It’s Not a Baby, It’s Just a Mass of Cells

This week marked the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in which abortion became legal in our country. Few social issues are capable of igniting the flames of human emotion as can the topic of abortion. Those in favor of abortion believe the matter hinges on subjects such as privacy or reproductive rights. Those who argue against abortion believe the baby in womb has a right to live. As emotional as this topic is, it is important to keep a level head and try to argue using reason and logic.

So, when those of us who are pro-life find ourselves in the midst of this controversy, what is the argument most often leveled against us? In my experience, the two arguments I hear the most often are:

1. It is my body. Therefore, I have the right to choose.
2. It is a fetus, not a baby, or, it is just a mass of cells.

In this post, I will attempt to provide a reasoned response to both of these objections while providing you with additional material and resources should you want to learn more about the arguments or how to get involved in the fight for life.

It is my body. Therefore, I have the right to choose.

When we engage in thoughtful discussion, we assume certain laws. The laws of logic govern our ability to have thoughtful and meaningful conversations. Although many do not know what the laws of logic are, everyone presupposes them and can often tell when one of them has been violated. If I were to hold up an apple, point to it, and say that I was holding a book, I hope everyone present would correct me. What I have done is violated the law of identity. The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. An apple is an apple, and a book is a book. Identity is rooted in existence, nature, and essence. That which exists is something, and we can tell what that something is because we identify its nature and essence. Take a book, for example; one can know what a book is because it has a front cover, back cover, and pages between the two covers. In addition, if something has identity, it has a single identity. That which exists cannot share in multiple identities, an apple cannot be anything, but an apple and a book cannot be anything but a book. We know this because everything that exists has particular attributes that make it what it is, keeping it consistence with its nature and essence.

What does any of this have to do with refuting the first argument mentioned above? Pay attention to what the argument is asserting. It assumes that the life growing within the womb shares the same identity with the one to whom the womb belongs. However, this argument is false because it violates the law of identity. The baby in the womb has a separate identity from the woman carrying the baby. The woman assumes that the baby is identical to her body simply because it is in her body, the same way her heart exists in her body or any other organ for that matter. However, anyone who has taken elementary biology can tell you that the baby growing in the womb has its own set of chromosomes and DNA, thereby making it separate and distinct from the woman carrying it. The baby may be inside her, but the baby is not her. The baby and the woman carrying the baby are two separate and distinct beings. When people say that it is their body and, for this reason, have the right to have an abortion, what they are saying is that they want to abort themselves. This argument is more an argument for suicide than it is for abortion.

It is a fetus, not a baby, or, it is just a mass of cells

The law of identity helps us in responding to this argument as well. Essence and nature are tied to the existence as mentioned above. The essence and nature of something do not change, even though a particular thing may change in its appearance as it evolves during its life cycle common to its species. Take, for example, a caterpillar and butterfly. Both belong to the insect order Lepidoptera. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, and a butterfly is not a caterpillar. Nevertheless, a caterpillar is the common name for the larvae of members belonging to the Lepidoptera order (the insect order comprising of butterflies and moths).

Human beings also go through changes during various lifecycles. The process of puberty does not change the essence or nature of a human being. No matter what changes a man or woman may go through, his or her personhood (essence) remains intact.

Scott Klusendorf, the author of The Case for Life, offers the following easy to remember argument using the acronym SLED, which works to maintain the personhood and value of the life growing inside the womb.

Size:  While it is true that an embryo or fetus is small, can we say that human value is derived from size? Is the pro-abortionist willing to say that taller people are more valuable than those who may be shorter? Most men are larger than women, does this make men more valuable or entitled to more rights? Do the biggest among us deserve more rights than the smallest among us?

Level of Development: It may be true that embryos and fetuses are at the earliest stages of human development but do we want to use development as the basis by which we determine value? Should young adults have a greater right to life than those in adolescence? Does self-awareness make one valuable? If so, must you always be in a state of awareness to maintain value and rights? Does a person sleeping remain self-aware, or how about a person under general anesthesia or in a coma? Should these people have their rights stripped from them because self-awareness has been compromised, lost, or put on hold?

Environment: Where you are does change who you are. Does your value change when you leave the house in the morning, get into the car, or enter your office? If a journey across town does not rob you of value and the right to live, how then can the journey down the birth canal miraculously give the invaluable value.

Degree of Dependency: If human value comes from the degree of dependency, then there is nothing stopping us from killing newborn babies dependent on being fed and changed. We can kill at will those who require lifesaving medication to manage heart conditions, cholesterol, kidney problems, and diabetes. I know many adults who are still dependent on their parents; shall we kill them?

For additional resources from Scott Klusendorf visit his website, www.caseforlife.com 

Ask Questions

Most people are quick to give an answer when they hear something to which they object. However, having a debate should never be the goal. Rather than being ready to give reasons for what you believe, ask questions. I have learned that one of the best ways to have people consider something different is to ask questions, placing the burden of argument on them. Ask questions like; is the baby the same as your body? What is it that is growing in the womb? Is human life valuable? Is the embryo human? If not, then what is it? If not, when does it become human?

Most people have not thought through these questions, and asking them is the key to helping them find the answers to them. When they begin to answer them, they will struggle and will see that they do not have a response. This is the best time to walk them through some of the arguments mentioned above. You cannot get people thinking until you first get them doubting.

Remember the Heart

As I said at the beginning of this post, this is an emotionally charged debate and as lovers of truth, we must be tactful in our apologetic, an important lesson I recently learned. Behind every argument and question, there is a person whose heart requires ministering. Many men and women who argue in favor of abortion have been involved in an abortion in some way and are struggling with the pain in the aftermath of their decision. Be sensitive to them. The wisdom of the intellectual will never satisfy the pain of the emotional. If all you do is focus on answering the question, you will miss the heart of the questioner. The head talk of our apologetic must be undergirded in heart talk.

How to get involved

If you would like to get involved in helping bring an end to abortion, I would encourage you to consider 40 Days for Life. They are the largest internationally coordinated pro-life mobilization in history, working to bring an end to abortion through prayer, fasting, community outreach and peaceful vigil. To learn more about them, visit www.40daysforlife.com

Where is the Church?

As candidates for the 2016 Presidential campaign surface, people across the country are starting to have conversations about their candidate of choice. More importantly, people are beginning to have more conversations about what they believe to be wrong with our country.

As for me, I believe that we are living under the judgment of Romans 1. Time and again the Bible shows that God will give people over to the lusts of their hearts. As people move away from God, they bring upon themselves His wrath. Perhaps you don’t think that we’ve done anything to warrant His judgment. Consider the following.

This month we mourn 42 years of Roe v. Wade. In 42 years, 60 million babies of been sacrificed at the altar of choice. No one wants to call our unborn children babies, because the thought of killing babies convicts. Instead, we deceive ourselves that the child in the womb is nothing more than a blob of cells. To anyone who thinks that an abortion is merely getting rid of a blob of cells, I challenge you to watch the video titled, The Silent Scream.

In addition, we have marginalized the nuclear family, a key foundation to any healthy and growing society. People think it is no longer important or necessary to get married and stay married. Why would anyone want to when cohabitation gets us all the benefits of marriage without the commitment? The concept of staying together with one person for the rest of our lives is too long for our 30 minute sitcom minds to handle.

The heart of every problem that we experience in our country is not a political problem. It’s not a legislative problem, a republican problem, or a democrat problem. All of these are mere symptoms of something that infects the heart of every person who ever lived. We have a sin problem, and until we remember that there is only one cure for sin, we will continue to lose our country.

So, who is at fault? Apart from the obvious, that every person is at fault given our sinful condition, I submit to you the church is to blame. The church no longer preaches the full weight of the gospel because it offends. In our hypersensitive society, where political correctness is king, we have forgotten how to accept being told that we are wrong. The only attribute of God that everyone seems to know is that God is all loving, forgetting the fact that God is a righteous judge who hates sin, and all who stand before Him is guilty. Yes, God is all loving and merciful, but His love and mercy were made manifest in Christ. Only at the foot of the cross are we made whole.

Where is the righteous indignation of the church? People preach the health and wealth gospel, ignoring the fact that they remain in their sins. I believe we need more sermons like those that were preached in the 1700’s, which led to the Great Awakening. Imagine the charges of intolerance that would be leveled against the church if a sermon like Johnathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God were preached today? It is said that Edwards was interrupted countless times during that sermon because of people passing out and crying out, “What must I do to be saved?” Why did Edwards get this kind of response? Because his sermon convicted the hearts of sinners rather than making them feel comfortable in their sin. Leonard Ravenhill said it best, “If Jesus preached the same message ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.” Here are some more insightful quotes from Ravenhill that speak to our time.

• The early church was married to poverty, prisons, and persecution. Today, the church is married to prosperity, personality, and popularity.
• Today’s church wants to be raptured from responsibility
• The world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it.
• When there’s something in the Bible the Church doesn’t like, they call it legalism.
• How can you pull down strongholds of Satan if you don’t even have the strength to turn off the T.V.

Our country is falling apart because our churches are failing. We have made the gospel conform to this age, rather than remembering what Paul tells us in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this age, be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may discern the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” Today, ministers preach a diluted gospel made palatable so that it conforms to the pleasing and imperfect will of a fallen world. There must be a sense of conviction in our evangelism and preaching. Why would anyone run to a Savior if they don’t think they need to be saved from something?

According to a Gallup poll taken in December 2012, 77 percent of Americans identify as Christians. Really? Where are they? People are too comfortable living as carnal Christians. Too many take the name of Christ without knowing Him as their Savior. Religion has taken the place of relationship. Last year when participating in 40 Days for Life, a leader of this movement was visiting local churches looking for support. The leader spoke with the pastor of the First Presbyterian church of our town and was turned down. The pastor responded by saying they do not discuss social issues at church because they don’t want to offend anyone who may feel differently. Where is the church to call anathema on these pastors, ministers, preachers, priests and so on?   The church is the heart of our country, it always has been. The same way the body requires the heart to properly take in un-oxygenated blood and fill it with oxygen before being pumped back into the body, the country needs the church to take in sinners and through the preaching of the true gospel, release saints into the world. If the heart is pumping out adulterated blood, it will not take long for the body to die. Where the church goes, so will the country. The health of our country can be measured by taking the pulse of the Church.

Over the next two years, politics will become lively. Everyone will be listening to what the candidates have to say about the economy, social issues, and foreign policy. I want to know what the Church will say about the condition of our souls. Will they have the audacity to speak out on social issues and point out those candidates who align closest to the Bible and our founding documents? Will they preach on the full council of God, or will they shrink back and hide behind their 501(c)(3) tax status, which regulates the extent to which they can speak out on political matters.

Is Religion the #1 Cause of War?

A common objection raised against Christianity, is that religion is the #1 cause for war throughout human history. Therefore, Christianity, along with all other religions, cannot be true. Is this a valid claim and if so, does it somehow disprove Christianity? How can a Christian respond to this objection?

First, it is important to acknowledge that awful things have, in fact, taken place in the name of Christianity. The following are some of the the most well-known historical events with the highest reported causalities.

1. French Wars of Religion: 2,000,000 – 4,000,000 killed
2. Crusades: 1,000,000 – 3,000,000 killed
3. Thirty Years War: 3,000,000 – 11,500,000 killed
4. Christian Inquisitions: 3,000 – 5,000 killed

Taking the high estimate of these events, 20 million people died at the hands of those professing Christianity. Again, this is assuming a high estimate. The problem, however, is that nothing in Jesus’ teachings encourages this type of behavior.  As Christians, we should condemn the actions of any person who takes the name Christian and advocates violence in an effort to spread the gospel message. It is sad that this is part of our history, and we can agree with the non-Christian that this is unacceptable.

However, it is also wrong to judge a philosophy according to its abuses. Violence against fellow human beings is not the logical outworking of the gospel message. The Bible teaches that all are made in the image of God, and, therefore, have intrinsic value and ought to be cherished. We are called to love our neighbor and our enemies. Therefore, it should be easy to see that these Holy Wars is the antithesis of what is taught by Christ, and in no way reflects authentic Christian living.

It is a convenient thing for the atheist to forget all those who perished at the hands of atheistic leaders; therefore, it is our job to remind them of the following:

1. Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
2. Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
3. Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
4. Chiang Kai-Shek – 10,214,000
5. Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
6. Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
7. Pol Pot – 2,397,000

The total lives lost at the hands of secular, non-religious dictators exceed 122 million. The other fascinating thing about this statistic is that these leaders ruled at various times in the 20^th century. The 20^th century is on record as being the bloodiest century in human history, even more so when compared with the total number of deaths that took place in the 19 centuries preceding it. The 19th century German Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, predicted this statistic.

Toward the end of the 19^th century, advances in science coupled with the increased secularization of European society gave rise to the philosophical view of nihilism, the belief that nothing has any inherent purpose and that life is ultimately meaningless. Nihilism is often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared the death of God in his work titled, The Gay Science. Up until this point in history, God had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West. When man killed God, he effectively removed the moral compass that provided people with intrinsic value and the basis for objective knowledge.

Although Nietzsche did not believe in God, he understood the causal relationship that would follow from declaring God’s death; that objective meaninglessness would run rampant throughout society, thereby piercing every facet of human existence. Nietzsche went on to predict that because God had died in the 19^th century, the 20^th century would become the bloodiest and most destructive century in human history coupled with the breakout of universal madness. He was spot on as one can see from the above figures!

It would seem that the actions of secular leaders mentioned above are, therefore, the logical outworking of an atheistic worldview. If God does not exist, then objective meaning does not exist, and everything becomes subjective and true only according to its referent.

The Christian can look at the atrocities committed by so-called Christians and argue that they were nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. What argument can the atheist offer to disassociate their worldview from the actions of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? The answer is none. They were merely living out their atheism, defining morality and meaning for themselves. The atheist can make no claim that these individuals were objectively wrong, nor can they condemn the “Christian” who killed in the name of God. Without an objective standard beyond humanity, morality is reduced to a matter of opinion.

Therefore, the claim that Christianity is false because of its affiliations with violence is nothing more than an empty argument that lacks merit. Violence is not a prescribed behavior found within the New Testament. Consequently, those who commit such acts are not doing the work of Christ, and in no way invalidates the truth claims of Christianity.