Abortion and Infanticide have been opposed as murder by Christianity throughout church history (and often also outside of Christianity). Some early Christians, influenced by Aristotle (Colossians 2:8), wrongly advocated "delayed ensoulment", while still opposing abortion. We could not be saved if Jesus' full humanity did not begin at conception (Hebrews 2:17, c.f. Genesis 2:7).
As Machen said, “To that doctrine it is essential that the Son of God should live a complete human life upon this earth. But the human life would not be complete unless it began in the mother's womb. At no later time, therefore, should the incarnation be put, but at that moment when the babe was conceived. There, then, should be found the stupendous event when the eternal Son of God assumed our nature, so that from then on He was both God and man.”
Below is a non-exhaustive selection of quotes condemning abortion and infanticide from a variety on sources up to the end of the seventh century:
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." - Hippocrates, 5th Century BC.
“a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.” - Pseudo-Phocylides, 50 BC - 50AD.
"you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born" - Didache, 1st Century.
"The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind." - Flavius Josephus, 97.
"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born" - Barnabas, 2nd Century.
"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God." -Athenagoras, 2nd Century
"women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." - Clement of Alexandria, 150-215.
"Murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb. ... Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" - Tertullian, 160-240.
"women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death." - Council of Ancyra, 314.
"She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder. ... Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus." - Basil, 329-379.
"The poor get rid of their small children by exposure and denying them when they are discovered. But the rich also, so that their wealth will not be more divided, deny their children in the womb and with all the force of parricide, they kill the beings of their wombs in the same fruitful womb." - Ambrose, 340-397.
"You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. ... Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder." - Jerome, 347-420.
"Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderer also." - John Chrysostom, 347-407.
"It is never licit to give something that will cause an abortion" - Theodorus Priscianus, 4th Century.
"No woman should take drugs for purposes of abortion, nor should she kill her children that have been conceived or are already born." - Caesarius, 470-543.
"Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder." - Penthekte Synod, 692.
Of course, this staunch Christian opposition to abortion and infanticide continued. To give one example:
"The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." - John Calvin
I will conclude this post with a quote from the Presbyterian theologian, Meredith G. Kline:
"As we observed at the outset, induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to an abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community's repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness out of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism!"
Societal morality is worse than ancient paganism on the issues of abortion and infanticide. A damning assessment indeed.
Let us pray, that the culture of death's slaughter of children might cease, that human lives will be saved, that abortion might be criminalized around the world, and that those guilty of abortion or infanticide would be punished. Let us all pray for the salvation of those human beings who are in the firing line to be murdered by abortion or infanticide, and also for the salvation of those who have performed or had an abortion. And let us thank God that He is just, and for the life of every child that has not been murdered.
(C), Jonathan Williams, created January 2013, last updated April 2013.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Monday, April 15, 2013
Monday, July 30, 2012
Parents Should Be Allowed To Let Their Children Die!
“You love only those who deserve it” “[A weak person] certainly does not deserve [love]. He certainly is beyond it" “Each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self-interest" "A 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms” “Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are invasions of the rights of mothers” “The parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.” Do these beliefs fit in the Christian worldview? Are they compatible with Christianity? Should a Christian promote this ideology? Those questions are rhetorical. The above quotes are all from Ayn Rand who wished to be remembered as "the greatest enemy of religion", particularly of Christianity, which she called the "kindergarten of communism" and “the great poison of mankind”; and Murray Rothbard who stated that “the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children” as he “either had to go on to anarchism or become a statist.”
Last month, I received an email from mises.org that correctly labelled Ayn Rand "one of the most important philosophical influences on contemporary libertarianism." Unfortunately, many Christians are advocating libertarianism and supporting politicians whose ideology had been shaped by Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. One prominent libertarian, Ron Paul said "I especially value Mises.org” and having read “about everything Ayn Rand wrote”, Paul agrees that "she contributed tremendously" to modern libertarianism, including that “she had a lot of influence on me”. Ron Paul considers Murray Rothbard (whose photo hangs on his congressional office’s wall) “the founder of modern libertarianism”, saying after his death “America has lost one of her greatest men, and the Freedom Movement one of its greatest heroes: Murray N. Rothbard”. Paul praised Rothbard as “an inspiration” who “influenced thousands of students. I was one of them, for he taught me about economics and liberty.” We will now investigate what these important and tremendous founders of and influences on modern libertarianism had to say about a very important issue: abortion.
"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.” - Rothbard
"This means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.” - Rothbard
"In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price." - Rothbard
"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” - Ayn Rand
Why any Christian would identify with, support or spread this unbiblical ideology is beyond me. As a Christian, I repudiate a system where a person who “contributed tremendously” taught that the weak are beyond love, “the influential founder” believed that parents should be allowed to let their children die, and both key figures supported abortion. As a Christian, I will never again call myself a libertarian or do anything that will support the unbiblical and inhumane ideological movement that is libertarianism. I pray for the end of the influence of libertarianism, and bpraise the Lord that I do not live in “the libertarian society”.
(C), Jonathan Williams, August 2012.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 2 – By What Standard?
This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will reiterate that God defines marriage, and He defined it as being between one man and one woman.
In yesterday’s first instalment, I briefly outlined the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Today’s second instalment is an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage. The issue that Ideal with in this article is at the very foundation of the issue: presuppositions.
“Get up” and support Gay Marriage because I think it is “the right thing to do”:
On December 3, the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a ‘conscience vote’ on the issue of gay marriage. The party voted to in favor of changing their official party doctrine to support gay marriage by a margin of 208 votes to 184. Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, rejected calls for the opposition to likewise hold a conscience vote on the issue. Abbott, who opposes gay marriage said in an interview with Sky News that "the fundamental duty of every politician is to keep his or her commitments”, so because “every single one of us went to the last election saying marriage is between a man and a woman”, his party will not hold a conscience vote. In the absence of a conscience vote within the Coalition, the bill will be unable to obtain a parliamentary majority, which will mean that gay marriage will remain illegal in Australia.
In the weeks before the Labor Party conference, the Australian left wing lobby group “Get Up” created a public petition promoting gay marriage, which they delivered to the ALP Conference on the day of the conscience vote.
“Get Up” is a group of radical leftists. For example, in 2006, they lobbied the Government to release David Hicks (a terrorist found guilty of providing material support for terrorism) into the Australian community. Although the views of “Get Up” do not represent the majority of leftists on every issue, their advertisement has been very popular among those in favour of gay marriage.
So, according to the campaign, why should gay marriage by legalized? The advertisement used a technique wherein they made the protagonist appear genuine and likeable to force the audience to positively empathize with the protagonist, before it was revealed that he was a homosexual. This is nothing but an appeal to subjective and emotional reasoning.
Suppose that Craig created a home video showing snippets of his life. In the video, you saw Craig enjoying a cruise, laughing at a theme park, playing beach cricket, spending time with his family and helping other people move furniture. Craig so far seems like a genuine and likeable guy. But, in the final scene, he takes a ring out of his pocket, gets down on one knee, and proposes: not to a woman, not even to a man, but to a toddler. You can substitute “toddler” for “dog” or “mother” if you would rather. Do you still think Craig is a genuine guy?
Apart from the proposal being man to man, rather than man to toddler, the “Get Up” add is exactly the same. It proves nothing; the debate on gay marriage is still at square one: is it moral for a man to marry another man (or is it moral for a man to marry a toddler)?
The video concludes with firstly a famous political slogan from the Whitlam era (“It’s Time”) [my American readers can substitute Obama’s slogans about change], then secondly with a plea to “end marriage discrimination”. Said otherwise, the advertisement asserts that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage”. The problem is that “now is the time to legalize gay marriage” is nothing but a subjective opinion. If I were to present the rebuttal of “I disagree”, on what ground could the gay marriage advocate say that their opinion is right, but my opinion is wrong? By what objective moral standard can the gay marriage proponent prove that their position is correct? A subjective opinion is just that.
The ‘Get Up’ campaign slogan is “the overwhelming majority of Australians support full marriage equality and it is the right thing to do”. Why is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? By what objective standard is legalising gay marriage “the right thing to do”? The reason why you cannot think of an answer is because there is no answer. If God does not exist, then absolute morality cannot exist. If God does not exist, no one cannot prove that anything is moral or immoral; in fact morality cannot exist, period. But, proponents of gay marriage are already borrowing from and supressing the Christian worldview in asserting that morality exists.
“Helping other people is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising gay marriage is ‘the right thing to do’” is only your opinion. “Legalising adult to toddler marriage is ‘the wrong thing to do’” is only your opinion.
Only if the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself in the Bible is presupposed, can objective morality exist. Morality expresses the holy and righteous nature of God. Something is moral because it is in conformity to the character of God. Something is immoral because it is not in conformity to the character of God. God’s commands are in conformity to His character. So, according to God, is homosexuality moral or immoral?
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…” – Leviticus 20:13
“Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” – 1 Timothy 1:9-10
“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” – Mark 10:6-9
By God’s standard, the only objective standard, legalising gay marriage is not “the right thing to do”. Homosexuality is a sin. That is the objective truth.
(c) Jonathan Williams, Created December 2011, Updated April 2012.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Christian View on Homosexuality: Part 1 – A Biblical Introduction
This week, I plan to release three blog posts dealing with the issue of homosexuality; specifically in regards to so called ‘same-sex marriage’. I will begin by noting that God defines marriage, and He defined is as being between one man and one woman.
In today’s first instalment, I will briefly outline the biblical perspective on homosexuality. In tomorrow’s second instalment, I will release an article that I wrote to refute a pro same-sex marriage television advertisement. Then later this week, I will release a more comprehensive essay that deals with the subject in relation to how Christians can engage politically on this issue, and refute the common objections to the Biblical position on marriage.
The Bible on Gay Marriage:
God instituted marriage at creation to be between one man and one woman:
Genesis 1:26-28 “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”
God commands marriage to be between one man and one woman:
Matthew 19:4-6 “And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Homosexuality is sin; it is an abomination:
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those tho lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act;…”
Romans 1:24-28 “Therefore God gave them over tin the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonoured among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural and in the same way also the abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, me with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their sin. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:9-10 “realising the fact that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men, and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”
Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (C.f. Genesis 19:5)
Governing authorities are required to illegalise same-sex marriage:
Governments are instituted by God “for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14). Same-sex marriage is a final hallmark of a sinful nation; God destroyed the exceedingly sinful (Genesis 18:20) Sodom over homosexuality (Genesis 19:5, Jude 7). God commands Governments to restrain sin (1 Peter 2:13-14); in functioning to restrain/punish sin and maintain good order in society (Romans 13:1-4), Governments are to oppose and punish homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27).
Marriage is a creation institution common to both believers and unbelievers – providing a foundation for the continuation and development of society. The ability to have children is intrinsic to marriage (Genesis 1:28). Children are born through a mother and a father. If two men are two women are allowed to marry, that would mean that a child does not need both a mother and a father. Children can only be produced by one man and one woman; children need both a mother and a father (Genesis 2:24). So called same-sex marriages by definition cannot biologically produce children, so cannot be called marriages.
Societies consist of families; families are the building blocks of societies. This has been God’s framework since creation (Genesis 2:24). A society cannot continue or survive without a future generation. To have a future generation is only possible through the reproductive acts of a father and a mother. If procreation is abstracted from marriage, the private and public context for parental responsibility, societal order and the intrinsic responsibility for a biological father to care for his children are removed. Governments must regulate marriage as being between one man and one woman to protect the very foundation of society.
Conclusion:
According to God, marriage is the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. If you define marriage as anything else, you must appeal a standard. By what standard ought marriage by defined by? If marriage is not defined by God, it cannot be defined at all. If governing authorities are not permitted to illegalise so called same sex marriage, then by what standard are they permitted to illegalise incestuous marriage? As Christians, we must begin with God – the very foundation of morality. This point will be demonstrated in our second instalment.
©Jonathan Williams, April 2012.
Monday, March 5, 2012
How Abortion Necessitates Infanticide and Genocide
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER: The content of the following essay may disturb some readers. The author does not take any responsibility for any negative side effects that may result from reading this article. This article is absolutely not suitable for children.
The Plot of an Upcoming Movie:
After finishing another long day of work, Jack was casually picking his five year old daughter Kim up from school, when he suddenly received a phone call from the hospital informing him that his wife Nina had gone into labour. Jack’s heart skipped a beat as he aggressively threw his car left towards the hospital. Bouncing on her seat, Kim couldn’t contain her excitement that she’ll finally get to meet her new baby brother.
Forgetting to lock his car, Jack raced to the reception desk. Without taking a breath he demanded directions to Nina’s room. Jack couldn’t keep up with a Kim so excited to be about to see her brother. A smiling Kim approached the room with her arms already outstretched to hug her mother.
Suddenly there was a gunshot. Jack rushed into the room to ensure the safety of his wife, daughter and newborn son. He entered just in time to see Kim collapse to the ground in tears to hide herself from the horror that had just unfolded before her eyes – Kim had just watched the doctor shoot her newborn brother at her mother’s wish.
Nina then remarked to Kim, “That parasite you saw get shot was not a person – you are just a fanatic who needs to come to your senses and accept this value. That thing was not capable of attributing to its own existence, and the deprivation of its existence represents no loss. This is widely accepted – the problem is that you are an intolerant fanatic.”
The Issues Being Debated:
It disturbed me to type those paragraphs. You will be glad to know that the inhumane plot outlined above is not the plot of any real movie. The situation is worse: that is the plot for reality. This is the situation that we are facing today. Last week, the Telegraph reported that a group of ethicists had published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” that advocated the killing of newborn babies from the precedent of abortion. The article can be read here:
I will never conceal my repulsion at the unjustified taking of any human life: this includes abortion and infanticide. Two of my previous works on abortion can be read here and here. In this essay, I will attempt to prove:
(a) In agreement with the medical journal, the legitimacy of the argument that a legalisation of abortion logically necessitates a legalisation of infanticide (b) In opposition to the medical journal, the immorality of both abortion and infanticide. If the premise of the medical journal is correct, then to support abortion is to support the inhumane plot scenario that I outlined above.
The Analysis:
(a) The Argument:
The title of the Telegraph article accurately describes the argument “Killing babies no different from abortion.” I wholeheartedly agree with the premise. The argument presented in the journal is that “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is” as “both foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.”
(b) Not Actual Persons:
To quote the Telegraph, the Journal of Medical Ethics asserts that “newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life’”. I will address the issue of absolute morality later in this essay.
My concern at the moment is the notion that newborn babies are not actual persons. My first question to the advocate of such a position is “At what time in the life cycle do we classify a person as a person?” If their answer in any way rejects personhood from conception, the abortion advocate must violate the law of biogenesis: that life cannot come from non-life whereby each living thing reproduces according to its own kind. If human life does not begin at conception, human life cannot scientifically begin at all. It will benefit you to keep this in mind as you continue to read.
The Journal stated “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” What properties do infants and foetus’ ‘both lack’ to disqualify them from the ‘attribution of a right to life’? They answered by saying “rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’ … ‘Both a foetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’”.
There is a glaring contradiction in that statement: how is a human being not an actual person, or how can a human being be a potential person in light of the law of biogenesis? Humans are either human or they are not. Moreover, how does a human being not have a moral right to life? Here the burden of proof rests on my opponent to justify the killing of a human being. If they cannot, that is to concede in admitting their advocacy of murder.
The journal answered such questions by saying that newborns, like foetus’ only become “‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’” at “the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.” This answer is fallacious, as the ability to make decisions does not alter the constitution of the human being.
The journal defined a person as “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Brain activity and breathing do attribute value to one’s own existence. If a newborn (or foetus) did not breathe and their brain was inactive, their body would not function. It is absurd to say “the loss of this life does not represent a loss”, as the fact that an action must occur to end a life presupposes that there is a life to lose, which continuation of is partially dependant on that individual. If the foetus did not attribute to their own existence at all, the abortion would not do anything. This is in opposition to the Journal’s assertion that infanticide should be legal because “for a subject to have a right to X is that she is harmed by a decision to deprive her of X.”
Another attempt to defend the statement that newborns like foetuses are not actual people was that a condition of being an actual person is that “she is harmed if she is prevented from accomplishing her aims by being killed. Now, hardly can a newborn be said to have aims, as the future we imagine for it is merely a projection of our minds on its potential lives.” I have already pointed out that such reasoning is fallacious because the ability to make decisions does not alter the constitution of the human being. That there is purposed brain activity and development in a newborn/foetus runs contrary to the assertion that newborns do not have aims, as without such purposed bodily functions, the newborn/foetus would not be alive.
A further argument raised to defend the notion that “merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life was that “many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, foetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”
Firstly, that statement contains numerous unproven assumptions; most notably that embryos and foetuses do not have such a right to life. Secondly, the inclusion of criminals subject to capital punishment is in contradiction to the Journal’s definition of person, as the Journal defined a person as a human being who is “able to make aims and appreciate their own life”, in virtue of which they have a right to life. This is further proof that the legalisation of abortion not only logically necessitates the legalisation of infanticide, but it logically necessitates the legalisation of the killing of adults also. Thirdly, those who commit capital crimes do not lose their right to life in virtue of their humanity; they lose it in virtue of the crime they committed.
Such problems are compounded by statements such as “the different moral status does not spring from the fact that the first one is a ‘person’ and the other is not, which would be nonsense, given that they are identical.” How would such a definition take the right of life away from a person who has committed a capital crime? It cannot, because the DNA constitution of the person on death row is not altered by their crime – people do not cease to be human after they commit a capital crime. By extension, how can there be a different moral status for a foetus, a newborn or an adult? The essential humanity of the child must be rejected to support such a statement, in opposition to the law of biogenesis.
Such truths render most arguments presented meaningless. For example, it was argued that “‘if a potential person, like a foetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were foetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist (the ‘us’ whom you are asking the question), which means no one. And if no one is harmed, then no harm occurred.”
A foetus, like a newborn is a person. Regardless, it does not logically follow that the fact that a foetus does not grow up, means that “no harm occurred” – even by the articles own admission, there was the taking of a life. If there was no harm done at all, then the foetus/newborn would not be impacted by being killed. The argument collapses on such internal contradictions, the absence of a change in the constitution of the person, and the interrelated fact that babies are actual persons.
The Journal states “On these grounds, the fact that a foetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” If you are going to extend the validity of abortion to where a person is mostly dependant on others, then five year olds would not have the right to life either. How many people do not depend on another person at all to survive? The poor depend on the money provided by the rich to survive. The middle class depend on the employment provided by the rich to survive. Such an argument leads to worldwide genocide.
The point raised in the journal that if a foetus is not a person in virtue of dependency on others, then a newborn cannot be a person either is valid as far as it goes. However, as shown above, the logic goes much further, to also include everyone from toddlers to middle class adults. Where the Journal asserted that “merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” they are wrong to call any human being a potential person unless they apply the term potential person to any person dependent on another. But such a redefinition would render ‘potential person’ and ‘actual person’ as synonyms, and therein collapse their argument and conclusion.
The Journal did attempt to defend itself against one counter argument. I quote, “This does not mean that the interests of actual people always over-ride any right of future generations, as we should certainly consider the well-being of people who will inhabit the planet in the future.” To begin, I will point out that the argument equivocates between discussing an individual as an individual, and discussing an individual as just one of humanity. If people are viewed individually, and everyone chose to abort their children, there would be no future generations. Future generations consist of individuals. As specific foetuses/newborns will constitute humanity in the future, they have failed to provide a rebuttal (to a low priority and peripheral objection).
They continued, “We are talking about particular individuals who might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice, and not about those who will certainly exist in the future but whose identity does not depend on what we choose now.” If every individual was aborted, how can there be certainly that there will be future generations? Some specific foetuses must certainly exist in the future for there to be any future generations.
Lastly, the writers of the Journal prepared themselves for the objection that adoption is a viable alternative. The Journal said, “We also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.” In light of the previous statements, the Journal cannot make this counter argument.
The Journal stated elsewhere that “a foetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. So, if you ask one of us if we would have been harmed, had our parents decided to kill us when we were foetuses or newborns, our answer is ‘no’, because they would have harmed someone who does not exist.”
According to the Journal, the mother never had a child to be distressed over giving up, as “a foetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person”. By the standards of the article, the mother only ever knew her child as a potential person – never as an actual person. Weather the child was killed by infanticide or adopted, the mother would have lost only a potential person. By the logic of the proponents of infanticide, as the newborn is only a potential person, the mother is grieving over loosing nothing. The Journal failed to evidence that infanticide is better than adoption is any case, as in both scenarios the mother is only losing a potential person (by the Journal’s standards).
Also, that the mother might experience psychological distress does not speak to the morality of the issue. Having an out of control teenager can also cause psychological distress to a mother, yet the solution is not to kill your teenaged children.
(c) The Real Issue:
The lead of the article states “Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion.”
From the onset, we are faced with the crucial question: by what standard is something ‘morally irrelevant’? Until that question can be answered objectively and without begging the question, all that can be offered is opinion – no moral absolute is possible. If I said ‘the life of my fifteen year old daughter is morally irrelevant and I should be allowed to have her killed’, on what objective basis could you disagree with my subjective opinion? Why is your subjective opinion valid while mine is not? Or am I allowed to kill her, as after all she depends on me for food, water (to survive)?
The problem is that “parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are ‘morally irrelevant’” is nothing but a subjective opinion. If I were to present the rebuttal of “I disagree”, on what ground could the infanticide/abortion advocate say that their opinion is right, but my opinion is wrong? By what objective moral standard can the infanticide/abortion proponent prove that their position is correct? A subjective opinion is just that. By what objective standard should parents be allowed to have their newborn babies killed? The reason why you cannot think of an answer is because there is no answer. If God does not exist, then absolute morality cannot exist. If God does not exist, no one can prove that anything is moral or immoral; morality cannot exist, period.
Only if the God of Christianity who has revealed Himself in the Bible is presupposed, can objective morality exist. Morality expresses the holy and righteous nature of God. Something is moral because it is in conformity to the character of God. Something is immoral because it is not in conformity to the character of God. God’s commands are in conformity to His character. So, according to God, are abortion and infanticide moral or immoral?
A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God has revealed that abortion and infanticide are acts of murder. By God’s standard, the only objective standard, abortion is murder. That is the objective truth.
(d) The Other Arguments Considered:
The journal stated a few other immoral arguments, which I will briefly refute. As you read the arguments, note how all the arguments are in the structure of “this situation might occur, therefore X is should be legal”. None of the arguments provide a moral justification for the killing (action) itself.
(i) “Parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.”
The disability is a constant, regardless of age. This is an argument that anyone has the right to kill any disabled person who is dependent on them.
(ii) “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human foetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.”
The condition will not only be present as a foetus and as a newborn. The condition is a constant. Therefore, if this argument for abortion is valid, it would not only be an argument for infanticide, it would be an argument to legalise the killing of any person with such conditions, regardless of age. It would provide a basis to kill many thirty year olds.
(iii) “A disabled child would represent a risk to her mental health.”
A disabled sixteen year old child would also represent a risk to the mother’s mental health. If this is a reason why infanticide should be legalised, it is also a reason why it should be legal for the parent to kill their sixteen year old child with the corresponding condition.
(iv) “Having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children.”
Having a newborn child can be a burden for the psychological health of the woman or for already existing children. But, having an out of control teenager can also be a burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her other children. If the ‘burden argument’ is a reason why abortion should be legal, it does follow that it is logically also a reason why infanticide should be legal: but, if such is a reason why abortion should be legal, it is also a reason why it should be legal for a parent to kill their psychologically challenging teenagers.
(v) “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
How do you know that the person will be a burden in every way? I know many teenagers who are burdens on their family and will probably be burdens on the state too; would you recommend a similar solution? Why does every benefit have to be financial – how many parents have children because they think they will financially profit from them? Here is a newsflash: having children will cost you both time and money. Should we apply this solution to everyone who is am economic burden for the state?
(vi) “Actual people’s well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of.”
A person’s well-being could be threatened by any of their children, regardless of age. Why shouldn’t you kill your fourteen year old son, and keep your newborn baby instead? Both of them require energy, money and care - which after all, are ‘in short supply’. This argument also provides a justification for killing any dependent, regardless of their age.
(vii) “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the foetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
If social, psychological and economic factors justify abortion, it does follow that they would also justify infanticide. But, as I have continually demonstrated above, there are likewise such benefits to not having any children. If these arguments justify abortion, they must logically also justify not only infanticide – but the killing of any child.
(viii) “If economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”
Economic, social and psychological circumstances can make taking care of newborn offspring burdensome, but they can also make taking care of teenaged offspring burdensome. If these are valid arguments for abortion and infanticide, they must also be arguments to allow such parents to kill their teenaged offspring.
(ix) Prof. Savulescu of Oxford University said, “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Why are widely accepted premises right? Many decades ago, that abortion is murder was a ‘widely accepted premise’, does Savulescu accept this premise? The validity of racism, the morality of slavery, and that the earth is the centre of the universe were all ‘widely accepted premises’ in the past. Does Savulescu accept these premises, and the exact opposite premises to each of these in virtue of that they were/are ‘widely accepted’? Otherwise, by what standard does he know that the premises against the humanity of the foetus are valid?
(e) A Dose of Irony:
The Telegraph commented that “The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
I am not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands or send death threats. However, there is a hypocritical irony in complaining about receiving death threats for advocating infanticide (murder), when murder is precisely what the authors are promoting in statements such as “killing a newborn should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is”.
(f) Final Remarks:
The Medical Journal titled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”, as “there was no difference to abortion as already practised” because “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a foetus”.
To that conclusion I wholeheartedly agree: if abortion should be legal, infanticide should be legal too. But, that only answers an ’if, then’ in relation to the pro-abortion arguments: it does not answer if the situation should be ‘because abortion, therefore infanticide’ or ‘because not infanticide, therefore not abortion’. The basic limitations of the paper are that it does not prove that the pro-abortion arguments are valid to make the logical positive inference that the legalisation of abortion necessitates the legalisation of infanticide, and it does not answer the morality of the issue. To answer the legitimacy of the inference and the morality of the issue, we must search God’s word.
The inference that “ending newborns lives is no different to abortion” is correct. But it does not go far enough. Unjustifiably ending the life of a newborn is no more murder than unjustifiably ending the life of not just a foetus, but any person regardless of situation or age. This is because all people are in the image of God from conception. The command not to murder is grounded in the fact that all people are made in God’s image (Genesis 9:6). Infanticide is murder just as much as abortion is and just as much as shooting another person is. God commands us not to murder (Exodus 20:13).
(g) First Things Last:
I began this essay with a rather disturbing overview of a hypothetical movie. If you were repulsed by the storyline, yet advocate abortion and/or infanticide, you are being inconsistent even by the standards of those who advocate abortion and infanticide. If you viewed the shooting of the newborn as immoral, you must logically oppose both infanticide and abortion. Would it be immoral for the doctor to shoot Kim too? If you think that shooting would be immoral, you must logically also oppose abortion and infanticide.
But, according to liberals, if you were repulsed by the storyline, then you like Kim, are a fanatic who needs to come to your senses and accept that there was nothing wrong with the mothers or the doctors actions. According to liberals, murder is not murder. According to God, human life is valuable.
© Jonathan Williams, March 2012.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Abortion: The Second Holocaust
On Sunday, I received the following question: “In the 180 Movie, Ray Comfort compared abortion to the Holocaust. Is this a right comparison? Did Ray Comfort say anything wrong? What did you think of his gospel presentation?”
In case any of my readers are unfamiliar with the documentary, Ray Comfort walked the streets asking people their opinion on abortion before proving that their “pro-choice” potion is internally inconstant and grotesque. The video has since amassed over 420000 YouTube videos worldwide.
The query above includes three rather broad questions, so will best be addressed by overviewing the entire video. A few things to remember are (1) the video only showed scenes from each conversation (2) the purpose of the video is political: to combat abortion (3) Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen. No matter how much you know, you can always say things better if given even just 10 seconds to think.
1) Is it accurate to compare abortion to the Holocaust:
The video begun with host, Ray Comfort, randomly asking numerous American citizens what they knew about Adolf Hitler; the man responsible for killing over 6 million Jews during World War 2. Most interviewees had never heard of Hitler, some knew he was a world leader, while only a small minority knew of his atrocities. Conversely, German children are specifically taught about Hitler and his crimes to safeguard against another Holocaust. Comfort said, “Those who forget history, are destined to repeat it”. Adolf Hitler said “He alone who own the youth, gains the future”.
In case any of my readers are unfamiliar with the documentary, Ray Comfort walked the streets asking people their opinion on abortion before proving that their “pro-choice” potion is internally inconstant and grotesque. The video has since amassed over 420000 YouTube videos worldwide.
The query above includes three rather broad questions, so will best be addressed by overviewing the entire video. A few things to remember are (1) the video only showed scenes from each conversation (2) the purpose of the video is political: to combat abortion (3) Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen. No matter how much you know, you can always say things better if given even just 10 seconds to think.
1) Is it accurate to compare abortion to the Holocaust:
The video begun with host, Ray Comfort, randomly asking numerous American citizens what they knew about Adolf Hitler; the man responsible for killing over 6 million Jews during World War 2. Most interviewees had never heard of Hitler, some knew he was a world leader, while only a small minority knew of his atrocities. Conversely, German children are specifically taught about Hitler and his crimes to safeguard against another Holocaust. Comfort said, “Those who forget history, are destined to repeat it”. Adolf Hitler said “He alone who own the youth, gains the future”.
Hitler deceived the German people into believing that “the Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being in the image of God”. Similarly, abortion advocates have deceived people into believing that babies “are not human”. If babies are human, then abortion is murder, period. The Jews are people, therefore killing Jews is murder. Babies are human, therefore killing babies is murder. If life starts at conception, then the comparison is 100% correct. This is the point Comfort conveyed, which I will explain below.
2) Supporting the Premise:
2) Supporting the Premise:
Ray Comfort then asked those he interviewed the following question, from which the discussions continued. “Its 1943, A German officer is pointing a machine gun at you, and tells you to get in a bulldozer and drive it forward. In front of you there is a big pit. Hundreds of Jewish families have been shot. In the pit many of them are dead but some of them are still alive. Hitler tells you to bury them alive. You know if you say ‘no’ he will shoot you with his machine gun and someone else is going to do it [kill the Jews}. Would you do what he says? If you do what he says, he will let you live”.
I decided to evaluate six respondents one by one. Many more respondents changed their view on abortion to become pro-life, including some who’d personally had abortions or initially said unequivocally “I’m for abortion”. Admittedly, a small minority of people remained pro-abortion.
Respondent 1: In response to the above question, she answered “No – I would rather die not doing that”. From an anti-abortion position, how inconsistent would it then be for this person to believe that a baby should be aborted to save the life of the mother? It would equate to saying “I would hate to die having killed a complete stranger, but it would not bother me if I died knowing that I had killed my own child”. That this is the absurd logical conclusion of her response is confirmed in that she agreed that a baby is a baby in the womb.
This girl later affirmed belief in the existence of God. When asked why she would ‘advocate murder of a child in the womb, if God says do not murder’ (6th commandment) she replied that “abortion should be allowed (women’s choice) though I personally wouldn’t do it”. Comfort pointed out that this equates to saying I would not personally kill Jews but other people should be allowed to do it if they want to. To put it bluntly and from a Christian standpoint, she believes that other people should be allowed to get away with disobeying God. That will not be the story on the day of judgement.
Respondent 2: The most interesting respondent was a young blond wearing sunglasses. She answered the original question, which I will henceforth refer to as the “bulldozer predicament” by saying “I would only (drive the bulldozer) because of fear for my own life, feeling I had no other choice… what can one person do…everyone needed to rise up against him. Where was the world?” Firstly, does the fact that everyone else does something mean it is the right thing to do? That is an ad populum fallacy. Her action or lack thereof against Hitler is not a legitimate argument either way. Needless to say, she clearly admitted that driving the bulldozer would be wrong.
I decided to evaluate six respondents one by one. Many more respondents changed their view on abortion to become pro-life, including some who’d personally had abortions or initially said unequivocally “I’m for abortion”. Admittedly, a small minority of people remained pro-abortion.
Respondent 1: In response to the above question, she answered “No – I would rather die not doing that”. From an anti-abortion position, how inconsistent would it then be for this person to believe that a baby should be aborted to save the life of the mother? It would equate to saying “I would hate to die having killed a complete stranger, but it would not bother me if I died knowing that I had killed my own child”. That this is the absurd logical conclusion of her response is confirmed in that she agreed that a baby is a baby in the womb.
This girl later affirmed belief in the existence of God. When asked why she would ‘advocate murder of a child in the womb, if God says do not murder’ (6th commandment) she replied that “abortion should be allowed (women’s choice) though I personally wouldn’t do it”. Comfort pointed out that this equates to saying I would not personally kill Jews but other people should be allowed to do it if they want to. To put it bluntly and from a Christian standpoint, she believes that other people should be allowed to get away with disobeying God. That will not be the story on the day of judgement.
Respondent 2: The most interesting respondent was a young blond wearing sunglasses. She answered the original question, which I will henceforth refer to as the “bulldozer predicament” by saying “I would only (drive the bulldozer) because of fear for my own life, feeling I had no other choice… what can one person do…everyone needed to rise up against him. Where was the world?” Firstly, does the fact that everyone else does something mean it is the right thing to do? That is an ad populum fallacy. Her action or lack thereof against Hitler is not a legitimate argument either way. Needless to say, she clearly admitted that driving the bulldozer would be wrong.
In repose to Comfort asking “Do you value human life”, she replied “I do value human life”, but then modified her answer to include the clause “it is a women’s right to choose”. Logically, this would mean that Hitler also had the right to choose. Comfort responded “Just as you felt strongly about the life of Jews and that we need to rise up as one person and speak against it, don’t you think we need to do the same thing when it comes to abortion.” She acknowledged this “parallel” to be “a valid point.”
Comfort continued by asking “do you think it’s a baby in womb?”, to which she responded “yes”. Next Comfort asked “what justification is there for killing a baby in the womb – can you think of one?” She could not “Um… for killing baby in the womb” **long pause** “Everyone’s situation is d…” She intended to say different, but Comfort interjected to ask “Give me a situation where it is justifiable… you can kill a baby because of…”. To this, she replied honestly “You know what - I can’t think of one.” From here she was convinced, she responded to his final question on abortion “Do you think you will vote and think differently” by saying “Yeah I definitely will. I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference”. She changed her stance on abortion from the mother can always choose, to abortion is a murderous Holocaust that should be actively opposed.
Comfort continued by asking “do you think it’s a baby in womb?”, to which she responded “yes”. Next Comfort asked “what justification is there for killing a baby in the womb – can you think of one?” She could not “Um… for killing baby in the womb” **long pause** “Everyone’s situation is d…” She intended to say different, but Comfort interjected to ask “Give me a situation where it is justifiable… you can kill a baby because of…”. To this, she replied honestly “You know what - I can’t think of one.” From here she was convinced, she responded to his final question on abortion “Do you think you will vote and think differently” by saying “Yeah I definitely will. I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference”. She changed her stance on abortion from the mother can always choose, to abortion is a murderous Holocaust that should be actively opposed.
Just as Hitler convinced the German people that Jews were not human, so too have politicians convinced the populous that foetus’ are not human. Comfort convinced the respondent, we need to proclaim that abortion is wrong and educate people that and why abortion is wrong. This is precisely what Germany is continuing to do regarding the Holocaust.
Respondent 3: This respondent was a female in her thirties. She answered “I’d do it” to the bulldozer predicament; of abortion she said that “I think in some situations it can be necessary”. However, she then admitted the humanity of the child in the womb, and when Comfort asked her to “Finish this sentence for me… killing a baby in the womb is okay when”, she replied “never”. She was convinced, shown by her answering “Would you ever vote for anyone who is for the killing of children in the womb?” with a resounding no, and “Changed you mind about abortion?” with a resounding yes.
Respondent 4: This respondent was a man, likely in his twenties. He answered the bulldozer predicament with an unequivocal ‘no’. However, this respondent then gave an unusual answer as to whether abortion is wrong: he agreed that it is “not okay to kill child in womb”, but then said the mother has the right to abort her baby.
Respondent 3: This respondent was a female in her thirties. She answered “I’d do it” to the bulldozer predicament; of abortion she said that “I think in some situations it can be necessary”. However, she then admitted the humanity of the child in the womb, and when Comfort asked her to “Finish this sentence for me… killing a baby in the womb is okay when”, she replied “never”. She was convinced, shown by her answering “Would you ever vote for anyone who is for the killing of children in the womb?” with a resounding no, and “Changed you mind about abortion?” with a resounding yes.
Respondent 4: This respondent was a man, likely in his twenties. He answered the bulldozer predicament with an unequivocal ‘no’. However, this respondent then gave an unusual answer as to whether abortion is wrong: he agreed that it is “not okay to kill child in womb”, but then said the mother has the right to abort her baby.
Comfort pointed out that this response equated to saying “What Hitler did was wrong. I think it’s his choice. I don’t think it is okay, but he did it. It was his choice to do so. He had the sanction of German people because they allowed him in. It was okay even though I don’t agree with it.” The respondent recognised that “Me saying that it is okay for someone to choose is the same thing as saying it is okay for Hitler to choose”. He changed his mind on abortion, to embrace pro-life.
Respondent 5: He answered “no” to the bulldozer predicament, then said of abortion it is “better to have a plan and give it thought” before undergoing an abortion. Comfort correctly pointed out that this equates to saying “Before you bury Jews, give thought, then you can bury them alive”. He accepted the legitimacy of this comparison, and became pro-life.
Respondent 6: This Asian lady, firstly stated her belief that “there is a foetus there not a baby”, but confessed that she did not know “when a foetus becomes a life.” Comfort then responded by way of analogy “I am a construction worker, I am going to blow up that building. There is a possibility that there is someone in there but I am going to blow it up anyway.” After a pause, she responded that abortion should happen if the baby would be born with birth defects, and therefore a low quality of life. To this, he asked her if it was okay that the Nazis killed kids with downs syndrome. She responded ‘no’, in acknowledgement that the analogies were both correct, and said that abortion was ‘never’ acceptable.
3) Where Comfort went wrong:
I remarked in my introduction that “Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen”. There were certainly occasions where he could have improved his phraseology or given a better response altogether, but overall he did a great job in applying the law of contradiction to abortion. However, while acknowledging that abortion was the topic of discussion, he needed to provide the biblical framework to tell exactly why abortion is wrong.
Respondent 5: He answered “no” to the bulldozer predicament, then said of abortion it is “better to have a plan and give it thought” before undergoing an abortion. Comfort correctly pointed out that this equates to saying “Before you bury Jews, give thought, then you can bury them alive”. He accepted the legitimacy of this comparison, and became pro-life.
Respondent 6: This Asian lady, firstly stated her belief that “there is a foetus there not a baby”, but confessed that she did not know “when a foetus becomes a life.” Comfort then responded by way of analogy “I am a construction worker, I am going to blow up that building. There is a possibility that there is someone in there but I am going to blow it up anyway.” After a pause, she responded that abortion should happen if the baby would be born with birth defects, and therefore a low quality of life. To this, he asked her if it was okay that the Nazis killed kids with downs syndrome. She responded ‘no’, in acknowledgement that the analogies were both correct, and said that abortion was ‘never’ acceptable.
3) Where Comfort went wrong:
I remarked in my introduction that “Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen”. There were certainly occasions where he could have improved his phraseology or given a better response altogether, but overall he did a great job in applying the law of contradiction to abortion. However, while acknowledging that abortion was the topic of discussion, he needed to provide the biblical framework to tell exactly why abortion is wrong.
Abortion is not wrong because it can be legitimately compared to the Holocaust. Abortion is not wrong because it violates the law of non-contradiction. Abortion is not wrong because the pro-choice position is purely subjective. Don’t get me wrong, to condemn the Holocaust yet support abortion is contradictory, and the pro-choice position is purely subjective and therein contradictory; these are all valid arguments, but they are not the Biblical framework as to why abortion is sinful.
Abortion is sinful because people are from conception humans made in the image of God who commands that people are not to be murdered. Abortion is wrong because it transgresses the law of God, which expresses His holy and righteous character and standard. This is where Ray Comfort needed to begin: Christian morality does not start with “the Holocaust was wrong”; it starts with God as the standard of morality.
Ray Comfort convinced people that abortion is immoral and contradictory according to logic and their subjective standards. However, he failed to Biblically communicate why abortion is wrong, what standard abortion is wrong against, or show people how they are suppressing the truth of God by accepting morality but rejecting the necessary precondition for morality (God). The Bible was sometimes used as secondary. He would have swept the floor in a political debate, but would have been deducted marks in a theological essay.
Charles Spurgeon once said “Morality may keep you out of jail, but it takes the blood of Jesus Christ to keep you out of hell.” Comfort appealed to the morality and rationale of the respondents, when God’s standard should have been his starting point. This is evidenced by the nature of the responses of those who became pro-life, of which I will give two examples:
“I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference.” She saw abortion to be wrong because she in her conscience was convinced that the Holocaust was wrong. She changed her mind due to logic, not conviction of sin. “Me saying that it is okay for someone to choose is the same thing as saying it is okay for Hitler to choose”. This man saw abortion to be wrong because he saw it illogical to be against the Holocaust yet for abortion. The answer lacks a Biblical framework as to why either of them are wrong; the guy got educated on logic, not sin.
“I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference.” She saw abortion to be wrong because she in her conscience was convinced that the Holocaust was wrong. She changed her mind due to logic, not conviction of sin. “Me saying that it is okay for someone to choose is the same thing as saying it is okay for Hitler to choose”. This man saw abortion to be wrong because he saw it illogical to be against the Holocaust yet for abortion. The answer lacks a Biblical framework as to why either of them are wrong; the guy got educated on logic, not sin.
I remarked earlier that “If life starts at conception, then the comparison is 100% correct.” The comparison is 100% correct, but that the comparison is correct does not make either abortion or the Holocaust right or wrong. They are both wrong because murder is lack of conformity to the character of God. What would Comfort have said to someone who supported the Holocaust?
While recognising that the focus of the video was to raise political awareness that abortion is murder, a Christian in bringing every thought captive to Christ, should make God, not logic the final arbiter of truth. Ray Comfort separated morality from the foundation of morality.
Ray said that “As we spoke about abortion it often lead to the issue of morals.” The issue of morals should have been where Ray started, not where he ended up; abortion should have been the example he used within this framework, not the framework itself. He could make logical points, but a logically constructed tower without a foundation cannot stand. He needed to prove that (1) life starts at conception (2) babies are human (3) murder, therefore abortion is wrong (4) because God is the standard of morality, not because of a common belief that the Holocaust was an atrocity.
Ray said that “As we spoke about abortion it often lead to the issue of morals.” The issue of morals should have been where Ray started, not where he ended up; abortion should have been the example he used within this framework, not the framework itself. He could make logical points, but a logically constructed tower without a foundation cannot stand. He needed to prove that (1) life starts at conception (2) babies are human (3) murder, therefore abortion is wrong (4) because God is the standard of morality, not because of a common belief that the Holocaust was an atrocity.
4) What about his gospel presentation:
I noted earlier that Ray convinced people that abortion is wrong, yet did not convince them it is sin against God. I explained that the former is not the launching pad to the later, but an example to be used when proclaiming the later.
That they believed in morality, yet suppressed the source of morality is most clearly shown by how they responded when Ray Comfort finally explored why abortion is wrong. The respondent wanted to feel as if they were doing the right thing, yet did not want accountability to God. They saw themselves as good people getting better, not as sinners under the wrath of God.
Comfort asked one person “Do you believe God exists”, he answered with a dual denial of the existence of God and any sort of afterlife. Ray then asked a second question “If there is a heaven, do you think you’d get there. Are you a good person”, to which he responded “Yeah, I’m a good person.” This person was a Holocaust denying Neo-Nazi.
A girl who changed her mind to oppose abortion said “Oh yeah – for sure [I would get to heaven] God wouldn’t be mad at me.” What? So you supported murder, yet God does not care? This is a textbook answer of a humanist who likes to think of themselves as moral and logical, while suppressing the foundation for morality in unrighteousness.
That they believed in morality, yet suppressed the source of morality is most clearly shown by how they responded when Ray Comfort finally explored why abortion is wrong. The respondent wanted to feel as if they were doing the right thing, yet did not want accountability to God. They saw themselves as good people getting better, not as sinners under the wrath of God.
Comfort asked one person “Do you believe God exists”, he answered with a dual denial of the existence of God and any sort of afterlife. Ray then asked a second question “If there is a heaven, do you think you’d get there. Are you a good person”, to which he responded “Yeah, I’m a good person.” This person was a Holocaust denying Neo-Nazi.
A girl who changed her mind to oppose abortion said “Oh yeah – for sure [I would get to heaven] God wouldn’t be mad at me.” What? So you supported murder, yet God does not care? This is a textbook answer of a humanist who likes to think of themselves as moral and logical, while suppressing the foundation for morality in unrighteousness.
Ray Comfort then correctly told many “You’re a self-admitted lying thief and blasphemous adulterer and you have to face God at judgement day and the thought of being morally responsible to him is abhorrent to him, so you deny his existence.” To most people, they admitted that they would go to hell if God judged according to His commandments, being confronted with the truth. Some of them admitted that the prospect of hell frightened them. But this is not faith.
When it came to the blond mentioned earlier (affectionately called respondent 2 by myself), Ray asked “Does it concern you if you died today and God gave you justice you’d end up in hell”, to which she replied “I think God’s a loving God… and he would see my heart”, to which Ray replied “He does and he sees a liar and adulterer and blasphemer at heart”. He then presented her with the gospel. She listened intently to the gospel message (unlike the others), and as with all the others, I pray that God uses 180 as the seed to grant her repentance.
When Ray presented the gospel message, he did a very good job, incorporating all the key elements of sin and salvation, Christ and Him crucified. My friends concern was regarding what he thought to be an Arminian slant in the gospel message.
Telling the unregenerate sinner to repent and believe is not Arminian. It is Biblical. If a Calvinist does not do this, they should certainly learn to. Telling the unregenerate sinner that if they repent and believe, they will be saved is also Biblical. You should give the imperative command, without making it an indicative that they can believe apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Also, Ray Comforts is not Arminian: he would never say “God is knocking at the door waiting for you to let Him into your heart.”
The only part of Ray’s gospel presentation that I disagree with is “Jesus stepped in and paid you fine on the cross.” Jesus may have paid for that persons sins on the cross, or he might not have. We do not know the elect from the reprobate. If Jesus died for those who will go to hell, then God would be punishing them for the exact sins that Christ paid for. That would make God unjust. The gospel is not who Jesus died for, it is what Jesus work accomplished - that Christ alone is sufficient for salvation. We should not proclaim “Jesus died for you” but (and expound of course) “If you have trust in Jesus Christ alone (Who He is, and what He did), you will be saved”.
The only part of Ray’s gospel presentation that I disagree with is “Jesus stepped in and paid you fine on the cross.” Jesus may have paid for that persons sins on the cross, or he might not have. We do not know the elect from the reprobate. If Jesus died for those who will go to hell, then God would be punishing them for the exact sins that Christ paid for. That would make God unjust. The gospel is not who Jesus died for, it is what Jesus work accomplished - that Christ alone is sufficient for salvation. We should not proclaim “Jesus died for you” but (and expound of course) “If you have trust in Jesus Christ alone (Who He is, and what He did), you will be saved”.
Ray also said “Not willing that any perish”, undoubtedly quoting 2 Peter 3:9. The verse certainly cannot mean that God decreed to save everyone, yet will not save some. It regards God’s perceptive will, that He wants everyone to obey His command to repent and believe (read John Calvin). I believe this is how Ray Comfort was using the verse.
My evaluation:
Everything Ray Comfort said about abortion was 100% correct. The comparison to the Holocaust, the subjectivity of pro-choice, that abortion is murder, that abortion transgresses the 6th commandment. His presentation would have been ever better if he started with God’s revelation of His standards.
In all, Ray Comfort has made a phenomenal documentary that will be of priceless benefit in combating abortion. We have already seen its effects in challenging and convincing many of pro-life, and many pro-lifers have found some helpful points in the video. I hope that the video helps create inroads politically, by influencing people to prioritise voting for pro-life candidates, and to lobby and campaign against abortion.
Everything Ray Comfort said about abortion was 100% correct. The comparison to the Holocaust, the subjectivity of pro-choice, that abortion is murder, that abortion transgresses the 6th commandment. His presentation would have been ever better if he started with God’s revelation of His standards.
In all, Ray Comfort has made a phenomenal documentary that will be of priceless benefit in combating abortion. We have already seen its effects in challenging and convincing many of pro-life, and many pro-lifers have found some helpful points in the video. I hope that the video helps create inroads politically, by influencing people to prioritise voting for pro-life candidates, and to lobby and campaign against abortion.
Conclusion:
After six weeks, a baby has eyes, hands and heartbeat. Over 53 million unborn babies have been killed in the Holocaust of abortion in the first 37 years after Roe vs. Wade in the USA alone.
A left wing politician once said to me “History will recognise our movement [pro-abortion] as the great battle for women’s liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mount Sinai. You are a tyrant who orders women to do the very things one doesn’t like [have a baby]”.
Change a few nouns and you have the actual quote “History will recognise our movement as the great battle for humanity’s liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mount Sinai. God is a tyrant who orders one to do the very things one doesn’t like”.
That was said by Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler hated the 10 commandments, he hated the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicted his political agenda to murder Jews. Abortion advocates hate the 10 commandments, they hate the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicts their political agenda to murder the unborn.
That was said by Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler hated the 10 commandments, he hated the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicted his political agenda to murder Jews. Abortion advocates hate the 10 commandments, they hate the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicts their political agenda to murder the unborn.
“Over 53 million human beings have been murdered in Americas holocaust, sanctioned by political leaders who have been put into power by American people. Never give your vote to any politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb”. Do not vote for Barrack Obama and others who support abortion. Let us vote them out of power, to ensure that out textbooks recognise abortion for what is it: a Holocaust against the unborn.
A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God condemns it!
As every single baby is a person made in God's image, what must God think of abortion and infanticide (Genesis 9:6)? God views abortion and infanticide as murder.
Do you support abortion and agree with Hitler’s actions during the Holocaust, or do you agree with God that the Holocaust was murder and Abortion is murder? There is no third option.
(C), Jonathan Wiliams, October 2011.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A Biblical, Philosophical and Scientific Refutation of Abortion and Infanticide
1. The Debate:
These topics have become controversial frontiers of political and religious debate in recent decades. Those labelled as pro-life are staunchly opposed to both and justify their position by appealing to the sanctity of human life. Conversely, those labelled as pro-choice are in favour of abortion and/or infanticide and justify their position by appealing to the women’s right to choose.
b) God condemns abortion too:
God made man in his own image (Genesis 1:26–27). Since God is the Creator of human life, all human beings belong to God; life can only be taken (1) by God Himself or (2) by man on God’s terms. Killing without jurisdiction from God is a violation of the special dignity vested in human beings by God himself (Genesis 4:8–16, Exodus 20:13). Every human life - from conception to natural death - is to be received as a gift from our sovereign Creator, so treated with reverence and respect, and not harmed without biblical justification.
Psalm 139 directly addresses the humanity of the unborn. In verse 13 David celebrates God's intricate involvement in his own foetal development: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” David also explicitly confessed that he was sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5); which testified that he and all other people are human from conception, as all of mankind fell in Adam (Romans 5:12-21).
God's judgment fell on those who killed the unborn. Elisha wept when he foresaw the crimes of the king of Syria, who would “kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12). Amos prophesied against the Ammonites because they “have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (Amos 1:13).
A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God condemns it!
As every single baby is a person made in God's image, what must God think of abortion and infanticide (Genesis 9:6)? God views abortion and infanticide as murder.
4. How should abortion and infanticide be punished?
As abortion is murder (Hebrew ratsakh: the unjustified taking of human life), it should be punished as murder. The biblical punishment for murder is capital, with a reckoning demanded from fellow men; “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9: 5-6). As the reason given, man is made in the image of God remains, and the verse predates the Mosaic Law judicial laws, the “that is no longer binding” argument is invalid.
5. Should this issue influence how I vote?
To that question I would reply with two rhetorical questions:
These topics have become controversial frontiers of political and religious debate in recent decades. Those labelled as pro-life are staunchly opposed to both and justify their position by appealing to the sanctity of human life. Conversely, those labelled as pro-choice are in favour of abortion and/or infanticide and justify their position by appealing to the women’s right to choose.
2. A Philosophical and Scientific Case:
Former Republican and U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said “I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” The pro-choice advocate must now answer this question: “Why is the right of the mother more important than the right of their child”? They must answer with an unequivocal denial of the humanity of the unborn child, or else declare their support for murder and genocide in order to be consistent. Why is it right to kill some people and not others?
As you can see demonstrated above, the debate essentially boils down to the question of “At what time in the life cycle do we classify a person as a person”? Firstly, it is an absurd contradiction to say “I want an abortion of this potential life inside of me”, as the fact that without an abortion there would be life presupposes that the foetus is alive! Otherwise, the abortion advocate must violate the law of biogenesis: that life cannot come from non-life whereby each living thing reproduces according to its own kind. If human life does not begin at conception, human life cannot scientifically begin, (moreover exist) at all!
3. A Biblical Case:
a) God condemns infanticide:
There are numerous examples in the Bible where God punishes those who commit infanticide. God's people were commanded not to imitate their neighbours who committed infanticide through child sacrifice. The law strictly instructed them to “not give any of your children to offer them to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21), prescribing the death penalty for violating this command (Leviticus 20:2–5).
Child sacrificing was also known during Solomon's reign (1 Kings 11:7). The brutal practice spread to Moab (2 Kings 3:27), Judah (2 Kings 16:3), and the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:17). Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel condemned the practice (Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20–21).
Former Republican and U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said “I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” The pro-choice advocate must now answer this question: “Why is the right of the mother more important than the right of their child”? They must answer with an unequivocal denial of the humanity of the unborn child, or else declare their support for murder and genocide in order to be consistent. Why is it right to kill some people and not others?
As you can see demonstrated above, the debate essentially boils down to the question of “At what time in the life cycle do we classify a person as a person”? Firstly, it is an absurd contradiction to say “I want an abortion of this potential life inside of me”, as the fact that without an abortion there would be life presupposes that the foetus is alive! Otherwise, the abortion advocate must violate the law of biogenesis: that life cannot come from non-life whereby each living thing reproduces according to its own kind. If human life does not begin at conception, human life cannot scientifically begin, (moreover exist) at all!
3. A Biblical Case:
a) God condemns infanticide:
There are numerous examples in the Bible where God punishes those who commit infanticide. God's people were commanded not to imitate their neighbours who committed infanticide through child sacrifice. The law strictly instructed them to “not give any of your children to offer them to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21), prescribing the death penalty for violating this command (Leviticus 20:2–5).
Child sacrificing was also known during Solomon's reign (1 Kings 11:7). The brutal practice spread to Moab (2 Kings 3:27), Judah (2 Kings 16:3), and the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:17). Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel condemned the practice (Isaiah 57:5; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20–21).
b) God condemns abortion too:
God made man in his own image (Genesis 1:26–27). Since God is the Creator of human life, all human beings belong to God; life can only be taken (1) by God Himself or (2) by man on God’s terms. Killing without jurisdiction from God is a violation of the special dignity vested in human beings by God himself (Genesis 4:8–16, Exodus 20:13). Every human life - from conception to natural death - is to be received as a gift from our sovereign Creator, so treated with reverence and respect, and not harmed without biblical justification.
Psalm 139 directly addresses the humanity of the unborn. In verse 13 David celebrates God's intricate involvement in his own foetal development: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” David also explicitly confessed that he was sinful from conception (Psalm 51:5); which testified that he and all other people are human from conception, as all of mankind fell in Adam (Romans 5:12-21).
God's judgment fell on those who killed the unborn. Elisha wept when he foresaw the crimes of the king of Syria, who would “kill their young men with the sword and dash in pieces their little ones and rip open their pregnant women” (2 Kings 8:12). Amos prophesied against the Ammonites because they “have ripped open pregnant women in Gilead, that they might enlarge their border” (Amos 1:13).
A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God condemns it!
As every single baby is a person made in God's image, what must God think of abortion and infanticide (Genesis 9:6)? God views abortion and infanticide as murder.
4. How should abortion and infanticide be punished?
As abortion is murder (Hebrew ratsakh: the unjustified taking of human life), it should be punished as murder. The biblical punishment for murder is capital, with a reckoning demanded from fellow men; “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Genesis 9: 5-6). As the reason given, man is made in the image of God remains, and the verse predates the Mosaic Law judicial laws, the “that is no longer binding” argument is invalid.
5. Should this issue influence how I vote?
To that question I would reply with two rhetorical questions:
1. Does prayer work?
2. Are we to pray for our Governments?
If you answer yes to both (as you should) then you have your answer (yes). If you pray for your government that they would govern according to God’s moral law, but do not vote according to God’s moral law, then you are voting against God’s perceptive will. You should vote for politicians according to the same standards you pray they rule by. Just as you should not pray “God, please legalise that which you detest”, you should not vote for those who are pro-abortion or pro any other form of murder.
The stance of a politician on abortion should strongly influence your voting. You should not vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion (e.g. Barrack Obama, Bob Brown), as to do so would be to vote pro-murder. God’s view of abortion/infanticide/murder should also be your view of abortion/infanticide/murder. You must live and vote according to this truth:
A baby is a person from conception. Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception. God condemns shedding the blood of a person in God's image. As every single baby is a person made in God's image, God detests abortion and infanticide. You should detest them too.
(C), J. Williams, September 2011.
2. Are we to pray for our Governments?
If you answer yes to both (as you should) then you have your answer (yes). If you pray for your government that they would govern according to God’s moral law, but do not vote according to God’s moral law, then you are voting against God’s perceptive will. You should vote for politicians according to the same standards you pray they rule by. Just as you should not pray “God, please legalise that which you detest”, you should not vote for those who are pro-abortion or pro any other form of murder.
The stance of a politician on abortion should strongly influence your voting. You should not vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion (e.g. Barrack Obama, Bob Brown), as to do so would be to vote pro-murder. God’s view of abortion/infanticide/murder should also be your view of abortion/infanticide/murder. You must live and vote according to this truth:
A baby is a person from conception. Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception. God condemns shedding the blood of a person in God's image. As every single baby is a person made in God's image, God detests abortion and infanticide. You should detest them too.
(C), J. Williams, September 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)