Tag Archives: Abortion


Abortion’s Bottom Line


Protests against the recent Supreme Court abortion ruling have been swift, loud, and sometimes violent. Abortion’s bottom line is the taking of an innocent human life.

The core argument offered by pro-abortion supporters is that women have a right to their own bodies. On the other side, pro-life supporters argue that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of the most vulnerable people among us.

Both sides believe their argument is far superior to the other argument. Let’s try and cut through the noise of the abortion protest and determine which argument is superior. Our interest is not political or even legal. I am concerned with the morality of abortion.

And because I believe that morality is anchored in the purity of God’s character, and I believe that God’s character is reflected in the truth of the Bible, I will look to the Bible for the ultimate answer to this question. However, in this article, I will appeal to science and logic to demonstrate that abortion is wrong. My desire is that this article will be read by nonreligious people and that they will be convinced by the facts herein.

Even though I believe this to be a moral issue to which God has spoken in his word, I understand that I have no right to force a religious belief upon another person. Jesus never tried to force a person to follow him. In fact, the Scriptures are full of occasions where people stopped following Jesus because his teachings were difficult (see John 6).

Abortion is a corrosive detriment to society even apart from the Scriptures. Just as 19th century slavery was ultimately rejected because it was morally wrong, present-day abortion should be rejected because it is morally wrong.

Abortion’s Bottom Line: A woman has a right to her own body

Does a woman have a right to control her own body? For pro-choice advocates, this is abortion’s bottom line. But does it hold up? Yes, and no. No one has an absolute right to use their body any way they want. No one has a right to use their body in a criminal act. Prostitution is almost universally illegal. Even though that sex-for-pay occurs between two consenting adults, we understand that it strikes at the morality of society. Therefore, most societies make prostitution a criminal act.

Drug abuse is illegal. Even though the person consuming the illicit drugs only harms their own body, as a society we have chosen to make such behavior illegal.

More to the point, we reject the idea that a person can use their own body to harm someone else. Even if we allow, only for purposes of discussion, that a woman does have an absolute right to her own body, we unequivocally reject the idea that she has a right to anyone else’s body. That which grows within the pregnant woman, whether we call it a fetus or an unborn child, is as unique as a grown child is from its mother.

In reality, the expectant mother carries within her womb a separate human being. She is the temporary home of the unborn child. Left alone to develop naturally, the child will be born at roughly nine months and will eventually live independently from the mother.

It is true that a woman has many rights to her own body including the right to engage in the action which produced the child. Pro Life writer Cassy Fiano-Chesser, a woman with five children says it this way:

Except in the very rare circumstance that a woman gets pregnant from being raped, women do have control over their bodies. They have control over if and when they choose to have sex, which is what causes pregnancy. And because no birth control method is 100% reliable, it’s a risk that women take every time they have sex.

Cassy Fiano-Chesser

While abortion advocates claim that consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy, this is a denial of exactly how our bodies are supposed to work. It’s not punishment or patriarchy; it’s biology. So if a woman is not ready to be a parent, there’s a way she can take control of her own body and avoid pregnancy: don’t have sex. (https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-nothing-control-body/)

Abortion’s bottom line? She does not have the right to the child’s body. Neither pre nor post-birth will she ever have an absolute right to that child’s body.

Abortion’s Bottom Line: The unborn is a living human being

Certain facts are not in dispute. When two gametes meet (egg and sperm) something marvelous happens. A new life is created. At this moment of conception, a unique human comes into being. What did not exist a moment before, now does. This infinitesimally small being does not at this moment look like a human but it will. Already it possesses its own unique DNA profile. During his time in utero, the unborn will develop her own heart, her own lungs, her own brain, and her own nervous system. At the moment of conception, the unborn’s gender is fixed (that’s another article) and even the color of its eyes is fixed. The only thing that remains before this unborn child can walk, talk, drive a car, and graduate from college, is time.

The only thing that remains before this unborn child can walk, talk, drive a car, and graduate from college, is time.

During the roughly nine months after conception, the child will continue to grow and develop before being thrust into the world through the birth process. This period of specialized care, which we typically refer to as gestation, is essential to the well-being of the child. If gestation is compromised, either through natural or unnatural events, the child will suffer and may die. These facts are not in dispute.

The argument from pro-choice advocates is that the unborn is not a human being. They assert that the fetus becomes a human being at some point in time. They struggle to determine the point at which the unborn becomes a human.

Let’s examine Abortion’s bottom line on viability.


Some have suggested that a fetus becomes a human at the moment of viability that is, at the moment when the fetus can exist on its own separate and apart from the mother. This is a very unsatisfactory argument.

First, a newborn cannot exist apart from his mother outside the womb for a very long period of time. The newly born child requires care, feeding, medical care, and many other things in order to be able to grow and develop.

Second, viability is a constantly changing number. Once, a premature child, delivered 10 weeks early, would likely die. Then, due to advances in medical care, children born 20 weeks early are now able to survive. Today, medical advances have pushed that number back and more.

Viability is unsatisfactory because it is an arbitrary number. Some unborn children may be able to survive as early as 18 weeks while others might struggle at 35 weeks. The science of developmental anatomy cannot observe any sudden change in the fetus at week 20 as compared to week 21. The fetus knows no viability number. The moving target of viability does not determine when the unborn becomes human.

Organ function

Abortion supporters suggest that the detection of heartbeats or the detection of brain waves isa means of determining life. This may sound reasonable because the absence of a heartbeat or the absence of brain waves in an adult typically suggests death. But there is a fundamental difference between organ function in a fetus and organ function in an adult.

In a fetus, functioning organs only await developmental progress. The natural, uninterrupted development of the fetus will produce functioning organs. In an adult, cessation of functioning organs may be permanent, especially with the loss of brainwave activity. If left alone, organs will begin to function in the fetus. Likewise, left alone, adult organs which have stopped functioning will not restart.

Abortion’s bottom line is clear: The fetus is human!


Abortion’s bottom line is clear: Life begins at conception. The most logical, cogent analysis of the facts so demonstrates. There is no other moment in the development of the unborn when life can logically be said to begin. That being the case, we returned to our two fundamental arguments. Pro-choice is left with the defunct argument that a woman has an absolute right to her body. Pro-life is left with the argument that the unborn is a living human being. “My rights,” or “your life.” Tell me, shall we elevate individual rights over an individual life? I think not.

The unborn child is the most vulnerable human being. How we, as a society, treat the unborn, says much about our character as a people. If there is any error to be made here, let it be on the side of the unborn child.

Abortion: A Right to Whose Body?

The pro-life, pro-abortion debate is again center stage because of politics. It should have never left the front page. Americans abort almost a million children every year. That’s a tragedy beyond imagination. Yet it is accepted as a part of our society. In time, we pray that historians will list abortion among the great civil rights debacles of our age.

Proponents of abortion are a mixed lot. Some allow for early abortions, before quickening, others to the point of viability, and some to the instant of birth and beyond. But almost all like to declare that abortion must be legal because women have a right to their own bodies. Abortion supporters should seriously reconsider their use of this specious argument.

No one has an absolute right to their own body

First, we belong to God. He is the Creator (Genesis 1:1; Genesis 1:27). As such, he may declare what can, and cannot be done with our bodies. We may not commit adultery with our bodies (Exodus 20:14; Proverbs 6:29; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19). In fact, we may not use our bodies for any sexually immoral practice. The civil laws of our land also restrict what we may do with our bodies. Drug and alcohol use is restricted. Public intoxication laws (and public decency laws) are enforced even in the absence of a victim. Prostitution is illegal in most places. Civil laws often change. In the past, adultery was a criminal act, as was homosexual behaviors. My point is that no absolute right to our bodies exist and never have. It is proper, ordinary, and historical for there to be restrictions on our actions and behaviors.

Ethicist Scott B. Rae adds that the fetus is not part of the woman’s body. He writes, “It does not follow that just because the fetus is attached to its mother by an umbilical cord that the fetus is part of her in a way that denies its own separate identity.” (Rae, Moral Choices, p. 139). The fetus is unique. That leads to the next important point.

No one has an absolute right to someone else’ body

Abortion supporters overlook and hope you will, too, the uniqueness of the life that women carry in the womb. That tiny embryo is life. It is a unique, human life that awaits birth. No one has a right to destroy that growing life. From the moment of conception, a unique DNA structure exists. Examination of that DNA reveals a human being. Nothing changes at birth. Even if one allows that a woman has an absolute right to her body, they cannot uphold that we have a right to someone else’s body. There is no right to take the life of another.

Some abortion supporters are demanding that a mother has the right to kill her child during the birthing process, i.e., while still in the birth canal, and even after the child is born!   The idea of so-called after-birth abortion is gaining traction. A 2013 Ethics symposium featured a scholarly paper around the idea that “(killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” (Giubilini & Minerva, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012). At the time of publication, that was an outcry against their conclusions. But it is likely only a matter of time before mainstream culture accepts after-birth abortion.

Christians must oppose the killing of the most vulnerable among us. It is a classic application of the Golden Rule and a sin that must be opposed.

Abortion: 862,320

Let this sink in…

862,320 dead.

862,320 people dead in one year. That’s five times as many deaths as we have had in the U.S. from COVID19.

61,628,584 dead.

Let that sink in…61,628,584 people since 1973. That’s three times as many as died in World War 2. It’s twice as many as the population of Texas and ten times the population of Alabama.

These numbers are not from an uncontrollable outbreak of a mysterious illness. These are deaths from abortion in the United States through 2017 (sources available on request). Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop said in 1981, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

So, again, 862,320 in one year. 862,320 choices to abort, to kill the unborn. That’s a staggering number.

The moment sperm and egg unite, unique human life is created. It possesses its own DNA combination different from any previously existing life. There is nothing common, mundane, or routine about the new life. It need only grow for nine months, and it will appear as a human infant.

 It is human, and it is living!

Life is a gift from God.

It was God who created humankind and breathed into man the “breath of life” (Genesis 2:7; Job 27:3). We cannot create life ourselves. Even the atheist must admit that life arises from some unknown process. While the godless person attributes life to a cold, biochemical process, it is a spark from the Almighty that quickens man.

The inspired poet of Israel said, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Psalm 139, 13,14). It is God, the Creator, who labors over the formation of every unborn child. When finished, he presents that life as a gift.

Life is in the image of God

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Life is not random. Life is created. God creates life in his image. Animals are not created in God’s image. Only man. The Imago Dei sets man apart from every other living creature. You possess life given you, as a gift, in the image of the Creator.

Abortion destroys the image of God!

A Human Rights Debacle

The present rash of abortions, 862,320 per year and 61, 628,584 since legalization in 1973, is the greatest, current, human rights violation in our country. The numbers alone shout for attention. In 1860, a year before the U.S. Civil War,  the federal census noted 4 million slaves. That’s 4 million people held hostage, deprived of their liberty and subjected to horrible conditions, both physical, moral, and spiritual. Vestiges of slavery continued beyond the 19th century, but at least we outlawed the practice through the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 and followed by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865.

The present slaughter of the unborn shows little sign of abatement. Our Federal courts routinely strike down laws intended to slow or prevent abortion. Even laws to prevent so-called partial-birth abortion, that is, killing the child as it has partially left the birth canal have struggled. 

Let us pray that we will end this horrible scourge on our land! Abortion is wrong. It is sinful. It must be stopped.


Recent legislative actions leave Christians aghast at the possibility that a child, delivered alive, could be killed without legal punishment. At the same time, some state legislatures are resisting federal courts and asserting their right to govern their states without interference from those courts. They are crafting very restrictive laws which would limit or abolish abortion for all but the most narrowly defined cases. They hope to force the U.S. Supreme Court to review their laws and dismantle abortion-on-demand laws that are common in our country. The outcome of such a ruling is uncertain. Still, abortion has regained its spot as the hot topic moral issue of our day.

Christians do not need to be confused about their role in this debate.

Jesus told his disciples that they were both salt and light (Matthew 5:13, 14). The undeniable application of these verses is that Christians must assert Godly principles where possible. In homes, in schools, in communities, and in the public square, the followers of Christ must affect their world.

Jesus was a Jewish man who lived under the occupation of the Roman empire. He had no input into the political affairs of the day. Even Paul, a Roman citizen by birth, had little input into the affairs of state (c.f. Acts 22:22-29). Today, our world is different.

A person born in the United States gains the right to vote at 18.  Even before that, he enjoys a “right of redress” provided in the 1st Amendment which recognizes the citizen’s undeniable right to petition the government to correct wrongs. It is this right, and the Biblical admonition to influence the world, that should drive Christians to petition on behalf of the most vulnerable among us: the unborn.

Life is the unique province of the Lord. He spoke humanity into existence. He began with plant life (Genesis 1:11, Day Three), then animal life (Genesis 1: 20, Day Five) and finally, humanity (Genesis 1:27, Day Six). But notice verse 26. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Man was fundamentally different from every other living creature God had created. The text shows that this newly created species was to have dominion over the rest of the creation. Man was different. He was special. Genesis 2:7 has God breathing life into mankind. He never did that with any other creature.

God controls the taking of life. Divinely ordained capital punishment is biblical. Paul writes that government, ordained by God, does not carry the sword in vain. He argues that evildoers should, therefore, be afraid of government (Romans 13:1-7). God even regulates combat and the taking of life in warfare. When nations warred without divine approval and leadership, failure followed (c.f. 1 Samuel 4, 5).

Let the reader see that life is precious to God. Humanity does not determine who lives and dies. Only God does. Therefore, we conclude that abortion is wrong for it encroaches on that which God has reserved for himself. We conclude that apart from the actual life of the mother, there is no acceptable rationale for abortion.

Let us fervently pray that abortion will end up on the garbage heap of social injustice like slavery. It is a stain upon our national character. Christians should use their influence with elected officials to bring an end to this despicable act.

Abortion’s Hard Lies

abortion questionsAbortion is not a pleasant topic for anyone, especially for the women who think it solves their problems. Of course, it doesn’t and it often adds to their anxiety and grief. No one should suggest that abortion is an easy decision. I’m sure it is not. Nevertheless, abortion is a wrong decision that penalizes the most vulnerable among us for bad decisions we make.

Tom Trinko at American Thinker has a powerful, clear-headed post about abortion in light of the Irish abortion vote. I highly suggest you read it from top to bottom. Let me whet your appetite with a three of his quotes.

“Hence, when you hear all the rejoicing on the left that Ireland has decided to legalize abortion, you need to understand that leftists are cheering for the legalized killing of the most defenseless human beings in the world.” 


“…leftists believe that if it takes the killing of the innocent unborn human being to enable their sexually hedonistic lifestyles, then so be it.”

And one more to get you going:

“The left wasn’t able to convince many Americans to believe in its lies about abortion, which is why it had to be legalized by judicial fiat and propped up by a massive propaganda effort that ignores science and depends on lies and distortions.”

The Big Abortion Lie is well worth your time.

I fully expect I will be trolled for promoting his post. That’s fine. I’ll stand with life and you stand with death.


Two Abortion Questions

abortion questionsThe abortion debate polarizes culture. It is a sharp litmus test for many. Abortion is the banner issue of women’s right’s groups and feminist causes. The debate is loud but generally a useless exchange. There are a few very basic questions that should govern our discussion.

When Does Life Begin?

Is there an objective, testable point at which life begins? Philosophers struggle with this question. Scientists struggle with this question too.

Many in the pro-abortion camp argue that life begins late in gestation, perhaps as late as birth. Some argue for late-term or even partial-birth abortions. These procedures are done well beyond the accepted dates of viability. Supporters of these procedures must affirm that life begins at birth and not before.

Science seems unable to answer the question with any precision. Some say life begins at conception for that is the moment a new, unique being begins to exist. Others say life begins with spontaneous breathing but that requires actual birth. Others argue for a beating heart and still more suggest the presence of brain waves. There is no conclusive scientific evidence.

Philosophically, we find little agreement either. Again, conception is suggested as the most reasonable point for the origin of life, but other thinkers have offered contrasting views.

Biblically, God speaks of knowing a child while it is yet unborn (Jeremiah 1:5). The unborn child responds positively to the presence of the Lord nearby (Luke 1:41, 44 ). Life begins with God (Genesis 1:26, 27) and its coming and passing lies with Him.

If we could all agree as to the moment life begins, the larger question of abortion might be easier to deduce. But for now, we are left with uncertainty. It would seem, that since we do not know, we ought to err on the side of the unborn.

Is One Life Superior to Another?

Shall a pregnancy be terminated for the convenience of the mother? “I’m just not ready to be a parent” or “I can’t afford to have a child” are reasons often heard. This suggests the child must give way to the mother. Her convenience is more important than the child’s life. It is a harsh but accurate description.

In the United States, we have had profound discussions of equality that persist until today. In the mid-20th century we faced questions of racial equality. Laws were enacted that began to correct the horrible mistreatment of people of color. Almost everyone today will affirm that “all men are created equal.”

There are also discussions over the place of women. Most recently, many women have challenged the status quo by publicly challenging powerful men who view women as objects to be treated with contempt. Despite their piggish behavior, I suspect they would still say that a woman’s life is not inferior to theirs.

Among the horrors of the Nazi’s were the ideas that some people were inferior. Those ideas were not unique to Germany but found fertile ground among many Americans including U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and famed activist Margaret Sanger. Fortunately, such radical ideas were rejected by the populace.

This country holds that all are equal, and none are superior to others. We have enshrined this thought in our Constitution, we have fought horrible wars to settle the question, and we have rescued those deemed unworthy of life by other nations. I doubt many would dare to argue that one person is superior to another.

Reasonable people can disagree on the moment life begins. However, we should accept the uncertainty inherent in our positions. So given that uncertainty, why can we not agree that we should protect all life?

Thank you for reading my thoughts. Please join the discussion below.

Should We Change?

People vote for a candidate for one or many possible reasons. One very large set of issues are those that deal with social issues or moral issues. Things like abortion, gambling, gay marriage and work ethic issues define many American voters. For many years, politicos have been telling us that these issues are unimportant to many and downright offensive to others. In the aftermath of last week’s election those who seek an amoral approach to politics are even louder and point to our belief in certain foundational social issues as one major reason that a conservative candidate was not elected. One commentator was bold enough to say that it was time to leave abortion behind. Are they right? Should we become silent and even indifferent to moral issues? Of course not.

Moral Issues Are God’s Issues

Our support of moral issues is predicated on Biblical teaching. We support what God has taught and dare not support what he condemns. Paul says God has spoken to us through his Spirit and  that the Spirit has searched and knows “the depths of God”  (1 Corinthians 2:6-13). It is this same Spirit that guides men into truth (John 16:13) and moved holy men to compose the books of the Bible we have today (2 Peter 1:21). We can no more jettison clear Bible teaching than we can reject the sonship of Jesus Christ.

Moral Issues Are “Salt” Issues

Jesus expects his people to be men and women of influence. He uses common salt as an example of the Christian in Matthew 5:13. The idea is unmistakable. Christians must come into contact with the world so that we can influence the world. Peter, James and John could not live upon the Transfiguration Mountain; the apostles could not remain in the upper room after the crucifixion. The work was among men. Likewise, our work is among the people of our day. We must add influence where we can.

Moral Issues Elevate a People

When a nation pursues God and seeks righteousness and goodness, that nation is blessed. Solomon said, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The founders of this nation understood that principle and sought divine blessings. Only succeeding, corrupt, generations have twisted their desires and intents to exclude righteousness from the public square. God blesses those who draw near to him (James 4:8) while opposing those who do not (Psalm 34:16).

Moral Issues Are Not Decided by the Majority

In Genesis 6, Noah did not take a poll before beginning the ark. Joshua did not seek military advice before encircling Jericho (Joshua 6). As Noah’s story makes clear, the majority is a horrible indicator of righteousness. The Lord himself tells us that most will be lost (Matthew 7:13). Pollsters and politicos would have use determine the important issues based upon focus groups and polling data. Sadly, some religious groups today survey their communities to decide what to preach on. Opinion driven preaching is driving millions into Satan’s arms every day. We must stand for truth even if we are the last man standing.

Christians must stand for goodness and influence others for righteousness whenever and wherever they can. We cannot be deluded into thinking that political victories are important enough to ignore what God has said. Let us stand until the Lord calls us home.


Bryant Evans may be reached at bryant at bryantevans.com. You can follow Bryant on Twitter  @jbevans.


Tolerance is an important buzz-word in American culture. We are taught, encouraged and cajoled into being tolerant of every odd idea that appears. There is no greater complement among some than to be thought a tolerant person. Tolerance has become the holy grail of our godless society.

The idea of “live and let live” has been corrupted into a an unholy mantra which demands acceptance and even support of immorality and unrighteousness. We must be tolerant of those who choose to take the lives of unborn children; we must tolerate and support the alternate lifestyles of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups; we must happily accept the those who practice serial marriages and even those who engage in open cheating on their spouses. In some quarters, voices were raised to tell us we must understand the anger of those who attacked innocents on 9/11.

As with so many discussions, proponents of various kinds of sin gently and quietly change the meanings of the words they use. Tolerance is an excellent example. The meaning of tolerance has shifted. To many, it now means “acceptance.” Trends within our own locale suggest that soon tolerance will mean “support.”

An example will help. If my neighbor practices witchcraft I will not burn his house down. I will not attack him as he works in his yard. I will not stand on the property line and shout insults at him. I will tolerate his presence. However I will never encourage him in his sin. When confronted by his own comments and practices I will oppose him. I will teach my children against his ways and will give air to my thoughts freely. It’s not an acceptable lifestyle.  While I may tolerate it I will not accept or support it.

Tolerance has gone too far.

I need to pause for a moment and make something clear. I do not advocate, nor have I ever, assaults upon anyone who practices unrighteousness. I have both spoken and written about the sin of hatred. That is wrong. Nevertheless, I must not stand by sheepishly while every sin is cast into the Christian’s face while a chorus of the wicked tells us we must not complain. I am told that I must be tolerant of their views while they remain intolerant of mine.

Would Jesus tolerate sin?

Jesus was not tolerant of those who perverted the sanctity of the Temple grounds and sought to profit God’s worship. (Matthew 21:12; John 2:14-15). Other wickedness was not dealt with physically but this assault upon the dwelling place of the Father was too much.

Jesus was not tolerant of ignorant religious leadership. He rebuked Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, because he did not understand basic teachings about the Christ (John 3:1-15). He was hard, even harsh, on the Pharisees and scribes who were leading Israel astray (Matthew 23).

   Jesus was not tolerant of sexual immorality. When was woman was used to try and trap Jesus into a clash between his ways and the Law of Moses he did not tolerate or accept her sin. He told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:1-11).

Jesus’ inspired apostles were likewise solidly in opposition to sin. Peter was neither tolerant nor understanding of those who watched as Jesus was crucified. He spoke plainly and demanded their repentance (Acts 2:36-38). Paul was not silent concerning homosexuality. He uses some of his strongest language anywhere to condemn that immoral lifestyle (Romans 1:18-32).

We are blessed to live in a place where free speech still reigns. Despite ongoing attempts to label opposition to some sins as “hate speech,” and thus make it illegal, the pulpit remains free as are those who serve the risen King. Let us raise our voice loudly and push back against those who serve the god of their own lusts. Stand for what is right. Speak a word loudly for the Lord!


Obama and Abortion

President Obama gained a reputation as a supporter of abortion, even of the horrible partial-birth abortion. A year ago he called for supporters and opponents to find common ground on the subject of abortion. That was a speech  that never really made sense to me. I don’t think we have common ground with those who support abortion. In my judgment it is a gross sin and objectively wrong. It is a horrible human / civil rights assult against the weakest among us. Supporters believe it is a “right.” Not sure there is any common ground there.

Continue reading Obama and Abortion