Darkness to Light Home Page

Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director

 

“Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies”

Part Two

By Gary F. Zeolla

 

 

This two-part article is continued from “Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” – Part One

 

      To remind the reader, this two-part article is about the leak of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision about reversing Roe V. Wade. The leak ended up being correct, and Dobbs overturned Roe. But this article was written before the final decision was officially released.

 

Rights of the Woman vs. the Preborn Baby’s Right to Life:

      Dems try to evade the issue of a baby being a person and having a right to life by talking about the “rights” of the woman.

 

      The Politico report [about the Dobbs decision] set off an immediate political firestorm. “This is a five alarm fire,” said Washington Sen. Patty Murray, who is part of the Democratic leadership.

      “In a matter of days or weeks, the horrifying reality is that we could live in a country without Roe. If this is true, women will be forced to remain pregnant no matter their personal circumstances. Extreme politicians will control patients’ most personal decisions. And extreme Republicans will have eliminated a fundamental right an entire generation of women have known their whole lives,” she continued (CNN. Supreme Court abortion).

     

      Note the use of the word “extreme.” Again, this will become the Dem’s talking point, that any attempt to protect the lives of unborn babies will be labeled as “extreme.” But it is in fact the allowance of the killing of unborn babies throughout all nine months of pregnancy that Biden and Dems want that is extreme.

      Otherwise on this quote, note the terminology of “forced to remain pregnant.” For a woman to continue to be pregnant after becoming pregnant is natural. It is how God intended for things to operate. Miscarriages do happen, and when they do, they are tragic. But fortunately, they are the exception not the rule. Pregnant women tend to stay pregnant. That is nature. It is how things are supposed to work.

      As for abortion being a “personal decision” and “a fundamental right,” no one should have the right to decide to kill another human being, as the most fundamental right is the right to life as articulated in our Declaration of Independence.

 

The reaction of Democrats and leftists here in PA was striking:

      Gov. Tom Wolf said he is angry that a leaked draft ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court outlines an effort to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling

      Wolf, along with a group of lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates, met in Philadelphia on Wednesday [5/4/22] to criticize the draft opinion that was written by Justice Samuel Alito. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Tuesday that the leaked opinion is authentic but not final.

      “I am angry because the right to bodily autonomy, the right that has been enshrined for decades, is under attack,” said Wolf. “It’s unAmerican and unacceptable.”

      The draft opinion would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case, which granted Americans the right to abortion nearly 50 years ago.

      Dayle Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania, said abortion is still legal in Pennsylvania despite the draft opinion. She said if the ruling were to be made final, it would represent an “ongoing assault of reproductive freedoms” and would likely lead to 36 states eventually banning abortion.

      “It will open the floodgates for states across the country to ban abortion,” said Steinberg (Trib Live. Gov. Wolf).

 

      Note once again the loaded language: reproductive rights, the right to bodily autonomy, ongoing assault of reproductive freedoms.

      Note also again the use of the word “rights.” Again, that has been left’s playbook, to turn the abortion discussion into a discussion about the rights of the woman, while ignoring the rights of the unborn. But now is added the word “freedom.”

      Americans are all about rights and freedom. That is why the left uses these buzz words to defend the killing of unborn babies. But at no point in American history has rights and freedom been about having the right or freedom to kill another human being. The closest you could come is when some Americans defended the practice of slavery. But even that was not directly about killing people. But abortion always entails the killing of a human being. That is why the left does its best to avoid talking about the unborn baby

 

“My Body, My Choice” – Not True:

      Finally on the preceding quote, there is the phrase, “the right to bodily autonomy.” That harkens to the often-heard chant, “My Body, My Choice.” Conservatives should never let a pro-abortionist get away with that scientific, genetic, biological, and Biblical nonsense.

      In no way is a child in the womb a part of a woman’s body. Anyone with a high school knowledge of biology or genetics should know that. The preborn baby is a distinct biological and genetic entity from the mother. Every cell in his or her body is genetically different from the mother.

      In addition, the developing preborn baby has his or her own circulatory system, respiratory system, digestive system, brain, heart, lungs, etc. etc. The preborn baby might even have a different blood type from the mother. That means, if in utero surgery were to be performed, the mother could not give blood to her own preborn baby. After birth, the only change that occurs is the baby now receives oxygen and nutrients through the nose and mouth rather than through the umbilical cord.

      From a Christian viewpoint, the preborn baby has a separate soul/ spirit from the mother. He or she is simply a different person from the mother in every way.

      Yet astoundingly, I saw a comment on a news board from a liberal who said having an abortion is no different from a woman having an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. Such complete lack of knowledge of biology is truly astounding.

      Note that I am using the terminology of “he or she” (even though it is a bit tedious to keep tying), as that is the genetic reality. The sex of a human being is determined at conception. It is based on whether the sperm that unites with the ovum is carrying a X or a Y chromosome.

      To explain, the ovum can only have a X chromosome. Therefore, if the sperm is also carrying a X chromosome, you have a person who will have XX genes in every cell of her body and is a female. If the sperm is carrying a Y chromosome, you will have a person who will have XY genes in every cell of his body and is a male (Biology Discussion. Sex Determination).

      Of course, this genetic fact has ramifications for the transsexual movement and the ridiculous terminology of saying a doctor “assigns” a sex at birth. That silly terminology opens the door to a teacher on LibsofTicToc saying she teaches her class that when the doctor assigns the sex, he guesses, and sometimes he guesses right, and sometimes he guesses wrong.

      That is just plain silly, as evidenced by the many funny videos that can be seen on AFV or YouTube of mishaps occurring at gender reveal parties. Those parties occur long before the baby is born, and long before the doctor does any alleged “assigning.” They are based on whether an ultrasound shows whether the preborn baby has a penis or not. The parents then proclaim their baby is a boy if he does, or a girl, if she does not.

      That is exactly what a doctor does at birth. He is not assigning or guessing at anything. He is just proclaiming what is the really of the situation based on the biology of the baby, which had been determined nine months prior (CNS News. Ryan Anderson).

      The point of this whole discussion here is this is all determined at conception. And that fact proves beyond any doubt that life begins at conception and that the preborn baby is a separate person from the mother from that moment of conception. In fact, if it weren’t for changes in the immune system that occur with conception, the mother’s body would reject the growing preborn baby as foreign tissue (Science Daily. Pregnancy).

      Again, if the baby is  a boy, in no way could he ever be a part of the woman’s body, with the woman having all XX genes, and the boy having all XY genes. But even in the case of a girl, the genetic code is still radically different from the mother, with only half of it coming from her, and the other half from the father. That of course is also true in the case of a boy. A new and distinct genetic code that never existed before and will never exist again is created at coneption. That is why each and every newly conceived person is unique and special (Live Action. Science is clear).

 

Hard Cases:

      As quoted in Part One, the Mississippi law in question stated, “Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human.” That “medical emergency” is usually worded as the life of the mother being at risk. These two exceptions most all pro-life advocates would allot for in proposed laws protecting the lives of preborn babies.

      Allocation for the life of the mother is an easy one. A basic Judeo-Christian and American concept is the right to self-defense. When the mother’s life is endangered by continuing a pregnancy, she has the right to defend herself via an abortion. Though the preborn baby has not done anything wrong, the woman still can make that choice.

      To allot for “a severe fetal abnormality” is a bit dicier. The issue is, just what is “severe?” Some would say Down’s Syndrome is “severe.” But those living fulfilling lives with that condition would disagree. If such an allowance is made, it needs to be carefully worded in the statute to only allot for the most severe of abnormalities. Better would be to only allot for an abortion in the case of fetal non-viability. That would again be an easy one, provided the doctors can be certain the baby will not survive outside of the womb.

      The more difficult hard cases are rape and incest. The immediate reaction of the left is a woman should not be “forced” to carry the child of her rapist. The Christian response would be, we do not execute people for the sins of their parents:

 

      “Fathers will not be put to death for [their] children, and the sons [and daughters] will not be put to death for [their] fathers; each will be put to death for his [own] sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; ALT).

 

      However, practically speaking, to not allot for rape and incest would not be workable. The pushback would be too great. The left would trot out every woman who was raped and use her sad story to claim abortion must be available for all women. That is an illogical conclusion. But to prevent it, and to save the lives of the much greater number of preborn babies whose conceptions were not due to rape or incest, the politically expedient thing to do is to allot for abortion for cases of rape and incest.

      I know purist might push back against such a suggestion. But not having such exceptions is one reason why PA GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano lost terribly against his Dem rival Josh Shapiro and PA GOP senatorial candidate Dr. Oz lost to the cognitively struggling socialist John Fetterman. Josh and John continually harped on the “extremism” of Doug and Dr. Oz in this regard in ad after ad, and that worked. And with Josh winning easily, that will prevent any law from being passed here in PA to protect the lives of preborn babies. That is sad, but it is the reality of the situation.

      Donald Trump even warned Doug in this regard, but he failed to listen, and lost, as did Tudor Dixon in Michigan:

 

      Trump also warned of another “trap” he said Democrats laid for Republicans that he said too many fell into, which is on abortion in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Trump, whose judicial appointments, including the three Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, were critical to overturning the controversial Roe decision, was arguably one of if not the most pro-life presidents in history. Even so, Trump argued that Republicans must support what he called “the three exceptions”—for rape, incest, and the life of the mother—to any measures banning abortion, or else they face electoral elimination in most of America. Trump specifically singled out Michigan GOP gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon and Pennsylvania GOP gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, both of whom lost their respective races this year after taking hardline positions without such exceptions.

 

      “Now, I think a lot of Republicans didn’t handle the abortion question properly,” Trump told Breitbart News. “I think if you don’t have the three exceptions, it’s almost impossible in most parts of the country to win. If you don’t have three exceptions—I said to a very nice man running for governor of Pennsylvania, ‘If you don’t have the three exceptions, you can’t win.’ Same thing with Tudor. She didn’t have the three exceptions. I say this to the Republican Party: If you don’t have the three exceptions, because you know the Democrats are radical and they’ll kill the baby at nine months or they’ll kill the baby after the baby is born. Okay? That’s more radical. But, you know a 15 or 16 week period of time, but you have to have the three exceptions. If you don’t have the three exceptions, you’re destined to doom” (Breitbart. Trump Warns).

 

      For more in this regard, see my article Wrath of God Coming Down on the USA and Commonwealth of PA.

 

Conservative News Outlets

 

      Beyond reporting the basic facts about the leak and the contents of the draft, sadly, articles on conservative news outlets echoed those of liberal news outlets. The terminology in talking about abortion was about the same, as seen in the following two articles from Newsmax.

 

      The Supreme Court may well be poised to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated inside the court, as reported by Politico on Monday [5/2/22].

      The draft opinion is described by the site as an “unflinching repudiation” of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections for abortion rights in America, and of a 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that basically upheld the tenets of Roe (Newsmax. High Court Draft).

 

 

      President Joe Biden on Tuesday [5/3/22] blasted a “radical” Supreme Court draft opinion that would throw out the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling that has stood for a half century. He warned that other privacy rights including same-sex marriage and birth control are at risk if the justices follow through on the draft that the court emphasized was not final….

      The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income and minority women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions (Newsmax. Biden Blasts).

 

      Notice that the same “rights” terminology used in the liberal news sources can been seen here. And note the use of word abortion itself. At no point in either of these or any of the other Newsmax articles listed in Appendix One is mention ever made of the preborn baby. The word “fetus” does not even occur. The same could be said of articles from other conservative news outlets.

      But what if the media, at least conservative news outlets, talked about “the killing of unborn babies” rather than “abortion rights” or “protecting the lives of unborn babies” rather than “restricting abortion rights?” That wording would be a more accurate way to describe the situation. And if the media used such language, the entire abortion discussion would probably be different. But sadly, even conservative news outlets generally use the latter rather than the former terminology.

      The only time I heard the former and more accurate terminology in a news report was on 1250 The Answer here in the Pittsburgh region, using Townhall.com news. It was reporting about a proposed bill to codify Roe. It was worded as saying the bill was designed to “codify a woman’s right to kill her baby into law.”

      The only difference between the reporting of conservative versus liberal news outlets at this time was conservative news outlets focused a bit more on the leak itself, that the source of the leak needs to be discovered, and the leaker prosecuted, or at least disbarred. Conservative news outlets also mentioned the increase in violence against crisis pregnancy centers and churches since the Dobbs leak that the liberal news media completely ignores. See the References page for these articles.

      But here, I cannot emphasize enough how sad this situation is. Every time pro-lifers talk about abortion, we need to use the terminology of the killing of unborn babies, and rather than abortions bans, we need to talk about protecting the lives of unborn babies.  We must also always emphasize the preborn baby is a separate and distinct human being from the mother. And if pro-abolitionists want to talk about rights, turn the discussion to the right to life of the preborn baby. That is why I have titled this article, “Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies.”

      Finally, I have used the terms “unborn baby” or “preborn baby” in my comments to emphasize we are talking about a baby, a human being. The term “fetus” has bit of a dehumanizing tone to it. It shouldn’t, as it is just the Latin term for baby, whether preborn or post-born. But most do not know that simple linguistic fact. I explain this point along with more details on the scientific, biological, and especially Biblical fact of the distinct personhood of the preborn baby in my two-volume set God’s Sex Plan.

 

Conclusion/
Forgiveness in Christ

 

      Abortion is the killing of a preborn baby. That is fact of the matter. If that fact causes a woman reading this who has had an abortion to feel guilty, good. You feel guilty because you are guilty. You have committed a horrendously sinful act and stand commended and guilty before a holy and righteous God.

      The same goes for any doctor who has performed abortions, any nurse who has assisted in an abortion, and anyone who voted for the legalization of the killing of unborn babies in their state or for a candidate because he or she would support the killing of unborn babies. And let me not forget any man who urged his wife or girlfriend to get an abortion.

      Basically, if you have in any way been involved in the killing of unborn babies, you stand guilty before God. However, you can be forgiven, if you repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ and His death on the cross for your sins.

 

            8If we should say [or, claim], “We do not have sin,” we lead ourselves astray [fig., deceive ourselves], and the truth is not in us. 9If we shall be confessing our sins, He is faithful [or, trustworthy] and righteous that He shall forgive us our sins and cleanse [or, purge] us from all unrighteousness. 10If we should say [or, claim], “We have not sinned,” we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1John 1:8-10; ALT3).

 

References:

      The references for this article are posted at: “Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” – References.


“Abortion Rights” vs. “The Killing of Unborn Babies” - Part Two. Copyright 2022 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.zeolla.org/christian).


God’s Sex Plan
Volume One
What the Old Testament Teaches About Human Sexuality

Volume Two
What the New Testament Teaches About Human Sexuality

 

The above article was first published in the free Darkness to Light newsletter.
It was posted on this website January 1, 2023.

Ethics, Spirituality, Christian Life
Abortion (aka, the killing of unborn babies)

 2022 Politics Articles

Text Search      Alphabetical List of Pages      Subject Index
General Information on Articles      Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.zeolla.org/christian

Biblical and Constitutional Politics Home Page
www.zeolla.org/politics

Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla