Aborting what, exactly?

When we speak on the subject of “abortion,” as when we speak to any subject, it is important to define our terms. To “abort” is to stop, cease, terminate, discontinue prematurely. But when we are speaking culturally and ethically on the subject of “abortion” we are being more specific. One would not accuse the military, after it chose to abort a mission, of having performed an illegal government funded abortion on that mission. When we talk about abortion, we obviously are not talking about the abortion of missions. So what are we talking about? Aborting what exactly? We might say that we are talking about aborting the pregnancy, but this also is not correct. A cesarean section ends the pregnancy prematurely by surgically bringing the baby out alive, and this is not an abortion. If an abortion procedure is performed, and the baby comes out alive, this is referred to as a botched or failed abortion, even though the pregnancy was successfully ended. These two examples show us something important. The C section is not an abortion because it does not end the unborn life. The procedure described above as a "botched abortion" is a botched abortion because the baby did not die. It is plain, then, that when we speak of “abortion” we are talking about aborting the unborn life. Ceasing, terminating, prematurely ending a life. Our usage makes it clear, we are talking about killing.


Killing what? Well, from the moment of conception all the way until death, it is the same distinct human life. While the emotions of our culture may make this a controversial thing to say, it is still not a questionable or debatable thing to say. At the moment the sperm of the father combines with the egg of the mother, a not only genetically unique, but undeniably living and distinctly human organism comes to be. This organism goes through a rapid early development from a single cell to a more familiar form with organs, skin, nerves, etc. It’s stages of development include fast changes in physical form and attributes, but never is there a point after conception that this now distinct and genetically human life can be said to have changed from one essential thing to another, much like being an infant, a 17 year old high school athlete, and a 90 year old man are all physically quite different states, though all are the same human person at different points in development. A biologically distinct human being comes into existence at conception. Objectively, visibly, observably, scientifically, this is as certain as any human knowledge. If we cannot know this, than we can know nothing at all, for we know this on the same clear basis as we know any other basic fact of clear, consistent, repeatable observation. From conception until death, we are talking about a human life.

As Christians, we have an even surer foundation for knowing this with certainty. The Scriptures make it abundantly clear! From beginning to end, again and again, we see reference to unborn existence as personal, human life. We see places like Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, and Isaiah 44:2, 44:24; 49:5 and others that all speak directly of personal human life formed in the womb. Jeremiah 20:17 even refers to taking life in the womb as “killing”, and makes clear that the life in his mother’s womb was already personally Jeremiah’s life. Psalm 51:5 even indicates that one at conception is not only a personal human being but is already under the curse of sin. Likewise, Luke chapter 1 indicates the personal humanity of the preborn John the Baptist. Yet we need not stop even there. In both the gospel narratives we have which describe for us the details of the nativity, the language indicates that the incarnation of of the Son of God began at conception. As the 2nd century Christian writer Aristedes describes it, Jesus "clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man." Jesus took on human flesh, and lived a fully human life. He did so from conception, because human life begins at conception. There is no basis to think that the second person of the trinity became a non-person for six months or so. Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, and what she conceived was the Son of God. Jesus personal human life, and all personal human life, began at conception.


The early readers of the scriptures understood as much. The earliest Jewish writings we posses denounce the nations around them fro practicing abortion. One document even attributed the practice’s origin to demonic instruction! Another fascinating example looks at Leviticus 22:28 which tells us that “But you are not to slaughter an animal from the herd or flock on the same day as its young” and the dead sea scrolls in 4Q943 and 4Q947 freely apply this law in judging cases of slaughtering pregnant animals, showing that the Jewish community understood from the scriptures that the life in the womb was the same life as the the life to be born, and applied the law accordingly. The pregnant animal was already a mother with young that could not be slaughtered on the same day, so both must live. The so called “Damascus document” agrees with this, and this document has been found both in the dead sea scrolls and outside among other Jews, showing this interpretation was not unique to the Dead Sea community. The early Jews honored the unborn life because the testimony of the scriptures. Likewise the Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings going back to perhaps even the first century AD, includes the command “you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born”. Other early Christian writings such as the Epistle to Diognetus and the Epistle of Barnabas concur with this interpretation. It was clearly understood by these early believers in the scriptures, both Christian and Jew, that human life began at conception with all of its rights and privileges. Scripture, science, logic, observation, and history all stand in agreement. There is just no reasonable doubt on this matter.

But let's say for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that somehow we did not know whether or not the child in the womb was a living human being. What do we do in other cases where we are considering a destructive action and do not know if there is a human there? Do we demolish a building if a living human might be inside? Do we fire a gun at a target if we simply don't know if a living human is standing behind it? No, or course not! So even if we somehow did not know that the unborn child was a living human, it would still be absurd to say, "well, it might be a living human, but since I'm not quite sure, I'll air on the side of dismembering it." Even in ignorance, this would be an immoral act. How much more evil is it, then, to kill and destroy what we fully know is an innocent and defenseless human life? This is the issue at hand when we are discussing “abortion.”


Luke Wayne is a bi-vocational Baptist missionary in Utah and the chief editor for Perilous Trails. He holds an MDiv from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and an MA in Theological Studies from Midwestern Baptist College. He has served as a church planter in Olathe, KS and a Homeless Shelter Manager in Kansas City, MO. He is also a husband, father, fisher, hiker, security officer, and raiser of livestock.

A defense of life and response to a congressman's letter

As many of you know, at the time of this writing Planned Parenthood, by far America’s largest perpetrator of prenatal infanticide, is under investigation by the U.S. Congress in regard to their documented practice of selling the intact human body parts harvested from the children they dismember alive for profit. Somehow, the actual dismembering alive of children from which the intact human body parts comes is not being seriously challenged, which is the real tragedy here, but in the wake of the attention that these videos have brought to the organization, many of us have been hoping that at the very least our representatives would discontinue using our tax dollars to fund these barbarous activities, and have written letters urging them to do so. One of my relatives in Florida received a letter in reply from Congressman Patrick Murphy, from which this was the substantive paragraph:

“The issue of abortion raises complex moral and religious questions for many.  While those on different sides of the issue may ultimately never see eye to eye, I hope we can all agree that reducing the number of unintended or unplanned pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions.  I believe the best way to do so is by promoting education, counseling, and providing women with the support services they need - before a pregnancy occurs. Thousands of women and men choose Planned Parenthood to provide vital services like prenatal care and cancer screenings, and federal grant money is available to help cover these preventive services. I do not support singling out an organization that has not broken the law because we disagree about other lawful services it provides.”

Let us consider this response:

“The issue of abortion raises complex moral and religious questions for many.” This Sentence is probably only here to try to project some air of understanding while ultimately dismissing any and all of those issues by still accepting the practice without limit, question, or compromise. The real problem is, however, that the statement really isn’t true. Conversations on this issue always involve the same short list of issues that, while certainly emotional, are not actually very complicated. In fact it really boils down to two simple questions: Is the unborn life in the womb a human being? Under what circumstances is it morally permissible to kill an innocent human being? The second question is the only one with any modicum of moral or religious complexity at all, the first being a simple and obvious matter of biology and observation. When we actually ask the questions, the answers are not hard to come by. The issue simply cannot be patronizingly dismissed in this manner. The issue is controversial, not complicated.

“While those on different sides of the issue may ultimately never see eye to eye, I hope we can all agree that reducing the number of unintended or unplanned pregnancies will reduce the number of abortions. I believe the best way to do so is by promoting education, counseling, and providing women with the support services they need - before a pregnancy occurs.” Wrong. The more effort we have put into sex education, birth control services, and similar approaches to helping women do everything they can to delay or avoid the horrible burden that is a human child of their own, the more we have seen abortions INCREASE. These efforts have increased an attitude that children are burdensome, undesirable, and expendable, which leads more women to run to abortion when pregnancy does occur. Abortion will only be reduced by retuning to a cultural value of children, rather than seeing them as career destroying financial ruiners that are also the bane upon the planet. We, as a culture, value the vague idea of human life, but we don’t actually value the individual human lives we are confronted with, and we certainly don’t want the lifelong responsibility of bringing up more human lives. We have our own fun and careers and happiness to worry about, right? We also will not reduce abortions so long as we continue to abandon sexual morality, downplay the importance of marriage, and laud the unquestioned value of unlimited erotic liberty and expression. Finally, yeah I’ll say it, so long as killing your child before a certain age is not criminalized, people are going to keep doing it more and more. If you actually WANT to reduce abortions (something you will note that the letter was careful not to actually say) then we have to actually oppose it and the worldview it is a part of. You can’t reduce it by promoting and funding those who perform it. That seriously doesn’t even make sense.

“Thousands of women and men choose Planned Parenthood to provide vital services like prenatal care and cancer screenings, and federal grant money is available to help cover these preventive services.” There are a few things to point out here. First, it is true that thousands of people go to Planned Parenthood for their limited and inadequate services rather than going to clinics that actually provide all the needed services for their health, and often pay the same and occasionally even higher prices as they would at better equipped and staffed clinics. If they want to choose such ineffective clinics that, in spite of all the disproportionately large amounts of government funding they have received above and beyond other clinics, still don’t offer the full range of basic preventative services and screenings that typical community health centers do, people certainly can choose to do so. But why should we subsidize that choice, and indeed actually prefer that choice in the disproportionate nature of that funding? Weren’t you all about education and counseling wiser decisions just one sentence ago? But more to the point is the assertion that the federal grant money is funding these services rather than the abortion services that make up 86% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue. Do you REALLY think that the counseling and marketing and screenings and school visits and other things that US dollars fund are not EXACTLY what get women in those doors to be sold an abortion? Do you really think these things are completely unrelated? You can’t fund anything Planned Parenthood does without funding the main thing Planned Parenthood does, and at 86% of their revenue, the main thing is destroy prenatal life.

“I do not support singling out an organization that has not broken the law because we disagree about other lawful services it provides.” This letter was sent while the investigation was still pending, and here we have a congressman pronouncing his own verdict without regard for what the investigation might find, but that is actually not the worst part about this. A previous investigation conducted by the state of Florida, the state congressman Murphy represents, found that Planned Parenthood was breaking state law by performing late term abortions without a license. So, as a Florida representative, he is actually ignoring his own states verdict and/or outright lying here to call them an organization that “has not broken the law.” This statement is irresponsible and untrue. Further, it misses the point. Government funding of abortion is not lawful, and none of the shell games played with the numbers take away the fact that that is what this is. The fact that PP gets more money than all the better, more comprehensive clinics that do not provide prenatal infanticide shows that this is consciously and intentionally what this is. There is simply no other reason why PP would receive the funding they do with the otherwise limited services they provide. So no, this is not lawful. Worse, it is not moral. It is abominable. There is blood on our hands, and all the condescending, conciliatory letters without the remotest consideration of action against this monstrosity will not make it all okay.

Luke Wayne is a bi-vocational Baptist missionary in Utah and the chief editor for Perilous Trails. He holds an MDiv from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and an MA in Theological Studies from Midwestern Baptist College. He has served as a church planter in Olathe, KS and a Homeless Shelter Manager in Kansas City, MO. He is also a husband, father, fisher, hiker, security officer, and raiser of livestock.