FAQs about Abortion

Sharing Options

Planned Parenthood is in the midst of a self-inflicted public relations nightmare. Our job is to keep it that way. But in the rolling aftermath of this disaster of theirs, many pro-life Christians are probably finding themselves in the midst of more conversations on the topic than has been true for quite some time. This really is a teachable moment for our nation, and one of the things we must provide in that teachable moment is answers.

We can no longer pretend that we do not know.
We can no longer pretend that we do not know.

The propaganda machine surrounding abortion has created a lot of confusion. The sting videos have revealed the fact of the confusion, but they have not revealed where the confusions first began. That has to be done with careful explanation.

So because many of you are now in conversations with family, friends or co-workers about “the videos,” I thought I would put together a short list of FAQs that might help navigate some of the conversations that are likely to happen.

1. When does human life begin?

According to Scripture, unborn children are received as fully human. Knitting a child together in the womb is the work of God (Ps. 139:13), a work we have no authority to interrupt. Unborn children are given full legal protections in the Mosaic law (Ex. 21:22-23). When Elizabeth and Mary met, their unborn children were also meeting, and John the Baptist jumped for joy on the occasion (Luke 1:41). But Planned Parenthood believes that John at that time was nothing more than a potential “calvarium donor.” A number of years later, Herod thought the same thing.

2. When does human life begin according to medical science?

The instruction of nature is consistent with what Scripture teaches. A complete human being comes into existence when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg. Each unique genetic composition is formed in that instant, and does not change afterward. Prior to that moment, there is no human person. After that moment there is. Every fertilized egg will therefore live forever, and eggs and sperm that are not conjoined will not.

3. When does fatherhood begin? When does motherhood begin?

Fatherhood and motherhood both begin at that moment of conception, along with all the duties and responsibilities of fatherhood and motherhood.

4. Roe v. Wade was decided a full generation ago. Why is this still a controversial issue?

There are many reasons, but one of the central ones has to do with the widespread dissemination of medical knowledge. Because of advances in ultrasound technology, it has become increasingly difficult to hide what is actually occurring in an abortion from the public. This is why Planned Parenthood is consistently opposed to mothers seeing ultrasounds of their unborn child — they don’t want the mothers to know. But they of course use ultrasound technology to keep them from crushing the more profitable parts of the child.

5. What have these sting videos revealed about the official line of Planned Parenthood?

They have revealed that Planned Parenthood wants it both ways. They want the American public to think that nothing is being removed in an abortion but nondescript “tissue,” and they want their buyers to think that they have actual human organs for sale — livers, hearts, and so on. But human organs come from humans. These two descriptions are utterly inconsistent with one another, and the videos revealed that Planned Parenthood knows full well which one is the accurate description. That is what made the videos so horrifying.

6. I do admit that the videos are unsettling. But I am still nervous about going back in the opposite direction. Don’t you pro-lifers just want to impose your morality on everyone else?

Every system of law is a codified expression of morality. The only choice we have is what kind of morality will be imposed, not whether a morality will be imposed. You are nervous about us imposing our morality on Planned Parenthood? But the only alternative is to allow Planned Parenthood to continue imposing their morality on the children — children being fattened in the womb so that they might be shipped to market. However “unsettling” you might believe our proposed system of morality to be, it could not begin to approach the horror of cutting babies up for parts. We are proposing a system of morality that respects all human life instead of despising it. That should not be considered as threatening. Respect for life is nothing to be afraid of.

7. If we reverse direction on this issue as a nation, is there anything else we must do?

Yes. As a people, we must seek God’s forgiveness for what we have been doing for these four bloody decades. But through the death of Jesus Christ God promises full forgiveness, even for sins as black and grievous as this one has been. But no forgiveness is possible for those who will not seek for it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
107 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AMA
AMA
7 years ago

Great post. Let’s keep the heat on these wicked evildoers!

Led By The Shepherd
7 years ago

Thanks for this, Pastor Wilson. Informative and concise!

Gary
Gary
7 years ago

Re #2: what about identical twins? They come from a single egg/sperm. Not just trying to be pedantic….

Clint
7 years ago
Reply to  Gary

It means human beings have the power of asexual reproduction in their early weeks of existence.

If you all of sudden “split” into two of you, would it be okay to then kill you both?

Tom©
Tom©
7 years ago

Excellent. An actual Ministry of Truth.

Kent
7 years ago

Right on target BJ. Like Paul standing aside and holding the garments while Steven is murdered, have we pretended we are not guilty by turning our head away from the horror? How many times have we heard about a friend, neighbor or relative who has recently had an abortion, and yet we remain silent? Now is the time for the church to stand up and be counted. We cannot pretend we don’t know what is going on. I recently contacted ATT over their acquistion of Directv. I asked them to stop being a purveyor of pornography. Their response was “we… Read more »

Mark Hanson
Mark Hanson
7 years ago

My old high school chum Mike West argued before the U.S. Senate in 2001 that embryos may be used for research up to 14 days, because before that time an embryo may split into two or more separate twins / triplets / etc. Therefore they cannot be “ensouled” before that time, unless the soul also divides (of course, some identical twins do feel that way). He was also convinced that up to that time there were no differentiated cells in which a spirit or soul could reside – it is only after implantation in a uterus that differentiation occurs. Here’s… Read more »

Shakes_McQueen
Shakes_McQueen
7 years ago

“The instruction of nature is consistent with what Scripture teaches. A complete human being comes into existence when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg. Each unique genetic composition is formed in that instant, and does not change afterward. Prior to that moment, there is no human person. After that moment there is. Every fertilized egg will therefore live forever, and eggs and sperm that are not conjoined will not.” This is the stance of medical science, is it? What a load of bollocks. Science takes no position on when a fertilized egg becomes a “person” – your book of… Read more »

Josh
Josh
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

Actually, the bible does not use our modern legal term of “person” in the legal sense in which we use it. But there is no doubt that a fertilised egg is a “human being”. I don’t know of any serious medical authority that thinks otherwise, even if there is fudging over the question of when legal “personhood” commences.

Shakes_McQueen
Shakes_McQueen
7 years ago
Reply to  Josh

“But there is no doubt that a fertilised egg is a “human being”. I don’t know of any serious medical authority that thinks otherwise, ”

Your first sentence is a baseless assertion, and your second sentence makes no sense, because as I already said, medical science takes no position on when a fertilized egg is “officially” a human being.

It’s a POTENTIAL life, much like any sperm or ova has the POTENTIAL to create life, despite being destroyed and discarded through natural processes by the millions every single day.

katie
katie
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

By virtue of its DNA it is human. Is it not a “being” that grows and moves independently? By independent I don’t of course mean it is not dependent on the mother, but that just as a plant is not independent of the sun or soil nevertheless it cannot be said to merely be an extension of them.

timothy
timothy
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

Your lack of imagination is typical of the unregenerate man. Try this mental exercise, Shakes. Peter Sanger-ethicist, Harvard- argues that a born baby is not a human being and should be disposed under the right circumstances. Why stop there? I can conjure up a line of thought that, reasonably and rationally, sees you Shakes as non-human and of no worth, because Science! Actually, there is no need to conjure it up. It exists. It is the idea that Gaia needs protection from pollution like you. It is time to kill Shakes McQueen, for the planet, because Science. You can mewl… Read more »

Shakes_McQueen
Shakes_McQueen
7 years ago
Reply to  timothy

It’s comments like these that reveal that, were it not for God, you’d essentially be a sociopath. This silliness of human “pollution”, were it not for God staying your hand, says infinitely more about your own inner darkness, than it does about me.

I’ve never even heard of Peter Sanger, but if it’s true that he believes what you say (a large assumption I’m giving you here), then the man is a fool. He’s also one person.

As for lack of imagination – how about the inability to see the difference between a newborn baby, and a blastocyst?

lloyd
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

We Christians don’t think you’re pollution. We aren’t wanting rid of you. We aren’t holding back merely because God stays our hand. We think you’re awesome. Extraordinary. Valuable. Worth love, sacrifice, time. We are glad you are on earth with us. We don’t think you are polluting it. We think you are populating it and taking dominion over it. And for that we are happy and proud and say “good show!. We believe the same things about the unborn. That’s why we want to save them. It may be that there is some point between fertilization and adulthood when this… Read more »

timothy
timothy
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

Peter Singer, In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

Where on that continuum do you yourself assign personhood?

Alex in Wonderland
Alex in Wonderland
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

Along with Jilly’s question below about personhood…
1) How would you have answered #2?
2) What is your view of PP and/or the videos? (i.e. why the tinfoil hat :)

Jane Dunsworth
Jane Dunsworth
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

The actual lack of imagination is the inability to see that they are essentially the same thing, because they look different.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
7 years ago
Reply to  Shakes_McQueen

“A complete human being comes into existence when a human sperm fertilizes a human egg.”

If you have a human than it is entitled to human rights.

Dave Holzmann
Dave Holzmann
7 years ago

I agree that it’s good to keep the pressure on PP by keeping their double standard and gruesome practices in the spotlight. But I don’t think squabbling over when life begins is going to move the conversation forward. Nor is hammering away with the exact same “sermon” that hasn’t communicated going to change many minds. The way to move forward is to acknowledge areas of agreement. Can people who are Pro-Life agree with any of the concepts promoted by people who are Pro-Choice? How about vice versa? I believe the answer to those questions is a resounding YES! We’re ALL… Read more »

Michael
Michael
7 years ago

Dear Pastor Wilson,
How do we, as a people (as a nation) ask for forgiveness? What does that look like?

Thanks.

Kd
Kd
7 years ago

What must change if roe vs Wade is reversed? The church must start protecting life. Pro lifers must practice what they preach. We must holistically care for mother and child. No holds barred, no judgment given. I am pro life, yet I am ashamed at how many who claim to be pro life judge the poor, punish children for the actions of their parents, scoff at unwed mothers, offer no hope for the hopeless. Because, just maybe forcing that whore to live on the street will teach her to get a real job and be responsible for once in her… Read more »