Abortion: Innocent Blood
Abortion..........................a word that genders more controversy, division, debate, emotion than practically any other word. Mention abortion and you see entire social structures shaken by varying views. Why all the heated and divisive rhetoric? I view the controversy as a type of cold Civil War. The North felt that all men should be free to decide their own destiny, the South felt that there should be restrictions on all slaves choices to do whatever they wanted. One school of thought concerning abortion is that a woman is the sovereign over her own body and that no laws should impede her civil rights to.............. CHOOSE. The other sociological view is that Gods law is sovereign, and that God considers abortion of the unborn child....................................... MURDER!
How do we define and reconcile such converse views? Abort is defined as: To check before fully developed, to cut short in flight. Abortion is defined as 'expulsion of a fetus before it is allowed to survive. If induced on purpose.' In layman's terms abortion means to purposefully kill a person before they are fully developed. Dr. Frances Schaffer says this (abortion) is the water shed issue of our time. We kill 1.8 million babies annually, with over 30 million babies killed to date.
BARC will answer the provocative questions that clear the smoke concerning the volatile subject of abortion.
1. What does the Bible say about abortion?
2. What are the boundaries of choice?
3. What are the genetic or biological facts concerning life?
4. Where do we go from here?
As men draw the lines condemning or supporting abortion, does God or the Bible say anything about abortion? Lets take a look.
Psalms 139:14-16 says that we are fearful and wonderfully made. Our frame was not hidden from God when we were being developed (from conception) intricately and and curiously wrought [as if embroidered with various colors].......your eyes saw my unformed substance before it took shape.
Jeremiah 1:5 says; Before I formed you in the womb, I knew and approved of you as my chosen instrument, and before you were born I separated you and set you apart.
Exodus 21:22 tells us that if a man interferes and causes a woman to lose her unborn child, it shall be paid back to him life for life.
First God informs us He made us and at conception He saw our frame, he intricately developed us, our substance produced from egg and sperm was before Gods eyes. Then God says He knew us as a person before he formed us in the womb, He had a purpose for us in His foreknowledge. He finally reveals that if this course of birth is interrupted or altered by abortion, He considers it taking a life.
If a man appealed to the voice of God in scripture he would conclude that abortion is against the will of God and the Bible.
What do we say to the person who does not subscribe to the Bible or has no biblical orientation? Should women have a choice about what they do to their own body? How do we reconcile instituting restrictions in a free society? Is there a warrant for legislators to authorize or restrict a woman's choice? Remember the movie 'A Time to Kill?' A classic case where a man had every socially justified reason to kill the rapist of his 12 year old daughter, but law and order insisted his arrest. Murder by any circumstance is wrong. The government does not have the authority to enact laws that deprive men of freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The government does not have the authority to secretly perform experiments of syphilis on American citizens.
The government does not have the authority to intern Japanese citizens because there was an attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither does the government have authority to sanction the murder of unborn babies! The Bible tells us to submit to the things of the government and the things that be of God! If God who is over every government and earthly King, President, Ruler, Chancellor, Prime Minister says that abortion is forbidden and is murder, then man must resist the government in those areas. All moral law must derive from the statues of a moral, loving and just God. So Supreme Courts can't intellectually and socially vote on issues that God said were eternally settled in the heavens. Therefore a woman can't decide to abort a child for specific reasons either. What if a woman is financially depressed, and unable to provide the desired quality of life for her baby, should she abort the child?
It is important to understand that the unborn baby is not a part of the woman's body. The baby has it's own body within the womb of the mothers body. Yes the baby obtains nutrients from the mother, but the child has its own brainwaves, heartbeat, and thoughts. Science has determined that babies have brainwave activity at one and a half months. Hence for her to have an abortion is not just an operation on her own body, but amounts to killing another human being whose body is within her.
We currently have doctors performing partial birth abortions as late as four months into development. We allow fetal tissue research that is government funded.
Never forget, we live in an age of enlightment, French Geneticist Jerome Le Jeune when testifying before Senate Subcommittee stated "We must accept the fact a human life begins at fertilization. It is not a matter of metaphysical contention, but plain experimental evidence."
Hymie Gordon, Professor of Genetics and medical staff member at the Mayo Clinic says " I think we can say that concerning when life begins, it is not a philosophical or theological debate. It is established as a scientific fact. All life begins at conception."
Matthews Roth, Principal at the Dept. of Research at Harvard Medical School said, "Human Life begins when egg and sperm merge to form the zygote."
In spite of all these facts, we have Margaret Sanger President of Planned Parenthood saying: "The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to............. KILL IT !!!!"
Beverly Harrison of Union Theological Seminary said: "Infanticide is not a great wrong. I don't want to be construed as condemning women who under certain circumstances quietly put their babies to death!!"
Esther Wright Professor of Social work at The University of Nevada says: "What we are saying is, abortion becomes one of the choices that the person has the right to choose whatever it is that is best for them in the situation that they find themselves, be it abortion, to keep the baby, to adopt the baby, sell it, or leave it in a dumpster, or on a porch, whatever, it is the persons right to choose!"
What if a woman was raped or the victim of incest? Certainly God permits the death or abortion of a baby under those sinful and abusive conditions. Well if a baby was conceived by those means, does it justify murder? You've heard it before, two wrongs don't make a right !
We have not considered what abortion really is.
James Dobson Founder and President of 'Focus on the Family' makes these observations about abortion.
1. Its Painful: Methods employed to kill unborn children include: burning, smothering, dismembering, crushing. Dobson offers a terrifying description of a procedure called Dilation and Extraction this involves a two day period where the cervix is dilated. Then an ultrasound device and forceps are used to reach in and grab the babies feet. The body is pulled down until the head only remains in the cervix. Next the abortionist grabs the nape of the neck and cuts open the back of the skull with blunt scissors. Next a device called a cannula is inserted into the wound and then the brain is sucked out. If kidneys or organs are desired they are carved out while still in the vagina. All this is performed on a live baby with nerves, with no anesthesia.
There is also the procedure called Dilation and Curettage in which a miniature hoe is used to chop up the babies body into tiny pieces and scraped off the wall of the uterus, then reassembled to ensure no parts have been left inside.
There is the Saline Solution method: that is injected into the amniotic fluid, burning the skin off the baby, causing it to thrash in the uterus for hours in pain until it dies as a shriveled corpse.
Then we have the most popular method, Suction: This is when high power suction is employed into the uterus and it tears the baby into pieces and deposits it into a bottle.
The real issue is whether or not the unborn fetus is a human being? Science has confirmed that it is no longer a debate, life begins at conception, at the zygote. The question of if the fetus is a person is not a discussion anymore for the informed. Some say it would be permissible to abort a child that has birth defects. This is absurd. If we may illustrate this point by addressing the situation of an already-born child who has birth defects. Should we murder the child simply because its missing limbs? If the child is human, we would be committing murder. We must keep in mind how God used a blind man in John 9 to demonstrate His glory through his life.
Never have the words of Jesus been more relevant then when He said in Luke 23:29 The day is coming when they will say "Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, or the breast that never nursed." The present day holocaust of abortion have driven home His words in dramatic fashion.
Recently, the notable Laci Peterson case, where the husband killed his pregnant wife was charged with two counts of murder. The wife and the unborn fetus. Why? Its clear that the fetus was defined as a human life that had been taken. To be consistent we as a society must also charge the numerous medical staffs that have murdered over 30,000,000 (million) babies in this country. We have murdered an entire generation. We have trampled the pearls that God has placed in our world. Just think, Gods will is good, acceptable and perfect ( 1 Corinthians 12.3:4). If His will for bringing children into our world was to fulfill His good purposes, then we must conclude that killing them is opposing Gods good pleasure towards us.
Think of the babies that God sees in the great genocidal graveyard. He purposed many to be born into the world that would have the ability to find a cure for cancer. Perhaps God purposed to raise up a baby that would have been strategically positioned to prevent the Twin Towers tragedy, or had diplomatic authority to prevent civil wars in Africa. What if our good God had purposed to inspire an aborted child to provide a cure to AIDS or Alzheimer's?
What if Mrs. Edison would have aborted Thomas? What if Mrs. Tubman would have aborted Harriet? What if Mrs. Le' overture would have aborted Louis? What if Mrs. Einstein would have aborted Albert? What if Mary would have aborted Jesus Christ? What if your mother would have aborted you? We have killed our children and our future and our souls through abortion. This is why God said in Proverbs 6, God hates: Hands that shed innocent blood!!!!!!
Pro-Choice? or Pro-Murder? You can clearly see the facts. God gives us the ability to choose murder, but not the right! We can kill anyone if we want, we have the ability, but all sin has its consequences. We at BARC still hear God speaking through the corridors of time "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" (or do murder). If you have been involved in abortion, know and acknowledge that it was a sin against a Holy, Righteous God. Then receive His forgiveness, and know that one day God will reunite you and your baby if you are born again. We can't undo the past but you can effect your future by the choices you make now. God received your child into His loving arms, and if you received Jesus as your Savior and Lord, He will arrange the greatest reunion you will ever experience. If you have aborted a baby, tell God the babies name and thank Him for His care till you are reunited.
HOMOSEXUALITY
BARC approaches this topic because of its spiritual importance and its documented impact on society.
First we provide a ministry perspective, and explore current world views of homosexuality its genesis, evolvement, presence. Homosexuality can be traced to the earliest families of mankind. The earliest recorded incident of a human being having sexual intercourse with a person of their same gender was in Sodom. This city thrived thousands of years before the Caesars , Medes, Greeks, Egyptians or Jesus Christ. Archeologist have excavated Sodom and its sister city Gomorrah and found startling historical proof of the first recorded incident of homosexual behavior.
Today, there is a very strong overt and covert undercurrent of debate and activity as to the viability and right to practice and propagate the homosexual lifestyle.
We find a very strong presence of homosexual men and women in every area of our society. There are gay (homosexual) persons who are politicians, entertainers, athletes, policemen, CEO's, physicians, engineers, etc. Homosexuality has spent millions of dollars to gain acceptance and generate exposure to their life style . We have experienced a proliferation of people who so called "came out of the closet.' Many famous celebrities like Billy Jean King, Gomer Pyle, James Baldwin, Rosie O' Donnell , Ellen Degeneres, publicly announced their homosexuality. The remnant of the Free Love movement was a catalyst of the open emergence of homosexual overtness.
Many who embrace the homosexual lifestyle want it to be viewed as a legitimate moral choice. This is very similar to those who elect abortion as a viable moral choice. Today we see a very well financed and supported Gay Rights agenda. This organization has a very basic and poignant mission: MAKE HOMOSEXUALITY A SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE LIFESTYLE. The means to that end is largely unrestricted. It does not matter what ramifications are created to that end. Homosexuality can't remain as a personal choice, it must forced on the entire society through legislation, within our educational system, military services, even acquiring protected classes in concert with civil rights legislation. Today there are those like Rosie O'Donnell who will paint the homosexual presence as being large and looming. She states that 10% or 30,000,000 people in America are born homosexual. O'Donnell goes on to explain that all species of animals have a 10% homosexual ratio. Her position is based upon the narrow findings of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. In 1948 Kinsey studied a group of 5,300 men of which 25% were prisoners. This is barely a true representation of the total population. More comprehensive studies have revealed the more accurate number is 1% or 3,000,000 people in America claim to be homosexual.
Now concerning the alleged concept that men are actually born homosexual is no longer an item to debate. The studies that concluded that homosexuality was inborn were conducted by homosexual groups. This is similar to a Caucasian racist scientist concluding that blacks are genetically inferior to them. The 'Born Gay' theory has no legs to support it. The homosexual researchers even admit that there are several shortcomings in their findings. Science has concluded that there exist no 'in born' tendency towards homosexuality. The historical record indicates that mans sexuality is independent of genetics and subjective experience. Those who suggest that men randomly adopt homosexual tendency must vehemently contest firmly documented concepts such as the existence of God, creation or the inerrancy of scripture. The central battle ground of the Gay Rights agenda aims squarely at the biblical position against the gay lifestyle. Lets look at the facts, there are 300,000,000 Americans and 1% are gay. The 1% demand that the other 99% alter their ethics, values, and spiritual convictions to accommodate their sexual choice.
That 1% would have you believe that there is a tidal wave of gay people waiting to break free from religious and social imposed restrictions. That same 1% desires to dismantle the very moral structure that insulates our world from decay and anarchy. We are told that heterosexual relationships are not the ideal structure for the family unit. Gay activist like Rosie allude to incidences of abuse in heterosexual family units to establish the premise that gay couples raising children is a viable alternative. Rosie takes a worse case scenario of an abusive drug addicted poor ghetto dwelling heterosexual couple attempting to raise their children. She says the children would be better off living in a loving home with two gays raising them.
We at BARC don't question the ability of gay couples to provide a safe economically strong household, we just oppose the foundational spiritual and social consequences of her hypothesis.
Psychologist, Dean Byrd vice president of National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, shares this concern, he states there is a great difference in non-heterosexual and heterosexual children. Children from homosexual couples have gender and sexual confusion, are apt to be more promiscuous, abuse substances and commit suicide. Researcher Barbara Eisold came to a similar conclusion in her report 'Recreating Mother.' She mentions a case study of a boy named Nick who was being raised by two homosexual men. She mentioned how Nick experienced developmental problems and fantasized imagery of a mother figure. He affirmed Nick constructed this fantasy in an effort to fulfill an innate desire to be a son to a 'mommy'. Dr. Eisold concluded in her research that there is a 'programmed normal developmental forces at work that are natural.'
There are some well adjusted homosexual families, they do well in school, are not on drugs and contribute to the society. This does not negate the body of evidence that demonstrates that heterosexual families produce more balanced, adjusted children because of the male, female modeling. There are many instances where there are single parent families. These families often overcome the obstacles of having only one parent, and the children do well in life. However, the overwhelming percentages of children from one parent families have acute occurrences of drug abuse, school dropout rates, teen pregnancies, incarceration, suicide. Its similar to my cousin Wally from Arkansas, he lost his foot, but with a determined attitude he overcame it and with a prosthesis, was able to walk, raise a family, start a business. Although he was able to overcome his loss, no one would believe that one foot is better than two God gave him.
Many who support homosexuality often make mention of the alleged natural desire they claim they were born with. We at BARC have listened to and studied many who claim that they were born gay. There have been studies conducted of those who conclude that sexual behavior is as simple as glandular development or hormonal levels. In 1997 a study, homosexual persons were studied and when that homosexual person died, they examined their hypothalamus gland . The results indicated that when you compared their hypothalamus glands with heterosexuals of the same age and gender, that there were definite differences. This was taken as evidence that they were born different, thus their homosexual preferences were inborn.
This sounds plausible at first glance, however, as one who has studied human anatomy and psychology, it is an established fact that the manipulation of the hypothalamus gland can acutely effect behavior, it is vital that we also remember that behavior can effect our hypothalamus gland as well. What do we mean when we say that? Our heart is our largest muscle, it will be strong, healthy and vibrant if we choose to exercise, eat properly, not smoke cigarettes etc. If we choose to eat processed food, trans fats, 1/2 pound of sugar daily, smoke two packs a day, never walk or exercise, gain 120lbs over our optimum weight, our heart will be drastically different from the healthy one. If a pathologist examined the hearts of the people who exercised, ate properly, didn't smoke, and compared them to the persons who ate poorly, never exercised and smoked two packs a day . Would he conclude that the people with the unhealthy hearts were born that way?
This is the illogical premise that gay rights supporters want us to validate.
Let's continue down the glandular hormone road for a moment. All of us have hormones within our bodies correct? We have two primary sexual hormones, estrogen and testostorone. Men generally have a dominant supply of testosterone and women have a dominant supply of estrogen. These are the foundational hormonal components that provide our sexual drives and impulses. They are not the only ones. I as a man am attracted to women, masculinity is attracted to feminity. From a purely attraction posture, I am attracted to women. But there are other factors that impact my involvement with members of the opposite sex. Are there any moral restrictions? Since I have a wife, are there limitations to how I govern my attraction to women? If I'm single, should I engage in sexual intercourse with one partner? How many partners is acceptable. In a heterosexual environment, there are considerations for sexual behavior.
Although I'm married, should I follow my hormonal urge, impulse to be sexually involved with any woman I choose? Are there any parameters in life? Are there any true, rights or wrongs? Is it left up to the individual? Are there any moral absolutes. Is there anything that provides a standard of morally in the world?