Fifteen Pro-Life Truths to Speak

“You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

-Jesus Christ

  1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb (except in the case of abortion).
  2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.
  3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.
  4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.
  5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.
  6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.
  7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.
  8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.
  9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.
  10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.
  11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.
  12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.
  13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.
  14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.
  15. Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Reprinted with permission.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

9 Comments

  1. Ironically, it was my impression that your comments on “justice” were condescending that prompted me to reply in the first place. My point regarding Pam Tebow is that she had a choice. That her choice turned out with a happy ending certainly pleases me, but the result does not validate the notion that other women should be denied the choice Pam Tebow was able to make precisely because those women who made the same choice and died don’t have the ability to express themselves during half time at the Superbowl.

    It is likewise fine that your wife would choose to carry a high risk pregnancy, because that is what choice is all about. My objection is to you and your wife telling others that your religion compels them to make the same choice (or not to have a choice at all).

    What about those cases when the chance of survival for the mother and fetus is low or there is extreme risk? Why is is justice for someone other than the mother to make this determination? Where is the justice in denying a woman the ability to confer with her doctor in privacy about her medical issues? What if she already has a family that depends on her for support? How is it justice for you or anyone else to insinuate your religious views into the matters of a stranger’s health? If you cannot explain your views when asked, perhaps you might take a moment to give them further reflection.

    Reply
    • Your whole argument begs the question. It assumes that the fetus in the womb is not a human being. I reject such a notion. It is an affront to the very God who “knits us together in the womb.” (Psalm 139:13)

      Reply
  2. So a married mother of two children finds herself pregnant again, and is diagnosed with a medical condition that represents an extreme mortal threat to the mother and the fetus if the pregnancy continues. If the mother dies, then her fetus will also die, and her two children will be orphans and her spouse a widower.

    Tim Tebow’s mother brags that under these circumstances, she chose life for her unborn fetus. But then again, those women who made the same choice and died are not in a position to make the same boast.

    Points 9, 10 and 11 emphasize justice; that the woman who had sex should be accountable for the consequences of her choice. What is justice for this married woman whose circumstances I have described?

    Reply
    • Either you believe that the child in the womb is a human being or you do not. If you believe the location of the child (i.e. inside the womb) determines whether or not it is a human, then your position is defensible. I, however, do not believe geography or convenience has any bearing on whether someone is a human being.

      Reply
      • But with all due respect, it was you that brought up the issue of justice. I have asked you to elaborate on what is justice in the obviously (and deliberately) difficult circumstances I have outlined. While I concede you were gracious to reply, I would not say that your reply addresses my question regarding justice.

        But it is not my intent to troll or annoy anyone, rather to present alternative ideas for thoughtful discussion. Rather than press the question further, allow me simply to share my view that justice should have equal application in all cases, and not just in some or most cases. The case I outlined does not lend itself well to a debate on justice.

        As a father myself I don’t consider abortion to be an appropriate means of birth control or family planning. But at the same time, as a citizen I want my wife to have the opportunity to make choices about her healthcare without outside interference. My main disagreement with your views expressed above is that they don’t reflect the very real complexities of the issue.

        Best regards.

        Reply
        • Again, you miss the point. If one views the child in the womb as anything other than human, she can legitimize the abortion in the circumstances you brought up.

          However, if the child in the womb is a human being, then there is no circumstance that justifies abortion–even if continuing with the pregnancy poses grave danger to the mother and/or child. If a person is trapped in a burning building, do we not risk our very lives to save him? We would certainly not shoot the victim from afar, justifying the action as producing the safest outcome for everyone.

          Reply
          • If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that given the case I outlined, you would refuse the mother the choice of an abortion that would save her life, even when it is clear that an attempt to carry the pregnancy to term would result in the death of both the mother and the fetus.

            If I am correct in this understanding, I must reiterate my initial question; how is this justice? Moreover, how is the death of the mother and the fetus pro-life?

            Perhaps I am missing the point because you speak in hypotheticals, making frequent use of “if”. The case I outlined is NOT a hypothetical; this actually happened to a female relative of mine. My relative had an ectopic pregnancy in which it was impossible for the fetus to survive, and allowing the pregnancy to continue would have caused the mother’s death; no “if” about it. I am less interested in “if” one believes this or that, I am interested in a definitive answer on how your stated view represents justice and pro-life given the case I outlined. Is not the mother’s life worth anything in your estimation?

          • Ectopic pregnancy? It’s virtually unsurvivable. Especially if the embryo implants in the fallopian tube. It is essentially a miscarriage. I’m not talking about this condition.

            You did, however, make a condescending remark about Pam Tebow–which is odd since her condition was completely different.

            My wife would give her own life if it meant her unborn child had at least a chance at survival. What kind of mother could live with herself knowing that she choose her own life over her unborn child? (her words)

            I don’t think my argument includes cases where the child’s chance of survival is nil. We have to morn in those instances, heal, and move on.

  3. I love it. Thank you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: