The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,800 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.
Genesis 3:4-5 “And the serpent said to the woman, you shall not surely die: For God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes will be opened, and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
There simply isn’t any other person in ancient history with a life as well documented historically as Jesus Christ. His resurrection is evidence that what He taught about Himself and every other subject was true. He claimed to be God. C.S. Lewis rightly taught that Jesus puts us in a spiritual corner when it comes to deciding Who He is. A person’s opinion of Jesus has to fall into a few categories. Either you believe Jesus was a liar, lunatic, or Lord. If you say He is a liar he therefore cannot be a good teacher. He must therefore be a lunatic. Who in their right mind would claim to be God in the middle of Jerusalem! I’ve been to Jerusalem and if you ever go and see all the religious zealots you will understand that standing up and claiming to be God would have to be done by a crazy person or a man in his right mind that is also God. If what Jesus said was true and He really backed up those claims with His resurrection from the dead, He must be Lord of Creation. Do you believe He was a good teacher? Good teachers don’t lie about themselves or other subjects. Do you believe He was mental? Nothing in the texts of the Bible or written in secular history indicates He was mentally impaired. Too the contrary, Jesus’ life as recorded in Scripture has been analyzed by unbelieving psychologists and they admit he has all the features of a mentally healthy person. Do you not believe He rose from the dead? Why not? If not, why do you believe any other source of ancient history ever written? Why do you believe history about Alexander the Great and not the history of Jesus’ resurrection? Do you think it was written by those with bias toward the person of Christ and His mission? I’ll remind you with love today that the disciples/writers of the NT had nothing to gain but the loss of their homes, separation from their families, exile, and even loss of the lives of their family members or their own life. Not one of the disciples or writers of Scripture denied their claims even in light of severe persecution or torture. Surely if their writing was false, and then met with such opposition, surely it would have caused one of the disciples to raise their hand for a time out and said “I recant…it isn’t true.” The truth is that they saw Jesus die, a certificate of death was given and then 3 days later they saw Him alive again! He is not a liar or a lunatic, but He is Lord! Satan told Eve that God was a liar like many people are told today that Christianity is wrong. For the gospel to be wrong…Jesus has to be wrong. In Genesis 3:4 he tells Eve “you shall not surely die.” God had told Adam and thus it is believed that Adam told Eve what God had said would happen if they ate of the forbidden tree, which was death. Satan says to her, surely you won’t die! Come on! Satan told her that God was just afraid that they would learn there is more out there to learn than God wanted them to know. Even with Jesus’ birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection, Satan is still promoting the message that what Jesus said about eternal life isn’t true for everyone and thus not really true at all. Will you really go to hell (spiritually die for eternity) if you don’t trust Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins? That seems really narrow minded. Satan tells Eve that God knows that in the day they disobey Him they will find out the truth about God’s lies and will become the gods that God tried to keep them from being. As soon as we begin to deny the Bible or what it records about Jesus and His claims/teachings, we begin to form ourselves into our own gods. We decide for ourselves, often from internal feelings, what we think is right and wrong or what we believe will happen after death. Can we know truth from within our own minds or from our own emotions? Some people say we can but how do we know for sure that those inclinations or convictions are true? The Bible is full of evidence that the God that is written about in its pages is the true God of all creation. The Bible is unique enough in a good sense that any thinking person should open mindedly consider its claims. Just the prophecy alone should make one consider that the God claimed in the Bible completely knows the future as well as what happened in the past: two things we cannot know as human beings. Eve began to doubt the truth of the words God had spoken to she and Adam. Now the thought of having a life where she could set the standards of “touch…don’t touch” seemed attractive her. She knew it was wrong. I know this is insulting to many, but I think everyone on earth is given a chance to hear the gospel before they die and they all know it’s true. Most don’t accept, not because of a lack of conviction, but some preconceived intellectual or religious bias, a desire to continue in sin, or fear to let go of what they’ve always believed that will result in personal ridicule in many possible forms. Eve’s desire was to become the guide of her own life. The problem with that desire is that God is real. The problem with that desire is when we break the law of God we are truly guilty and are awaiting judgment from the true God of the Bible. The problem with people and society becoming their own standard is that anarchy will ultimately result. Of course the biggest issue is not social or personal order in life, but sin that needs to be forgiven…a perfectly loving and holy God that needs appeased. He has been offended and can only be appeased through a perfect life and righteousness found in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. God is not a liar. People who love you tell you the truth. That’s why He sent Jesus: “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
Genesis 2:21-22 “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.”
The New Testament confirms that this recording of creation history is not allegorical but historical. 1 Timothy 2:13 states “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Corinthians 11:8 confirms that the creation of man and woman was in this order: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” Of course all other men have been born of a woman after this creative miracle! Today I want to point out some beautiful pictures of Christ and the church from these verses.
1. Notice that God built Eve’s body out of Adams’ body. All through the Old Testament we see “types” or “foreshadows” of Christ, the church, and many other New Testament realities. Eve is a beautiful picture of the church and Adam is a beautiful picture of Christ! The church came from the broken body of Christ on the cross. Do you remember when the soldier pierced the side of Jesus in the gospels? John 19:34-36 records “forthwith came there out blood and water.” Ephesians 5:30 teaches that the church became “members of his body (Jesus), of his flesh, and of his bones.” Isn’t it interesting that the Bible calls Jesus the 2nd Adam? Wow! The church was created by the blood of Christ just as Eve was born of the flesh of Adam. Certainly this OT act of God is a beautiful picture of that day of redemption. From the first Adam’s body came his beautiful wife Eve and from Christ’s body came his beautiful bride the church!
2. While the text doesn’t say this I wonder if God told Adam ahead of time what He planned to do. I would imagine he likely did tell him and Adam didn’t have any say in the matter. Christ certainly knew ahead of time what His mission would be and what a cost His human body, soul, and Spirit would have to endure, and as part of the Trinity surrendered to the will of the Father to redeem His future wife the church before she ever sinned.
3. Adam’s “sleep” is a beautiful picture of Jesus’ death on the cross (although I don’t think Adam died here). After Adam awoke his bride was brought to him. After Jesus’ resurrection His future bride was as good as complete in the foreknowledge of God. Although a waiting period of eternal union with his bride is in place right now, He immediately received all those that would eventually accept Him as Lord and Savior. This text says that God brought Eve (her) “unto the man.” Sooner than a second ago God will bring the Church to Jesus and oh what a day that will be…one long eternal day of rest and worship!
4. Henry Morris points out that the word “rib” is likely not the best translation. He states “The Hebrew word “tsela” appears 35 times in the OT and this is the only time it has been rendered ‘rib.’ Most of the time “tsela” is translated ‘side.’ I believe this word could symbolize that God didn’t make women superior to men by making Eve from his head or inferior by making Eve from his feet, but as Morris states “from his side, indicating equality and companionship.” Beautiful!
5. Just as Eve was called to come along side Adam and work along side him to carry out God’s will on earth, so we the church are called to come alongside Christ and carry out the Great Commission until He returns. Let’s choose to be a faithful spouse until our engagement becomes a wedding day.
Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
.
Randy Alcorn quickly points out that there is not such thing as an unwanted child. He is right. Having been a pastor for many years I have talked to numerous couples who were longing to adopt babies. Alcorn states “One and a half million American families want to adopt, some so badly that the scarcity of adoptable babies is a source of major depression.” I knew of a couple that aborted a baby that the doctors foretold would be a Down’s Syndrome baby. Again, please read my previous articles concerning the subject of abortion in which I mentioned the grace of God and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. I’m not here to condemn, but to try and help others consider not making such decisions. Just this week I was blessed by a Down’s Syndrome adult in the parking lot of my favorite Mexican restaurant. Randy Alcorn referring to Down’s Syndrome says “Not just ‘normal’ babies are wanted–many people request babies with Down’s Syndrome, and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida.” Alcorn rightly points out that a difference exists between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. I imagine my own mother struggled with being pregnant with my younger brother and not being married to his father. She was really poor and without much support other than her own mother. I’m so glad she kept my brother! Whatever doubts and fears she might have wrestled with I clearly saw erased when she looked at him after he was born. Even today she has a special love for him that runs extremely deep. I think part of the reason is that they “made it” together. She would often spend her last few dollars on taking care of the necessities that a baby demands to find herself sneaking apples off the assembly line where she worked in order to have something to eat for lunch. I can remember many people wanting to take care of my brother and literally adopt him. He was cute! My mother would never have let anyone have him permanently, but many would have taken him and many did take care of him like my aunt Audrey. I have no doubt that babies, if allowed to live, would find loving homes. Alcorn makes the following comment about “unwanted” children: “Furthermore, many children wanted at birth are not wanted when they are crying at 2:00 A.M. six weeks later. Shall whether or not the parents want the baby still determine whether she deserves to live? If that is a legitimate standard before birth, why not after?” Good question. Comparing the value of women to the value of a baby Alcorn makes the following statement: “For years women were degraded when their value was judged by whether or not they were wanted by men. Just as a woman’s value is real whether or not a man recognizes it, so a baby’s value is real whether or not his mother or father recognizes it.” Some prochoice advocates such as Planned Parenthood have some unbelieveable reasons for advocating abortion. For example, they justify abortion because “unwanted” children often perform poorly in school. What?!! Yes, some prochoice folks actually justify killing a baby if it’s figured to not be productive to society or potentially embarrassed by underachievement. In reference to this rationale Alcorn states “Aren’t there better ways to cure the disease than killing the patient?” Planned Parenthood says they promote the concept that kids need love and a supportive family. I’m sure some people who work there do believe that, but in reality the organization doesn’t operate that way. Alcorn notes “According to its own (Planned Parenthood) 1990 annual report, PP performed 122,191 abortions while managing, out of its 300 million dollar budget, to provide prenatal care for only 4,732 women. Saying children need love and families is also a great argument for adoption. But Planned Parenthood and other prochoice groups don’t promote adoption. They promote abortion.” Alcorn makes the point that during the days of slavery the slave owners justified slavery by saying that it was in the best interest of the slaves since they couldn’t take care of themselves. Wow. How terrible! The killing of babies for the same reason is just as terrible. If we think children in bad situations shouldn’t live that way then why don’t we just kill them now? A murder is a murder. Alcorn is right when he says that the prochoice position can be captured with the following slogan: “Every unwanted child a dead child.” He also states “Exploiting people and stripping them of their rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good rather than our own.” Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
I’m moving through Randy Alcorn’s book “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments.” Carol Everett, author of “The Scarlet Lady: Confessions of a Successful Abortionist,” says the following about Alcorn’s book: “Must reading for every citizen in our nation–prolife or prochoice.” I agree and encourage you to read the book, even though I’m quoting much of it in these postings. Next I’m going to move with Alcorn from the topic of “Arguments Concerning Life, Humanity, and Personhood,” to a section he entitles “Arguments Concerning Rights and Fairness.” The Prochoice Argument: “Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.” Prolife Answer: Alcorn makes the point that any civilized society restricts certain freedoms so that innocent people can be safe. We don’t have a right to exercise the freedom of using our bodies to beat people to death for example. We all (mentally sound people)agree that rape is not acceptable, but with the argument that we have a right to do what we want with our bodies we run into issues such as rape and many others that tell us naturally that there has to be some limitations to the position of bodily rights. Alcorn points out that statisitics show that “750,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies. Nearly fifteen million females have died from abortion since it was legalized.” After establishing, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of the medical community and science community believes a unique individual life begins at conception, I believe the following quote from Alcorn to be right on target: “A female who is killed by abortion no longer has a body or a life, and will never have the privilege of controlling one.” Alcorn notes that prolifers don’t oppose the right to reproduce, but oppose “the right to kill a child after reproduction has taken place.” He states “‘Abortion rights’ are not reproductive rights, but child-killing rights.” Even prochoice philosopher Mary Anne Warren admits that if a real life is in the mother a person has no right to kill the baby: “The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it; and the appeal to the right to control one’s body, which is generally construed as a property right, is at best a feeble argument for the permissibility of abortion. Mere ownership does not give me the right to kill innocent people whom I find on my property.” Alcorn also points out that a woman’s “control” over her own body should be taken before pregnancy. He states “Except in the rare case of pregnancy by rape, a child-carrying woman has made choices of control over her body that have resulted in the pregnancy. She has chosen whether to have sex and whether to use birth control. The mother’s first two matters of control–sex and birth control–were personal and private. The issue of abortion is not personal or private. It directly involves the life of another person, and therefore becomes the concern of a decent society.” Lastly, Alcorn makes a point that many women may not have considered. He states “It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and ‘out of control’ condition.” He goes on to quote one feminist group that stated “When women feel that a pregnant body is a body out of control, deviant, diseased, they are internalizing attitudes of low self-esteem toward the female body. These attitudes contradict the rightful feminist affirmation of pregnancy as a natural bodily function which deserves societal respect and accomodation.” Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
Prochoice Argument: “Obviously life begins at birth. That’s why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don’t have funerals following miscarriages.”
Prolife Answer: This will be one of my last posts concerning when life begins and I will move to other topics of the abortion issue, but I wanted to touch on this prochoice argument. This one is very personal to me. Randy Alcorn rightly says “Some people do have funerals after a miscarriage.” Most of you probably know that my wife and I don’t have kids. Well, we have one in heaven. April pursued her higher education and later so did I. In the mean time we were convicted to not be on birth control. Although not specifically trying to get pregnant, we found out after her graduation from her doctoral program, that when she walked across the graduation stage…she was pregnant with our child. When we did take a test and found out (the doctors came out singing praise to the Lord), we felt it had to be a “God thing.” I mean, what providential timing right? We went to the baby doctor, an experience I’m glad I had, and heard the heart beat of what we called our “little peanut.” We began to pick out names for either a boy or girl and prematurely told everyone we were pregnant. The next doctors visit failed to produce a heart beat and we were left sitting in the car in the Grace OBGYN parking lot in silence. We walked into the Greek restauarant across the street and then told the hostess we were sorry, but we just had to go. We went home and cried for a few days. We both went through times of feeling potentially responsible for the miscarriage, but have worked through that by God’s grace. Still today, when I see some things on line or hear some people say certain things the reality of our unseen baby, at least in flesh unseen, floods me with really strong emotions. We weren’t trying to have a baby during that time in our life, but when we found out she was pregnant, we really wanted that baby. I take great offense at someone saying my baby is simply dead and was a fetus without eternal properties. I don’t fuss or lash out at people over their view, but I simply can’t imagine having such a depressing, fatalistic view of life. We did have a funeral. My good friend and awesome preacher James Briggs came to Enon one day, and just the 3 of us traveled up the hill to the cemetery above Enon Baptist Church. We buried certain gifts, such as babies toys, etc that had been given to us, named the child with names for potential male or female, and had a private memorial to a life we had lost and needed closure over. That by the way is something I recommend for people who experience miscarriages. Our baby was real and we will meet that baby some time real soon. I’ve asked God to tell he/she that I love he/she and that if I caused in anyway the harm they faced that I’m so sorry. I know by faith that a great day of re-union will be. Re-union because we bonded with a picture on a screen, a heart beat vagely heard, a real life in my wife’s body. Alcorn is right that our “recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.” I think I’ve quoted Alcorn, doctors, and scientists enough to establish that any person seeing a fertilized egg as something other than life must have a very unscientific agenda that could be labled the most close-minded fundamental religion in the world. Alcorn recalls a story in his book that happened in 1983. He states “A physician was accused of murder because he killed a baby who survived his attempt to abort him. Before he attempted abortion, the baby was normal and healthy. Five minutes later, he had been disfigured, poisoned, and burned with salt, all of which was perfectly legal. But since this child had been moved a few feet from where he was before (inside his mother), he was now considered a person. I spent the night in a city where the news was dominated by the frightful story of a murdered infant estimated at three pounds. Only the half of the child’s body had been found. Doctors examining the baby said he could have been born prematurely or aborted, but it was impossible to tell. The reason this was so newsworthy is that if it could be determined the child had been born, it would have been a murder of the worst kind. But children of this size are killed by abortion each day, and it is a ho-hum affair to the media. Those who oppose the abortions that kill these children are regarded as anti-choice and anti-rights. Yet anyone who would defend the bloody slaying of the child in the news–a child essentially no different than all the aborted children of the same age–would be regarded as a monster. What is the difference?” Mr. Alcorn, I know you agree, there is no difference. To all of you who have had miscarriages, your babies are safe and real. To those of you who have had abortions, seek God’s forgiveness through Christ, and understand that your child will be glad you did as you re-unite with that person that was once inside you. Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
Prochoice Argument: “The Fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one; it’s like a blueprint not a house, an acorn not an oak tree.”
Prolife Answer: As I’ve been writing these articles I was reminded that not only do most prolifers likely not know their own position past Scripture quoting and conviction, but also, many prolifers don’t know many of the arguments of prochoicers. I hope these arguments and answers help give you a good view of both. Please note my earlier articles and the fact that I’m gleaning information from Randy Alcorn’s book on this subject and verbatim quoting him most often. Alcorn responds to the above prochoice argument by pointing out that “The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity.” Carl Sagan, using the same prochoice argument above asked if masturbation was “mass murder?” Former president of Planned Parenthood Faye Wattleton said to a prolife Congressman “Your sperm are alive too.” Alcorn states “Neither egg nor sperm is complete. Like cells of one’s hair or heart, neither egg or sperm has the capacity to become other than what it is. Both are dead-ends, destined to remain what they are until they die within a matter of days. In contrast, when egg and sperm are joined, a new, dynamic, and genetically distinct human life begins. From the first instance of fertilization that first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity. This accounts for every detail of human development, including the child’s sex, hair and eye color, height, and skin tone. Take the single cell of the just conceived zygote, put it next to a chimpanzee cell and gorilla cell, and a geneticist could easily identify the human. Its humanity is already that strikingly apparent.” Dr. Thomas Hilger states, “No individual living body can ‘become’ a person unless it already is a person. No living being can become anything other that what it already essentially is.” Dr. Paul Ramsay states, “Thus it might be said that in all essential respects the individual is whoever he is going to become from the moment of impregnation. He already is this while not knowing this or anything else. Thereafter, his subsequent development cannot be described as becoming something he is not now. It can only be described as a process of achieving, a process of becoming the one he already is. Genetics teaches us that we were from the beginning what we essentially still are in every cell and in every generally human attribute and in every individual attribute.” This sounds funny, so I have to say this. Alcorn, speaking of the analogy of the acorn (funny? Alcorn…acorn…get it? Oh well), states “When an acorn is stepped on, the forest experiences no moral dilemma. When a ‘toddler’ sapling or a ‘teenage’ oak dies the ‘mother tree’ does not weep, nor do the saplings siblings. We naturally value oak trees more than acorns. Unfortunately, the comparison encourages us to make a quantum leap of concluding we should value bigger and older people more than smaller and younger ones (specifically, the unborn). But what are our reasons for valuing the oak tree over the acorn? They are not moral or humanitarian, but simply pragmatic. The oak tree serves us well, either aesthetically or for the lumber or fire wood it can provide. Acorns are plentiful and expendable. But why are they expendable? For the same reason the oak tree is also ultimately expendable—it isn’t a person, only a thing. A baby, however, isn’t a thing, it’s a person. The unborn are not more expendable because they haven’t developed into infants, not infants more expendable because they haven’t developed into toddlers, nor teenagers more expendable because they haven’t developed into adults. Blueprints are not houses, nor do they become houses no matter how long we care to wait, because by nature they are something else. But while the blueprint in no sense becomes the house, the acorn does become the oak tree. It can do so only because in the most basic sense it is the oak tree! While no house was ever a blueprint, every oak tree was once an acorn. So it is with the person—a person doesn’t simply come from an embryo or fetus. A person was an embryo, then a fetus. As every oak tree was an acorn, every person was once a fertilized egg. All the oak tree is or ever will be was in the acorn. If the acorn were destroyed, there would be no oak tree. Likewise, all that the adult is or ever will be was in the embryo. If the embryo were destroyed, there would be no baby, no teenager, and no adult. When the baby dies the teenager dies. When the embryo dies the baby dies. Abortion doesn’t kill potential people. It kills actual people.” Grace and understanding to us all, Pastor Kevin Boone
Prochoice Argument: “The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix.”
Prolife Answer: I don’t believe a large portion of America has this view, but nonetheless some more radical individuals, possibly radical feminists or those trying to suppress guilty feelings over an abortion through false reasoning, do share this position. The idea is that the baby is attached to the mother’s body, therefore it’s her body and she has a right to do with her body what she wills. The problem with that is that this statement doesn’t carry with it medical support. Every baby’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. John Jefferson Davis states “It is a well established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both the mother and father. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely ‘part of the mother’s body.’ In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems.” Randy Alcorn states in his book “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments,” “A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because its identity is based on his genetic code, not that of the body in which he resides. If there were only one body involved in a pregnancy, then that body has two noses, four legs, two sets of fingerprints, two brains, two circulatory systems, and two skeletal systems. Half the time the child is male; clearly his sexual organs are not part of his mother’s body, but his own. In reality, it is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person, and the child is another.” Alcorn points out other obvious evidence such as the fact that a child can die in the womb and the mother live or the mother die and the child live. Alcorn quotes New Zealand fetology professor A.W. Liley, known as the “father of fetology,” making the point that the fetus actually has control of the pregnancy and not the mother. He states “It is the embryo who stops his mother’s periods and makes her womb habitable by developing a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He regulates his own amniotic fluid volume and although women speak of their waters breaking or their membranes rupturing, these structures belong to the fetus. And finally, it is the fetus, not the mother, who decides when labor should be initiated.” Alcorn references Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby. He states “She was no more a part of her mother’s body when placed there (after being conceived when sperm and egg joined in a petri dish) than she had been part of the petri dish where her life began.” Lastly Alcorn states “Consider this true-to-life scenario. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both women decide they don’t want their babies anymore. Why should Woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B’s action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A’s action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder? It is irrational to recognize the one child as a baby and pretend the other one isn’t. I know a former prochoice nurse who was converted to a prolife position after seeing premature babies being frantically saved by a medical team in one room, while down the hall, babies the same age were being aborted. In 1974, the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after her delivery. Every congressman—including those of the prochoice persuasion—knew in his heart that this unborn baby was a separate person not guilty of his mother’s crime. No stay of execution was requested for the sake of her tonsils, heart, or kidneys. It was done only for the sake of her child, a separate human being with a life and rights of his own.” This reminds me of a question I heard asked a few years ago. What if the baby is girl that is aborted? What about the rights she had concerning her body? However, the issue is not the gender of the child, but individuality. The baby inside a pregnant woman is simply a separate human being. To argue other is to simply ignore science and to irrationally reason based on presuppositions that are simply incoherent, selfish, and religious in nature. The fetus is not “just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix.” Grace and understanding to us all, Kevin Boone
Prochoice Argument: “It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.”
Prolife Answer: Before we address this issue in light of scientific evidence consider this piece of reasoning. Randy Alcorn states “If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.” Alcorn also states “Suppose there is uncertainty about when human life begins. If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you’re driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be a shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Otherwise we are saying, ‘This may or may not be a child, therefore it’s all right to destroy it.’” Do prochoice hunters fire into the brush or press the accelerator and drive through what might be a human in the road? No. My prayer is that people will give the benefit of the doubt to life as well when it comes to abortion. Contrary to what I imagine is the un-researched opinion of most prochoice and some prolife individuals, medical textbooks and scientific research both agree that human life begins at conception. Before you think that these doctors have an interest in supporting the prolife camp…many do not. Their findings simply support that “conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.” Alcorn notes Dr. Keith L Moore’s textbook as saying “The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. Each of us started as a cell called a zygote.” Doctors J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, in their work on biology and obstetrics, state, “The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of new life.” Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook “Biology of Gestation,” refers to fertilization as “that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.” Doctors E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig write in “Pathology of the Fetus and Infant,” “Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” Alcorn also notes that some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that human life begins at conception. In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. The following is quotes from doctors that attended: Dr. Alfred M. Bongioannie, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life. I am no more prepared to say that these early stages (of development in the womb) represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.” Dr. Jerome LeJuene, the professor at the University of Descartes in Paris that discovered the chromosome pattern of Down’s Syndrome stated “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He also stated that “this is no longer a matter of taste or opinion and not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He also added “every individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.” Alcorn notes that a prominent physician pointed out at these Senate hearings “Pro abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.” Just a few more quotes from prominent scientists and physicians and I will close this article. Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard, and certainly not prolife, stated “The basic fact of life is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.” Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally famous obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was then the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. He resigned from his lucrative position and wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.” At the time of this confession Dr. Nathanson was an atheist so his statements were not religious in nature. Dr. Landrum Shettles, a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility, was famous for being the discoverer of male and female producing sperm. He states “I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest (obvious)—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.” The “First International Symposium on Abortion” came to this conclusion: “The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.” The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill,” states “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” I want to restate the prochoice argument again: “It is uncertain when human life begins; that is a religious question that cannot be answered by science.” These doctors, scientists, etc, are saying it is not uncertain when human life begins. Although I would agree that this issue is religious, on both sides, it’s evident according to the vast majority of the medical community that the question of when life begins can be answered by science and has been. Grace and understanding to us all, Kevin Boone
NOTE: I have quoted verbatim a lot of Randy Alcorn’s statements in this article. I do not claim that every word written is mine. I believe Mr. Alcorn simply wants this message communicated.
I hope to get back to writing the rest of the Calvinism series, but for now this topic is on my heart. I will be using quotes and documented research from a Randy Alcorn book called “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments.” He is the author of the famous book “Heaven.” I thought I knew the prolife position until I read his book. These articles will not do the book justice so I hope and pray you will buy the book and read the real position of prolifers. I have been in those college classroom discussions and watercooler debates about this subject. This issue is either about murder or it is not. If it is not…no big deal. If it’s about murder…big deal. Most people that I have met on either side of this issue, like most hot issues, can’t hear the others positions without processing a rebuttal while the other side talks. What I hope to do is present Pro Choice (pro abortion) arguments and then give Pro Life answers. While the majority of prochoice individuals will quickly say they have heard or know the prolife position, I’m not sure that they really…really have. What most have heard is likely a quick comment about the prolife position by the media or an editorial written by a prolifer that simply says “It’s a baby and it’s murder.” Some prochoice folks have ran into mad Christians that don’t have the tact to discuss it and certainly haven’t looked at the science to compare to their Scripture quoting (not that I think science trumps the Bible…hold emails)I’m convinced that most conservative prolife individuals really don’t know the prolife position past the conviction that it is wrong. Schools are not given the opportunity to present the prolife position because it’s “religious,” but nothing could be more religious than either position if medical facts are examined for what they are. A quick disclaimer is called for at this point. I’m not condemning anyone that has had an abortion. For the record I do believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. However, when we compare all our lives to the perfect standard of the law we all fall “short of the glory of God.” We all need redeemed through Christ Jesus and having had an abortion is not the unpardonable sin. While forgiveness is available for those who made such a decision, that does not mean that we should abort children and then simply ask for forgiveness because forgiveness is available. Any major decision in life should be coupled with prior research, contemplation, and prayer. If you are open minded enough to take this journey with me I welcome you into this discussion. The only thing I ask is that you pray to know the truth. Randy Alcorn asked himself why his book I referenced was “necessary.” Here are some of the following quotes or thoughts from that section of the book: 1. “Abortion is the most frequently performed surgery on adults in America. One out of three babies conceived in the United States is deliberately aborted.” 2. In America “Abortions outnumber live births in fourteen major metropolitan areas. There are nearly 1.6 million reported abortions in this country every year. There have been twenty-eight million since abortion was legalized across America in 1973.” 3. “If abortion does kill children, the prochoice mentality is responsible for the deaths of 1.6 million innocent people each year, more than the combined total of Americans who have died in all wars in our history.” 4. The overall media coverage is bias toward the prochoice position. Alcorn states “Interviews with 240 journalists and editors in the media elite indicate that a full 90% of them approve of abortion for almost any reason, a much higher percentage than in the general public. The Los Angeles Times has required its writers to use the terms prochoice and anti-abortion. This lets one group start with the crucial semantic edge of sounding positive and the other with the deadly disadvantage of sounding negative. ” 5. Alcorn doesn’t deny that his book is bias toward the prolife position. However, he believes his book is necessary because it provides a “comprehensive, documented, and accurate presentation of the prolife position.” I encourage you to listen to these articles and consider if they are worth their salt. Next week we will begin with the prochoice statement: “It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.” Is that true? I don’t think so and neither does the vast majority of scientific research. Tune in next time if you are interested in hearing for maybe the first time, the prolife position that involves more than the statement “abortion is wrong.” Grace and understanding to us all, Kevin Boone
