Abortion

Yes, abortion is wrong. The Lord has said, "You shall not murder," (Exodus 20:13). The life that is growing within the mother is a child, a baby. The Bible looks at the life in the womb as a child. Exodus 21:22 says, "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide," (NASB).1 The main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus" or "non-viable" or "not yet human," etc. This eases the conscience. But, for those who say the baby isn't "viable," have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the "non-viable fetus" retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self-preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is human. The Bible says for people to protect the weak and down-trodden. But with abortionists, the rights of the baby are sacrificed for the rights of the mother, and the father doesn't even have any rights. The mother cries out that the life in her is part of her body and that she has the right to do with her body as she wills. True love does not seeks its own but is other-centered. It gives. "For God so loved the world he GAVE his only begotten son . . . " (John 3:16). Abortion is the ultimate in selfishness. It puts the mother's convenience and desires above the life of her own baby. To kill the baby in the womb means to consider oneself more important than anyone else. Even in nature, as far as I understand, animals don't kill what is in their own wombs. People are the only ones who kill their young while still unborn. In this society of "self esteem," "personal accomplishments," and "empowerment," true love is losing out, and death is winning. However, there is hope in Jesus. If you've had an abortion, you can be forgiven by the Lord. All you need to do is confess it to the Lord Jesus and ask Him to forgive you. That is what I did years ago when the girl I lived with became pregnant and had an abortion. I was guilty. As a man, the inner turmoil and guilt I felt was horrible. I can't imagine what it would be like for a woman. Nevertheless, the Lord has graciously forgiven me and her. I say this only in the hopes that others would come to find the sweet forgiveness found in Jesus. Nevertheless, the unbeliever is not convicted by the Words of God. So, I've presented what I consider a logical argument against abortion. A rational Case against Abortion What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive. Even one-celled creatures are alive. What is growing in the woman is more than a one-celled creature. The nature of the life is human. It is the product of human DNA, therefore, its nature is human. Because it is human in nature if left to live, it will result in a human baby. Humans are humans and not because they have a feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. They are humans because of their nature. A person born without arms and legs is still human. A person who cannot speak is still human. A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving is human. What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature. Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her. Objections Answered The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed. This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA? This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference? Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature? At what point does it become human, and by what criteria do you make this judgment? If you cannot decide when, then you are risking killing a person. The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it. But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned? Then when does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty? It is animals who are owned, not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery. If the tissue is not human but just an organ like the stomach, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells. But, the stomach is meant to be a stomach. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature. They are different in nature because the stomach does not have the ability to become a human. But a human has the ability to produce a stomach. Therefore, being human encompasses its own body but is not defined by it. The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body. If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have 4 arms, 4 legs, and 2 heads? Is that what a human is? It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother. Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life. The life growing in the womb can even have a different blood type than the mother. It is, therefore, an independent life with human DNA. Not so. The Law says the woman (and man) do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies. The reason is that it supports illegal drug trafficking and . . . It harms others who the user seeks to support his/her habit as well as the harm that can come to another because of the actions of the one under the influence of drugs. In abortion, no one is hurt since the fetus is not a person. This is simply begging the question. You assume it isn't human even though it is alive and has human DNA and then pass judgment that it is not a person. The fetus is alive, and death injures it. The fetus has the nature of a human and is injured by killing it by scraping, ripping, and/or sucking its brains out as late term abortions are sometimes done. Then that means the mother has no feelings about the life that has been removed from her womb--that wonderful place that only a woman in her nature has. Does this really leave the woman uninjured? Countless women are psychologically harmed when they kill the child in their womb. Rape is a condition that justifies abortion. Rape is horrible. But why should the child pay for the sins (wrong doing) of another? The baby is innocent of the offense, and his life need not be taken because of the act of another. If what is in the womb is human, then killing it because of the act of another would be wrong. Citations: https://carm.org...