Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Page 1 of 18
CHRISTIAN'S GOD/DEITY MORALITY RELIGIONS LIFE IN-DEPTH BRIEF FAMILY CREATION COURSES AUDIO COMMENTARIES ARTICLES TOPICS BIBLE SALVATION CHURCH
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 2 of 18
it is fully a human individual. May we kill it? Four to nine months after conception The baby is functioning fully in all its body parts and growing rapidly. The only difference from after birth is where it lives and how it gets its air and food. May we kill it? Three months after conception It can move arms and legs (but the mother cannot feel it). All body systems are present and operating; nothing new will be added from this point. The baby simply grows. Legally it may be killed with practically no restrictions during the first three months, and with few restrictions afterwards. But why would it be right to kill it now, but wrong a few months from now? Two months after conception Fingers and toes are clearly distinguishable. Reproductive organs are developing. Bones are forming. It is clearly recognizable as human. Six weeks after conception brain waves can be measured. May we kill it? Yet this is the stage that is most preferred for performing abortions! One month after conception All major organs have begun developing: brain and nerves, eyes, lungs, stomach and intestines, kidneys, etc. The heart began to beat and circulate blood on the 18th day. The baby has its own blood type, which is often different from its mother's. Yet the mother may not even know she is pregnant. Conception From the moment of conception, the unborn baby is a unique individual. The genes that determine its physical nature are different from those of any other individual, including its mother and father. Its sex is determined at conception and obviously may differ from the mother's. Each cell in the baby's body is uniquely different from every cell of its mother and every other human. At what point in this progression is it morally right to kill it, when it has done no wrong, simply because we choose to? How do you prove it is right up to one point but wrong after that point? Human wisdom cannot answer. But the Bible has the answer. (The above information is summarized from "Life before Birth," Life magazine, April 30, 1965, and other sources.)
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 3 of 18
Hysterotomy or Cesarean Section Abortion This method is used in the last trimester of pregnancy. The womb is entered by surgery. Then the tiny baby is killed and removed. Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion Hormone-like compounds are injected into the muscle of the uterus, causing it to contract intensely and push out the developing baby. Many babies are born alive. Dilatation & Extraction ("Partial Birth Abortion") In this late-term method, the doctor uses forceps to remove the baby from the womb. The head, however, is too big to be extracted. So the abortionist cuts a hole in the base of the skull, suctions out the brain, crushes the skull, and then removes the baby. (See Lake County Right-to-Life Newsletter, 4&5/93.) Newer methods include the "morning after" pill, which may allow conception and then causes the fertilized egg to be expelled from the womb. Note that many so-called "contraceptives" (such as the I.U.D. and even some forms of the "pill") may have a similar effect. Ask your doctor how a "contraceptive" works before using it. (The above information is taken from "Abortion: What It Is," A.L.L. About Issues, July, 1982, and other sources.)
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 4 of 18
How does the Bible identify a human being or person? The Bible (King James and other older versions) nowhere uses the terms "human" or "human being," but instead uses other equivalent phrases. Further, the Bible has no unique word for "person." When this word occurs in English translations, it is simply an alternative translation for words more commonly translated "man," etc. We cannot determine whether the unborn is a human individual simply by searching for the terms "human being" or "person," because the Bible generally does not use these words in this way. Instead, the Bible identifies a human person by calling it simply a "man," "woman," "child," "son," "daughter," "baby," "infant," etc. When used regarding the offspring of a human mother and father, these Bible terms refer to a human individual who is separate and distinct from his mother and father. You will not find a more technical name than these for any human, born or unborn, anywhere in the Bible. If the Bible uses these terms for an unborn baby, that will constitute definite proof that the unborn is a human individual. What we need to know, then, is whether or not the Bible refers to the unborn baby by terms that imply humanity, just as it does for other humans.
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 5 of 18
always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2 - "babes"). Joel 2:16 lists "children" (OLEL) as "people." Hence, babies that die in their mother's womb, like aborted babies, are "infants" - human individuals separate and distinct from other human beings. A "brother" in the womb - Hosea 12:3 Jacob and Esau were twins. While still in the womb, Jacob took his "brother" by the heel. The word for "brother" (Heb. ACH) is the primary Old Testament word for a brother - a human individual conceived by the same mother. Jacob was Esau's "brother" before they were born just the same as afterward (Gen. 27:41). Here is another Bible term for a human individual which is used to refer to an unborn baby. Life conceived in your mother's womb, even before it is born, is your "brother" or "sister." A "mother" of an unborn child - Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, when Miriam became leprous, she was described "as one dead, whose flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb." So if a woman conceives and the baby dies before it is born - as in an abortion - the woman is still called a "mother." In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as "the mother of my Lord" before Jesus was born, very soon after He was conceived (compare verse 36 to verses 56,57). The word "mother" (Heb. EM; Greek METER) has many uses; but in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, it always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself. (See for example Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60; and see a concordance.) There is no exception to this meaning in the Bible. A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a "mother." She has produced a human individual. A "baby" in the mother's womb - Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v24), and the life "in her womb" is called a "babe" or "baby" (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used, without exception, for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother. Jesus, for example, is called a "babe" (BREPHOS) lying in a manger (Luke 2:12,16). (See Acts 7:19 and a concordance.) Hence, before he was born, John was a "baby" in his mother's womb - a living human being. A woman conceived a "son" - Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth's womb, before it was born, is called "a son." The word "son" (Greek HUIOS) also has various meanings. But in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, the word always and without exception refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a "son" (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.) Compare John's conception to his birth: Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth "conceived a son." Luke 1:57 - Elizabeth "brought forth a son." These verses refer to the same mother and the same son in the same context. One verse describes the conception and the other describes the birth, but both call the child a "son." Surely the word means the same in both cases. If John was a human being when he had been born, then he was a human being from the time of his conception. Sons and daughters begotten in the father's likeness - Genesis 5:1-3 Adam begot a son in his own likeness or image (v3). The term "beget" (Heb. YALAD) has various meanings,
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 6 of 18
literal and figurative. When used for the father's role in the literal, historical event of human procreation, it always refers to conception or fertilization since this is the only role the father has in the birth of the child. But that which is begotten is in the likeness or image of the father. So humans reproduce after their own kind, and what has been conceived is in the image of the father as a result of the conception and from the time of the conception. But what was the son in the image of? He was in the image of "man" (ADAM - vv. 1,2). This is the second-most-common word for man in the Old Testament, and is the same word used for man at creation in Gen. 1:26f. The son is in the image of "man" from conception on! Further, God made man and woman in the likeness of God (v1). Then the man begot sons and daughters in his image. Therefore the sons and daughters must be in the image of God just as the parents are, and this is the result of conception. Hence, that which man begets is itself man, in the image of God from conception on! "Her fruit depart" / "life for life" - Exodus 21:22-25 Men fight and "hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart" (KJV, ASV). The life in the mother's womb is her "fruit" (Heb. YELED). This word is elsewhere translated "child," "boy," "son," or "young man." It is the second-most-common Old Testament word for "child." It is so used for Moses in Exodus 2:3-10 (cf. Ex. 1:17,18; Gen. 21:8; Ruth 4:16; etc.). Exodus 21:22 is the only place where this word is translated "fruit." When referring to human offspring, this word without exception refers to that which is a human individual, a separate and distinct individual from its parents. Hence, this passage gives us another case where the life in the mother's womb is described as a human being. (Note that other Hebrew words are translated "fruit" in the KJV, clearly referring to human beings - Deut. 28:4,11,18,53; 30:9; Psa. 132:11; etc. Hence, the KJV is not denying the humanity of the unborn in Ex. 21:2225). When we return to this passage later, we will learn that it requires punishment for a man who causes an expectant mother to give birth prematurely. If the baby is born dead or injured, the man should have inflicted on him the same harm he caused to the baby, even "life for life." The Hebrew word for "life" in both cases is NEPHESH, which has many meanings, but its most common translations are "soul" (428 times), then "life" (119 times) then "person" (30 times). This expression, then, means that the unborn baby has "life" in exactly the same sense as does the man who caused the harm, i.e. human life. Further, the "life" is contrasted to eye, hand, foot, etc. - body parts. Hence, the baby is not just a body part! He has "life." The unborn baby is a human being just as much as the man is!
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 7 of 18
Contrast God's terms to the terms used by people who defend abortion. Abortion defenders universally refuse to use Bible language when referring to an unborn baby. They call it a "fetus" or "the product of conception" or "an unwanted pregnancy" or "foreign tissue." Never, never will they call it a "baby," a "child," an "infant," nor will they ever refer to the pregnant woman as a "mother." In fact, workers in abortion clinics are trained to avoid these terms (Rutherford Institute, Spring, 1988). Why do abortion defenders refuse to use the terms that God uses for the unborn baby (1 Peter 4:11)? Because they refuse to admit it has the nature that God believes it has! This is a deliberate effort to disguise the humanity of the unborn child. The very fact that these folks refuse to use terms like "baby," "child," "son," "infant," etc., proves that they know these terms imply a separate human individual. Abortion defenders do not speak as God speaks, because they do not believe what God believes! Consider the parallel to the distinct individuals in the Godhead. Some folks claim that God the Father and Jesus are the same individual, not separate individuals. We refer them to the many passages that mention Jesus as the Son of God the Father. A person cannot be his own father or his own son. A father and his son make two separate individuals (cf. John 8:16-18). Likewise we know that, when a woman has given birth to a son, she and her son are two separate individuals. A mother cannot be the same person as her son. But we have now learned that, when a woman has conceived, the life in her womb is her "son" (or "daughter") and she is its "mother." If God the Father is a separate individual from Jesus Christ His Son, and if a mother is a separate individual from a son to whom she has given birth, then in the very same way a mother must be a separate individual from the son or daughter in her womb. Bible believers must conclude that the child who has been conceived and lives in its mother's womb is a separate and distinct individual from its parents - a living human being. May we then deliberately kill this human being?
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 8 of 18
God has made the parents stewards of their children. A steward is a person who has been entrusted with something that belongs to someone else. He is responsible to care for it and use it to accomplish the purpose of the one to whom it belongs. He will be condemned and punished by the owner or master if he abuses or misuses that which has been entrusted to him (Luke 12:42-46; Matt. 25:14-30; 1 Cor. 4:2). An unborn child is a particular blessing that has been given into our care, just as surely as is a child that has been born. We have the same God-given duty toward an unborn child as we do toward one that has been born. What is our duty toward a child, born or unborn? We should care for it and provide for it (cf. Matt. 7:7-11; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Cor. 12:14). Above all, we should train our children to learn God's will and serve Him (Prov. 22:6; Eph. 6:4). If we kill them, we defeat God's purpose for their lives. How can we "train up" and "bring up" those whom we have killed?! Abortion is the grossest form of child abuse and the most extreme perversion of parental responsibility. God will not fail to hold us accountable. God says we should love and protect our children - Titus 2:4. Mothers are commanded to love their children. But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. Note that a mother is to love both her child and her husband (Titus 2:4). Which one may she kill? Love for others is the second greatest command in the Bible (Matt. 22:37-39). The Bible tells us how we should act toward those we love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). This teaching definitely does not allow us to kill others (Rom. 13:8-10). 1 Thessalonians 2:7 - A mother should be gentle and cherish her child. Simple observation shows that God designed the mother's womb so an unborn baby will be protected, provided for, and kept safe. It is contrary to God's design to attack and kill an unborn baby. If you would not want someone to kill you, then you should not kill an unborn baby (Matthew 7:12). Indeed, Jesus considers the treatment we give children to be the very treatment we give Him (Matthew 18:5). Our eternal destiny depends on how we treat others (Matt. 25:34-46). Since the unborn baby is a "child," we must treat it in harmony with these passages. God says people "without natural affection" (KJV, ASV) are worthy of death - Romans 1:31,32; 2 Timothy 3:3. This phrase is also translated "heartless," "unloving," and "callous." Vine's dictionary says it includes those who are without "love of kindred, especially of parents for children." The desire of a mother to see her child live is so much a natural characteristic of motherly love that Solomon used it to determine who was the true mother of a child (1 Kings 3:26,27). Mothers who have miscarriages naturally tend to grieve deeply. To them the child that died was very real. Clearly, natural affection should include love for the unborn child. Nevertheless, there are those who are condemned before God because they are "without" this "natural affection." There is no better term than this to describe one who would deliberately kill the innocent human being conceived within her. Please observe that we have now established that abortion is wrong even without (thus far) examining passages specifically dealing with murder, killing, etc. We will see shortly that abortion fits the Bible definition of murder; but even if it did not, it would still be sinful for other reasons. Abortion is wrong because it is unloving, it destroys a God-given blessing, and it constitutes gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs. Furthermore, we have now learned the key to solving the problem of abortion: if parents would learn to love, appreciate, and fulfill their responsibilities toward their children, they would not want to kill them. Proabortion groups (like the Planned Parenthood Federation) are absolutely right when they affirm that every child has a right to be loved and wanted. But they are dead wrong when they say that the solution is to let
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 9 of 18
mothers murder unwanted and unloved children. On the contrary, the solution is to teach mothers their responsibility to love, appreciate, and care for their children, born or unborn.
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 10 of 18
Note, however, that God blessed the midwives who refused to kill these children at birth (Ex. 1:15-22). Likewise, God will bless us when we put an end to the murder of our unborn. (Acts 7:19 refers to this event referring to the "babes" using the Greek word BREPHOS used for the unborn baby in Luke 1:41,44. The Hebrew words for "sons" and "male children" in Ex. 1:16-17 are BEN and YELED, used for unborn babies in Gen. 25:21-22 and Ex. 21:22-25.) Slaying an innocent person - Deuteronomy 27:25. "Cursed is the one who takes a bribe (reward - KJV) to slay an innocent person." What clearer description could be given for people who operate abortion clinics? (The word for "person" is NEPHESH and is used for unborn babies translated "life" in Exodus 21:22-25.) Shedding the blood of man made in the image of god - Genesis 9:2-6 Though we may kill plants and animals, we are forbidden to shed man's blood because man is "in the image of God." Note again how God distinguishes "man" from plants and animals, just as we discussed regarding the creation account. Where do unborn babies fit in this passage? They are not plants or animals, because living things reproduce after their own kind. They are the result of human reproduction, therefore they are humans in the image of God from the time they are conceived (Gen. 5:1-4). Killing an unborn baby is forbidden because it is taking the life of a human in God's image. ("Life" in Gen. 9:5 is NEPHESH, also used for the unborn baby's "life" in Ex. 21:22-25.) "Her fruit depart" - Exodus 21:22-25 (KJV). We earlier showed that "fruit" here means child or baby. "Depart" (Heb. YATSA) generally means to go out or go forth. In contexts referring to departing from a mother's womb, it means to be born (study Gen. 25:25,26; Job 1:21; Jer. 1:5; 20:18; etc.). It does not imply that the baby is born dead any more than does our word "born." Hence, "her fruit depart" simply means "her child goes forth" (Interlinear Hebrew-English Bible) or "her child is born" (LXX). The NKJV translates: "she gives birth prematurely." This of itself says nothing about the condition of the baby. (Some people assume that the expression means a miscarriage or stillbirth. The NASB mistranslates the verse this way, but the footnote gives the literal meaning: "Lit. her children come out"!) So the baby is born. What then? It depends on whether or not "harm" has been done. Harm to whom? The Interlinear Hebrew-English Bible says: "And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her children [sic] goes forth, and there is no injury; surely he shall be fined ... But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life ..." Clearly the concern is not just for whether the mother has been harmed, but also for the condition of the child that is born. So, if the baby is born prematurely, but there is no injury (to either child or mother), then the man is fined for the trouble he caused (v22). If there is injury to child or mother, then the man should receive the same kind of injury he caused, including "life for life" (vv 23-25). Hence, the unborn baby has "life" just as the man does, and the law said anyone who killed that unborn baby should be punished the same as if he had killed any other human (cf. Ex. 21:12-15; Rom. 1:29,32; Rev. 21:8). Some people reject this explanation, because they say it would be too harsh to kill a man for killing an unborn baby, especially when he didn't mean to. Yet everyone agrees that the man would be killed if the mother died as a result of this act, so why is the punishment too harsh if the baby dies? (See also vv 16,17.) This is an Old Testament law. Yet the passage proves that the unborn baby has "life" exactly like all other humans, and this "life" is inherent in the nature of the child. These truths would not change in the New Testament. Furthermore, the loosest possible view is that the passage requires a fine for killing the unborn baby. This view would not disprove the humanity of the baby, since not all killing of humans was punishable by death (see vv. 20,21). Yet it still proves the act is a sin of some kind, else why should the man pay a fine? So even
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 11 of 18
the loosest view of this passage proves that abortion is wrong. The correct meaning, however, is that killing the unborn was killing a human individual. Authority for killing. The Bible shows that one must have authority or sanction from God in order to take any form of life. We may kill plants and animals because God expressly gives us this right (Gen. 1:29; 9:2,3; Acts 10:9-16; etc.) However, we must not kill innocent humans without express approval (although man is not held guilty if the killing was accidental - Num. 35:9-31; Deut. 19:1-13). We have shown conclusively that it is just as wrong to kill an unborn baby as it is to kill any other human being. Yet if anyone still thinks we have not proved our case, before he approves of abortion he must show convincing evidence that killing unborn babies is acceptable to God. It is not enough just to dismiss our case; the one who defends abortion must establish his case by positive evidence from Scripture! If he cannot do so, then to participate in the practice would be acting without Divine authority, which is also sinful (Rom. 14:23; Col. 3:17; 2 John 9-11; etc.). So long as any doubt remains, we must not kill that innocent human life (Romans 14:23). The relationship of abortion to humanistic unbelief - Romans 1:29,32. People who commit murder (or who consent with those who do) are worthy of death spiritually. Those who approve such acts have rejected faith in God (vv 28,29). They exalt their own wisdom, but are actually extremely foolish (vv 21,22). They become involved in religious and sexual perversions, including homosexuality and immorality of all kinds (vv 23-32). This shows the root reasons why people defend such practices as abortion, homosexuality, etc. They reject Divine creation (vv 20,21) and conclude that man evolved from lower animals. They no longer have a real conviction about the true God, so they explain away God's moral laws and disregard the fact that man was made in God's image. We should not be surprised, then, that the groups that most vocally defend abortion are generally the same groups that defend evolution, homosexuality, etc. For example, the Humanist Manifestos defend atheism and evolution, and they also defend abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, etc. Similar statements can be made about such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, the National Council of Churches, the National Organization of Women, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, etc. Remember, however, that right and wrong are ultimately determined, not by people, but by God Who will judge each of us for our lives (2 Cor. 5:10; Matt. 25:31-46). A note regarding the spirit of the unborn baby. Please note that we have proved that abortion is wrong without discussing the issue of whether or not the baby possesses a spirit. When God uses terms to describe the unborn baby and then uses the very same terms to describe what we are forbidden to kill, that proves we should not kill an unborn baby! The unborn baby is a human individual, so we may no more kill it than we may kill any other human individual. Further evidence about the spirit is not needed. However, as an interesting side issue it follows as a corollary that the unborn baby has a spirit, simply because every living human body has a spirit. Regarding a human body, James 2:26 says that the spirit and biological life are present simultaneously or absent simultaneously. You can't have one without the other. If the body did not have a spirit, it would be "dead." If the body is alive, the spirit must be present. There is no exception for any human body in the Bible. A body without spirit cannot be alive, just as faith without works cannot be alive. The unborn baby has a human body that is alive; therefore it has a spirit. But again, we need not prove the presence of the spirit to know that abortion is wrong. Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4,5 describe killing as deliberately ending the biologic life of a human "body." Killing the body is as far as man can go, because he cannot harm the spirit. Hence, to prove that abortion is murder, we need only to prove that the unborn baby has a human body which is biologically alive. We have already proved this.
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 12 of 18
Therefore, abortion is murder. The unborn is described in terms that mean human individuals. It fits the definition of what the Bible says we must not kill. Nothing more is needed.
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 13 of 18
children. We oppose abortion, not because we want the mother to be punished for her sins, but because we don't want the baby to be killed for the mother's sin. "The way of the transgressor is hard" (Prov. 13:15). Fornication is wrong. But it simply compounds the error to allow the guilty parents to escape the consequences of their sin by killing an innocent person. Two wrongs do not make a right! Guilt for fornication cannot be removed by killing the innocent baby (Prov. 28:13). The only way to remove guilt is to repent, confess, forsake sin, and be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Hebrews 7:25; 5:9; Matthew 11:29,30).
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 14 of 18
that may overwhelm your emotions. Participating in sexual relations makes you a debtor to raise any child that results. If you don't want the debt, then avoid the act that may make you a debtor!
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 15 of 18
And all of this has been practiced before ... in Nazi Germany! That brings us to genocide or the "holocaust." If we can kill people because we think they have an inferior quality of life or are a burden on others, how can we condemn the Nazis who killed millions of Jews (along with the unborn, deformed, elderly, etc.) whom they considered to be inferior and a burden on society? And what about the Communists who have killed millions of "Capitalists" for the same reason? Millions of Christians have been martyred because others thought they were unfit to live. The quality of life argument is just a way of saying we have decided some people are unfit to live. What do you say when someone decides you are the one who is unfit to live? Matthew 7:12. All these people are just Humanists who accept the logical consequences of evolution. If men are just animals, not in the image of God, there are any number of "reasons" why we should put them out of their misery, just like we do animals. But if there is a God who created man in His own image and who forbids the killing of innocent humans, then abortion, euthanasia, and genocide are all immoral for the same reasons. How should we treat people who are handicapped or in misery, poverty, etc.? * Do not do violence to troubled people, but protect and assist them. Psalm 37:14 - It is wicked to do violence to the "poor and needy." Yet abortion and euthanasia defenders say to kill them! Job 29:15,16 - Job was eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, and a father to the needy. Don't kill them; help them! Matthew 25:34-46 - Our eternal destiny depends on whether or not we aid the sick, needy, disadvantaged, and unfortunate. The way we treat these people is the way we treat Jesus Christ. (See also Gal. 6:2; Luke 14:12-14; Psalm 82:3,4; Jer. 22:3; Deut. 15:7,8,11; Isa. 1:17.) * Have faith that God can help people endure any problem they may face. 1 Corinthians 10:13 - God will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability. He will always make a way of escape, so we can endure the hardship. Philippians 4:10-13 - Paul said he had learned to be content, even in prison. "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Instead of using problems as an excuse for murder, we should trust in God's help. People, who justify killing to escape problems, simply display their lack of faith in God. (See also Rom. 8:31-39; James 5:10,11; Psalm 46:1; 34:19.) * Understand that spiritual matters outweigh the physical, and physical problems can produce spiritual benefits. Proverbs 28:6 - A poor man with integrity is better than a perverse rich man. Matthew 18:8 - It is better to receive eternal life maimed and lame than to be physically whole and receive eternal punishment. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 - God chose not to remove Paul's physical thorn in the flesh, because it made him a better person spiritually. Many people can testify to the blessings they have received as a result of physical hardships. (See also 1 Peter 1:6,7; Rom. 8:28; 5:3-5.) 1 Samuel 16:7; Luke 12:15 - God does not judge men according to outward appearance, but He looks on the heart. A man's life consists not of the abundance of things he possesses. A fatal error of the "quality of life" argument is that it invariably measures "quality of life" in terms of physical circumstances. Instead, true quality of life is determined by ones character and service to God. This cannot be measured by any medical technique! The "quality of life" argument is based on a false and perverted standard of human worth. The Bible, however,
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 16 of 18
does not just forbid doing violence to innocent people. It also shows how to deal with the problems life brings. (See also Prov. 15:16,17; 16:8; 1 Tim. 6:6-10; James 2:5.)
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 17 of 18
"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life" - Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, 1954 (via Allen Co. R.T.L. News, 10/81). Dr. Joseph DiZoglio questioned a number of doctors who did abortions (including one who did 15-20,000): "...all said they have never performed an abortion that was absolutely for medical reasons ... Never means never - not one case" - (Allen Co. R.T.L. News, 10/81). "...the reasons for therapeutic abortion (to save the mother's life) have disappeared" -Dr. John Hand, (ibid.) "Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother" - Dr. Joseph P. Donnelly (ibid.). "Medical reasons for provoking abortion are just about non-existent. In fact, no basis on pure medical grounds ever really stands up" - Dr. Bernard Pisani, Family Review, 1981. The life-of-the-mother argument is the abortionists' last resort, but their "battering ram" is a wet noodle! The problem simply does not exist, so why should we compromise Bible principle? In any such considerations, decisions must always be made remembering that the unborn is a human being. Difficult decisions should treat the unborn as fully human as if it had been born. Even if exceptions did exist, they would still just be exceptions. The exception is not the rule. The rule is to be determined by Bible principles, not by alleged exceptions. In cases of doubt, remember Romans 14:23 and have faith in God to help with our needs in answer to prayer.
Conclusion
The Bible teaches that the baby who has been conceived and lives in its mother's womb is a living human being, a separate and distinct person from its parents. Therefore, it has just as much right to live as any other human being. To deliberately kill it would be just as wrong as killing any other innocent human being. Abortion is wrong, therefore, because it is a failure to love, appreciate, and care for a human baby. It is also wrong because it constitutes the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. The Bible provides the necessary steps to solve the abortion "dilemma" for those who are willing to respect its teachings: (1) Flee fornication. (2) Learn to love, appreciate, and care for the baby. (3) Learn to trust God for the strength to face any hardships life brings. Study His word, pray, and seek help from other Christians. (4) Help others who have needs or problems caused by the birth of a baby. (5) Speak out in defense of life. Seek to deliver those who are about to be slain (Prov. 24:11,12). Do not compromise with sin, but reprove it (Eph. 5:11; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; Prov. 28:4; Gal. 6:1, etc.). What should a woman do if she has aborted a baby and now realizes she did wrong? She does not need to spend the rest of her life with the burden of unforgiven guilt. The Bible says abortion is wrong, but it also gives something else that humanistic beliefs cannot give: a source of true forgiveness for guilt. God will forgive if we will come to Him according to His conditions. Read and obey these passages: Rom. 1:16; 6:3,4; 10:9,10; Mark 16:16; Acts 17:30; 2:38; 22:16. Note: If you would like to study further about related Bible topics, we have a number of other study materials on our web site that should interest you. Please see the links listed below. (C) Copyright 1984, 1994, 1999, 2008, David E. Pratte Local churches and individuals may, within limits, distribute this Bible study guide for free, but not for sale.
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012
Page 18 of 18
Web sites may link to this page but not reproduce it. For details click here for our copyright guidelines. To purchase this material in quantity in printed form, visit our publication web site at www.gospelway.com/litepath. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email Contact Us
Hit-meter: 10816813
http://www.gospelway.com/morality/abortion.php
10/10/2012