

There have been other instances in history where people have refused to follow the edicts of Governments of the land.  Such a case in United States history resulted in the American Civil War.  Because certain people of the day held within their world view that all people were created equal and deserved to be treated as equals.  In this case the actions of Government aligned with my religion (my world view).

There are many actions of Governments today that do not align with my world view.  Abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and even slavery and oppression in some countries.  All do not align with my world view.  However my world is not the limiting factor.  Obviously it is not as is evident by the laws of the land.  In the same way those that claim my religion limits them, I may claim that their world view (their religion) limits myself (and others).  But if we continue to have a battle over who’s world view is going to win, then the more dominant world view will win.  And that neither serves me well, nor the rest of the world well.

It is much more effective to have the argument (in the words of Rush Limbaugh) “in the arena of ideas”.  If my goal is to persuade you in the consideration of your world view, then hopefully, over time, the actions of people around me will align with my world view.  This, of course, gives no guarantee on the actions of Governments.  There will always be those that wish to impress their control on others and establish their kingdoms here on earth.  But that is regardless of what religions may or may not teach.  This might seem like a trivial distinction to you. But I assure you, in my mind it is not.  The difference is in those that try to enact laws in order to force others to comply with a certain behavior versus those that try to teach truth in order that people may be free.

There are those that believe I just want to scare people with the threat of Hell.  And that simply is not the case.  I hope you take Hell seriously, because it is real.  Is Hell eternal?  Of course it is.  An eternal captivity balances an eternal freedom.  But I do not desire to threaten you with it.  Rather I hope you will come to understand the danger of it.  Just like with drugs.  Few of us would dismiss the danger of uncontrolled drug use.  We see evidence of it all the time.  But I don’t want to threaten you with it, I want you to understand the impacts of it and to make wise choices in your life.

So are you into Sex, Drugs, and Rock-N-Roll?  Fine by me.  I’m not here to take your fun away.  Truth be known, I think The Beatles are the greatest band of all time.  But they don’t govern my world view and just because I enjoy their music doesn’t mean I expect you too.  Christianity doesn’t want to govern your life, Christianity wants to grant you life.  Once you’ve obtained that Life (eternal life), you will want Jesus Christ to govern your life.  And in the end, that is up to each and every one of us individually.

A Woman’s Right To Choose

A couple of weeks ago, in the U.S.A., on January 22, 2015, the passing of the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade anniversary was marked.  This National case, decided on January 22, 1973, found that a woman possessed the right to choose an abortion as a legal means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

A human pregnancy, despite requiring the participation of a male member of the species to accomplish, is a uniquely feminine condition.  To date, it has only been accomplished by those who are naturally born women.  Despite those male members of the species who believe they were somehow cheated and should have been born a female (a fantastic argument for a God by-the-way – WHO cheated them?  Surely not the evolutionary process.  It has no choice but to follow the laws of physics and the natural sciences.  Ergo, if they were cheated, they must have been cheated by God.  And for that to happen, there must first be a God.) but as usual, I digress.  The point is, we have yet to be able to create a reproductive woman through our own means even with all our science and understanding.  Only women, who have been born as women, have had the trait of being able to become pregnant and bear offspring.

There have been many arguments over the so called “rights” of a person and perhaps those could be debated another time (indeed, I have considered human rights before, just search this blog).  Today I’d rather focus on whether or not a woman should exercise her right to choose when choosing in the affirmative (to terminate a pregnancy with an abortion).  I will pause here to mention once again though, that it continues to amaze me that we, as the human race, continually debate the right of a person, usually without acknowledging where those rights come from.  Specifically WHO granted a woman the RIGHT to an abortion?  It certainly wasn’t me.  I don’t agree with it.  In the case of the U.S.A. it was decided in the highest court of the land.  And that cannot be absolute, because there are people who do not agree with it.  Therefore, without a God, there can be no justice (a point Dr. Ravi Zacharias has made much more eloquently than I).  However, today I simply wish to debate the point as to whether or not a woman should exercise this so called right she has.

If the woman is an Atheist, whether she has an evolutionary theory world view or not (which would be most odd if she did not), she should consider the ramifications of limiting the population pool.  Evolutionary theory, if you are to follow its primary tenant of natural selection, actually needs a wide descendant base.  I quote:

“Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, along with three facts about populations: 1) traits vary among individuals with respect to morphology, physiology, and behaviour (phenotypic variation), 2) different traits confer different rates of survival and reproduction (differential fitness), and 3) traits can be passed from generation to generation (heritability of fitness).[8] Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place.”

Ergo, by actually aborting potential offspring, one is actually defeating the evolutionary process.  Even worse than that, evolution needs diversity within its hereditary base.  That is to say the gene pool actually needs diversity within it in order to carry forward.  A shocking 85% of abortions within the U.S.A. are performed because some type of genetic defect has been detected in the unborn child during the pregnancy.  By removing these genetic defects from the gene pool through abortion, we are actually harming the evolutionary process,  And anyone who actually believes we know enough to steer the evolutionary process on our own should talk to an animal breeder.  Before you try and help the human evolutionary process along, consider a purebred animal first.  Again, I quote:

“However, breeding from too small a gene pool, especially direct inbreeding, can lead to the passing on of undesirable characteristics or even a collapse of a breed population due to inbreeding depression. Therefore there is a question, and often heated controversy, as to when or if a breed may need to allow “outside” stock in for the purpose of improving the overall health and vigor of the breed.”

I don’t care how you slice it, under an evolutionary model, abortion is bad, limiting the gene pool, and removing viable stock from the propagation of the species.  So despite the so called right of the Atheistic woman to seek out the termination of a pregnancy through an abortion, she should consider the fact that the human race is slowly headed towards extinction.

And don’t argue with me that a certain number of controlled abortions are OK and will not affect the overall population.  Before you try and bring any such argument to the table, I’d like to know several things (not the least of which is the stats on the number you believe could be sustained given the current birth rate) such as who in the world is the controlling authority?  World wide?  Because there is none, and you cannot possibly show that we are either safe or unsafe given the current stats of countries around the world.

For the Theistic woman, her world view should embrace a God who is the origin of all life.  Given this world view, the Theistic woman could not possibly encompasses any right to terminate a life through an abortion.  Only the God who is the author of that life would hold that right.

And for the Agnostic, it really doesn’t matter because either side you come down on, it ends up being harmful.  It is either harmful to the evolutionary advancement of the species, or it is harmful in your overreach of rights held only by the God who granted life in the first place.

A woman’s right to choose?  You may believe such a right exists, but not all choices are healthy choices.  Every one of us has the right to eat nothing but chocolate for every meal for the rest of our lives.  But if you were to exercise that right, how long do you think you would live?

Murderer Or Not?

Amanda Knox is once again in the news and once again has been convicted of murder in Italy.  Some have suggested that this is double jeopardy (tried for the same crime twice) and that if Italy were to request extradition of Ms. Knox that the request might be denied based upon those grounds.

However, I’ll admit I do not have much of an opinion (or an interest) in Ms. Knox one way or the other.  It is simply an interesting tidbit on the news.  What I am interested in is murder itself.  And by that I mean more of the legal aspect of murder and not so much the act of murder.

You see, as Ms. Knox discovered herself, murder carries a very specific legal definition with it that must be proven in a court of law.  Specifically that definition says that it is: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.  It is also rendered this way: the crime of unlawfully killing a person.

And thus it is the legal aspect of murder that interests me.  But before I get to that, there is another rather interesting event coming up in a few days.  Bill Nye (The Science Guy) will be debating Ken Ham at the Creation Museum on February 4th, 2014.  I’ll recommend the debate (if you are free) now, but I am currently more intrigued by this exchange about the coming debate from Ken Ham’s FaceBook page.

If you read the posters accusations carefully (from the above link), you would have discovered this at the end: “God if He existed is a murderer, and stands idly by as his “good” creations rape and murder each other and does nothing because free will. It saddens me that an adult could believe such things as fact. You are robbing your children of their lives and wonder by filling every unknown with an imaginary friend. Indoctrination is abuse.” (Excerpt of post in response to Ken Ham on his FaceBook page).

Ken (rather aptly if I do say so myself) addresses the concerns laid out in this statement.  I would like to repeat one though.  The accuser claims here that God stands idly by as his “good” creations commit all kinds of crimes.  And yet the Bible is the one book that not only defines Good and Evil, but also explicitly states that mankind is NOT good:

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Romans 3:10-12 KJV

The “good” creation the poster refers to is from the book of Genesis 1:31 where God calls everything he has made “very good”.  And indeed, God was pleased with his work.  But I note that this was before the fall of man and God was referring to the state of his creation, not whether or not that creation would end up doing good or evil things.  God’s creation is good, it is also seeped in sin and thus there is evil in the world.

However I digress.  The point I wanted to address is the posters opening few words.  Where he pointedly accuses God of being a murderer.  This is not a new concept put out by this particular poster either.  No, it has been used time and time again by those attempting to show inconsistencies between a loving God and the God described in the Old Testament of the Bible.  Some go as far as to even add up all the deaths in the world attributable to God.  As if some really large number will make God all the more evil than just a single, solitary, murder.

However this is a completely disingenuous accusation on the part of these people.  Firstly and foremost they completely destroy the definition of murder.  Remember murder is a legal term and it specifically refers to a human taking another human’s life unlawfully.  God is Creator, and is definitely not human (although God did take on the form of a human – but that is a thought for another time).  Think of it this way, if a bear kills a person in the woods, do we then arrest the bear and put it on trial for murder? No, of course not.  The bear is no more subject to the laws of man than the fish in the sea are.  So why then do we attempt to ascribe our laws to God?  Because he first gave the law to man?  And how is that fair?  Perhaps our children should be subject to the exact same set of laws we are subject to.  If so, I imagine there would be a lot of parents standing in the corner tonight.  We are the creation, he is the creator, it is not we that get to apply the laws to him, but rather he who applies them to us.

These folks that shake their fists in the face of God and call him a murderer are unaware of the great atrocity they have just committed by flipping the roles of God and Man around.  Would they put God on trial?  Who would be the jury of God’s peers?  Who in the world would be judge?  And how in the world do these folks expect to prove that the lives God took, he took unlawfully?

However even more disingenuous than the destruction of the terminology for murder, is these folks can’t even ascribe the correct number of deaths to God.  If they bothered to understand God for who and what he is, they would soon realize God is the only being responsible for any human death.

There are far too many references for me to look up and link to tonight.  So I leave some of these as an exercise to the reader.  But God is clearly established as the giver of life, and the deliverer of death in Genesis.  God tells Adam and Eve that if they disobey him they will surely die.  When Satan challenges God over his servant Job, God clearly tells Satan that he may not take his life.  Why?  Because only God may take a life.  The scriptures also clearly state that it is appointed unto every man once to die.  How can it be appointed unto man to die unless it is God who is the arbitrator?

No, God is clearly the holder of life and death and as Creator is that not clearly his prerogative?  It is absolutely amusing to me that so many people want to defend abortion as a woman’s right over her own body.  Sure!  She can do with that fetus anything she wants to!  And yet if God takes a life, suddenly he is a murderer?  Why?  Doesn’t God get to do anything he wants to with HIS creation?

And before you try and throw a “we’ve reached the point of viability” argument on me, go back and re-read your Scriptures.  Our very breath of life is sustained by God.  He literally holds his Creation together.  He sustains it moment by moment.  You are no more viable without God than a child in the womb is without its mother.

Abortion rights are apparently OK except when God allows the life to be taken.

So murderer or not?  I, unlike the gentleman who addressed Ken Ham over his upcoming debate with Bill Nye, cannot find it within myself to be quite so naïve as to address God as a murderer.  That is rather shallow thinking.  It also gives me pause to consider whether or not the legality of murder might apply to God’s laws and not just man’s.  We might want to consider that when granting the woman’s right to choose.