The abortion controversy often focuses on when life begins. Does it begin at conception or when the newborn takes its first breath? Turning to the Scriptures, some point out that when the first human being was created, “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). They go on to argue that just after a baby is born and takes its first breath, God is breathing the breath of life once more.

But if you think deeper about this, does the moment of the first breath really constitute a transition between non-life and life? For that matter, does it mark the transition between no oxygen and oxygen? You may have know people in the hospital who are unable to breathe on their own. If such persons receive machine-supplied oxygenated blood, they can survive indefinitely with this manner of respiration.

A fetus respires in a similar way, receiving oxygen-enriched blood through the placenta from its mother. The first breath after birth does not represent a change from non-life to life, though it is an important new stage of the process of becoming independent from the mother.

Rejecting, therefore, the first breath as the moment life begins, we must go back further. We cannot find, however, any definite place to identify the non-life/life threshold. A continuum exists from conception until birth, and the organism at any point along that continuum is alive and human. Viability is not acceptable, and as medical technology advances, the moment of viability shifts earlier and earlier toward conception. The time the mother first feels movement (called “quickening”) is not the critical moment. That would assume that bodies that can’t move aren’t really human beings. We are forced to move back inexorably toward conception as the moment life begins.

And yet, even beyond conception, the continuum remains unbroken, from child back to parents, to grandparents, great-grandparents, and on and on reaching back to that first human being “formed from the dust of the ground.” If at any point that continuum is broken, all life that would follow becomes impossible. Of course, this means that there is no essential difference between the end of a human life shortly after conception and ending it just before birth, or just after for that matter.

The Bible confirms this conclusion that no distinction should be made between the pre-born and the newly born child. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament, passages occur in which the same word is applied to a child still in the womb and a newborn. In Luke 1:41, 44, for instance, which uses the term ‘baby’ (Greek: brephos) to identify John while he was still inside of Elizabeth. The same term (brephos) occurs in the next chapter to describe baby Jesus (Luke 2:12, 16; see also Luke 18:15; Acts 17:9). For an Old Testament example, see Gen. 25:22, where “babies,” literally ’sons’ (Hebrew: banim, plural of ben), is used of the unborn twins, Esau and Jacob.

The Holy Spirit is not singing Rock ‘n’ Roll when He describes the human before birth and the human newly born as “baby…baby.”

The conclusion from all of this seems inescapable: We cannot justify abortion by arguing that a human life is not being ended. It is human from conception, and it is definitely alive.

* * *

Copyright ©2006 Steve Singleton

Steve Singleton has written and edited several books and numerous articles. He has been an editor, reporter, and public relations consultant. He has taught college-level Greek, Bible, and religious studies courses and has taught seminars in 11 states and the Caribbean.

Go to his DeeperStudy.com for Bible study resources, no matter what your level of expertise. Explore “The Shallows,” plumb “The Depths,” or use the well-organized “Study Links” for original sources in English translation. Check out the DeeperStudy Bookstore for great e-books, free books, and great discounts. Subscribe to his free “DeeperStudy Newsletter” or “DeeperStudy Blog.”

Share This

God had a different plan. The world’s plan was for Pam to have an abortion. The plan thought best by the caring staff at CPC was adoption. But God had a different plan.

A victim of early childhood abuse in her biological familyadopted by Christian parents as a resultadoption seemed a perfectly reasonable and loving plan for Pam’s own unplanned pregnancy. That’s what Pam’s adoptive mother thought was best. But God had a different plan

The lingering trauma of childhood abuse was not the only dilemma facing Pam. This trauma resulted in Pam being emotionally immature for her years. Her housing arrangements did not allow children. She would be homeless if she brought this baby into the world and did not choose adoption. The relationship which produced this baby was irreparably broken with no hope of support for the baby or mother likely. Also, Pam was bi-polar. The rapid cycling between elation and depression was controlled with psychiatric “medicine” but these drugs could not be taken during pregnancy. Pam would have to face the normal fears of an expectant mother without these medications. And Pam’s system would need time to cleanse itself of these medicines. Pam was carrying her unborn child during this cleansing period and the doctors warned of possible birth defects as a result.

Donna was assigned as Pam’s “mommy mentor”. Donna’s only qualifications for this assignment were that she too had been adopted as a child, that she too was a mother, and that she was a Christian. At their initial meeting, Pam’s desire to keep this baby and to raise it herself was stated without hesitation. That unquenchable desire to be a “mommy” was all that equipped her for the road ahead. Donna was overwhelmed by the enormity of the situation. She prayed that God would “make a way where there was no way” and help her and Pam through what promised to be a very trying time.

Weeks passed. Donna and Pam spent long hours viewing instructional videos, talking about the day-to-day trials as well as the unspeakable joys of motherhood, spending time in prayerand becoming close friends. Donna was introduced to Pam’s immediate family, participated in Pam’s baby shower, and was with Pam on the day of her delivery. Their only plan was to trust in the Lord with the simple faith of a child.

Today, Pam and Malachi are doing wonderfully well. Pam attends church regularly and is thrilled with motherhood. Malachi is calm, peaceful, healthy and happy. There will be trials. There will be hardship. There will also be the undying mother’s love for her child. Andthatwas God’s plan.

How often do we allow inconvenience, embarrassment, economics, pride, or even political gain to thwart God’s plan? How often does that God-given desire in a woman to give life to that which is in her body, fall by the wayside, a victim to human judgment and frailty? How many wandering souls must appear at Heaven’s Gate to be loved, accepted and wanted only by Him; the One who knew them first in their mother’s womb?

Dallas Wilkinson is a novelist, satirist, and social commentator. He can be reached at http://www.sidekickharry.com

Share This

In 1983, President Reagan wrote an essay for the “Human Life Review” entitled, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.” This brief writing of his pro-life philosophy was published in book form a year later. It was expanded to approximately to 95 pages with lengthy afterwords by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and British essayist Malcolm Muggeridge. Reagan’s brief composition is probably one of the better well-argued pro-life essays ever written. It is also significant as it was the first ever by a sitting President. It was President Reagan’s attempt to awaken a nation to the implications of abortion. In this short book, President Reagan gives an account on how important the issue of abortion is to the “conscience of a nation.”

President Reagan’s essay is only 26 pages of the book, but it is well structured. He believed that diminishing the life of the unborn diminishes the value of all human life. He tackled the pro-abortion “quality of life” argument and compared it to the Dred Scott slavery issue. Reagan likened the pro-abortion argument to slavery and drew parallels between the Roe vs. Wade decision and the Dred Scot decision that divided America over a century earlier. According to Reagan, the quality of life argument is an argument for quality control of the population.

Reagan surmises that legalized abortion is a very slippery slope. He says that unborn babies are being killed because they are simply not wanted or come at an inconvenient time. He also states that many are killed because they will be unable to lead a “normal” life as the result of birth defects. Such babies are considered to be of less value and thus denied human rights. He claims this denial of human rights is accomplished by activist judges who frame the interpretation of the US Constitution through the lens of their own pro-abortion beliefs.

Reagan believes that the arbitrary evaluation of unborn lives must stop. He states that this philosophy will lead to further the crimes of infanticide and illustrates this by citing the Indiana case of “Baby Doe.” Baby Doe was allowed to starve to death because the child had Down’s syndrome. The essence of Reagan’s argument is that no nation can survive and prosper when a group of individuals look at a child and declare whether that child has value as a human being. Reagan goes on to say,

“Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.”

The pro-life movement will not be disappointed with Reagan’s essay, and will conclude that it contains very powerful and logical anti-abortion arguments.

Johnny Kicklighter is a charter contributor to the Metro East Pregnancy Care Center, Fairview Heights, Illinois.

Share This