I thought I’d end my series with an article by Scott Klusendorf teaching pro-life advocates how to defend the life of the unborn.  It may even change the stance of an open minded abortion supporter.

How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less

Suppose that you have just five minutes to graciously defend your pro-life beliefs with friends or classmates.  Can you do it with rational arguments?  What should you say? And how can you simplify the abortion issue for those who think it’s hopelessly complex?

Here’s how to succeed in three easy steps:

1) Clarify the issue. Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, killing them for any reason requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.

In other words, arguments based on “choice” or “privacy” miss the point entirely. Would anyone that you know support a mother killing her toddler in the name of “choice and who decides?” Clearly, if the unborn are human, like toddlers, we shouldn’t kill them in the name of choice anymore than we would a toddler. Again, this debate is about just one question: What is the unborn? At this point, some may object that your comparisons are not fair—that killing a fetus is morally different than killing a toddler. Ah, but that’s the issue, isn’t it? Are the unborn, like toddlers, members of the human family? That is the one issue that matters. (See the “Toddler Tactics” article for more on this.)

Remind your critics that you are vigorously “pro-choice” when it comes to women choosing a number of moral goods. You support a woman’s right to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, to choose her own job, and to choose her own religion, to name a few. These are among the many choices that you fully support for women. But some choices are wrong, like killing innocent human beings simply because they are in the way and cannot defend themselves.¹ No, we shouldn’t be allowed to choose that.

2) Defend your pro-life position with science and philosophy. Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this.² For example, Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud write, “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”³ Prior to his abortion advocacy, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone, much less a medical doctor, would question this. “This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,” he wrote in his book Life in the Making.⁴

Philosophically, we can say that embryos are less developed than newborns (or, for that matter, toddlers) but this difference is not morally significant in the way abortion advocates need it to be. Consider the claim that the immediate capacity for self-awareness bestows value on human beings. Notice that this is not an argument, but an arbitrary assertion. Why is some development needed? And why is this particular degree of development (i.e., higher brain function) decisive rather than another? These are questions that abortion advocates do not adequately address.

As Stephen Schwarz points out, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo that you once were and the adult that you are today. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant such that we can say that you had no rights as an embryo but you do have rights today. Think of the acronym SLED as a helpful reminder of these non-essential differences:⁵

Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than the adults they’ll one day become. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

3) Challenge your listeners to be intellectually honest. Ask the tough questions. When critics say that birth makes the unborn human, ask, “How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?” If they say that brain development or self-awareness makes us human, ask if they would agree with Joseph Fletcher that those with an IQ below 20 or perhaps 40 should be declared non-persons? If not, why not? True, some people will ignore the scientific and philosophic case you present for the pro-life view and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. Remind your critics that if we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead, no matter what the cost to our own self-interests.

Notes:
1. Gregory Koukl, Precious Unborn Human Persons (Lomita: STR Press, 1999) p. 11.
2. See also, T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Ronand O’Rahilly & Pabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
3. Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998) p.2.
4. A. Guttmacher, Life in the Making: The Story of Human Procreation (New York: Viking Press, 1933) p. 3.
5. Stephen Schwarz, The Moral Question of Abortion (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1990) p. 18.

Currently, there is a controversy raging over embryonic stem cell research.  In this article Scott Klusendorf conveys clarity and shows the issue can be simplified.

Is Embryonic Stem Cell Research Morally Complex?

Case closed: Research that destroys one human being so that another may benefit is immoral.

When advocates of embryonic stem cell research say that we have a moral obligation to save lives and promote cures, what they really mean is that human embryos should be cloned and killed for medical research. But you would never know it by listening to their rhetoric. Now I’m all for saving lives. I’m also for stem cell research.  But I’m opposed to one kind of stem cell research that requires killing defenseless human beings so that others may (allegedly) benefit. That’s immoral.

What are stem cells?

Stem cells are fast growing, unspecialized cells that can reproduce themselves and grow new organs for the body. All 210 different types of human tissue originate from these primitive cells. Because they have the potential to grow into almost any kind of tissue including nerves, bones, and muscle, scientists believe that the introduction of healthy stem cells into a patient may restore lost function to damaged organs, especially the brain. Human embryos have an abundant supply of stem cells which scientists are eager to harvest in hopes of treating Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and other illnesses. There’s only one problem: You must kill the embryo to get its stem cells. Advocates of Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) often reply that the embryos in question are not human organisms, but stem cells with the potential to become human beings. This is an unabashed lie. Embryos don’t come from stem cells; they are living human beings that have stem cells.  And extracting these cells is lethal for the tiny human subject.

Closely related to ESCR is the cloning process known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which involves creating an embryo that is a genetic clone of the patient and then using that embryo as a source for stem cells. Advocates of ESCR euphemistically called this “therapeutic” cloning which they sought to distinguish from “reproductive” cloning. But the distinction is totally misleading because all cloning is reproductive. So-called “reproductive” cloning means allowing the cloned human to live. “Therapeutic” cloning means creating him for research and then killing him before birth. In either case, the act of cloning is exactly the same and results in a living human embryo. The only question is how we will treat the newly cloned human being.

Is ESCR complex?

Regrettably, moral concerns with ESCR are often dismissed as anti-science and anti-progress. “Our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth,” Prime Minister Tony Blair told critics of Britain’s plan to clone human embryos for research.¹ Echoing these same sentiments, U.S. Senator Orin Hatch remarked, “It would be terrible to say because of an ethical concept, we can’t do anything for patients.”² However, if Blair and Hatch are correct that scientific progress trumps morality, one can hardly condemn Hitler for grisly medical experiments on Jews. Nor can one criticize the Tuskegee experiments of the 1940s in which black men suffering from syphilis were promised treatment, only to have it denied so scientists could study the disease.

Despite claims to the contrary, ESCR is not morally complex. It comes down to just one question: Is the embryo a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the embryos in question are not human, killing them to extract stem cells requires no more justification than pulling a tooth.

The science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development, embryos (whether produced through normal reproduction or cloning) are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless.³

Pro-cloning advocates like Ronald Bailey insist that we gain no real knowledge from these scientific facts. Bailey argues that embryonic human beings are biologically human only in the sense that every cell in the body carries the full genetic code, meaning that each of our somatic (bodily) cells has as much potential for development as any human embryo. Put simply, Bailey would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our cells.⁴ This is bad biology. Bailey is making the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo. Robert George and Patrick Lee say it well. “Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating organisms capable of directing their own maturation as members of the human species.”⁵

What makes humans valuable?

Some ESCR advocates concede that zygotes (early embryos) are biologically human but deny that they are complex or developed enough to qualify as valuable human beings with a right to life. The argument goes that humans have value not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired property, usually the immediate capacity for self-awareness. Embryos do not have this immediate capacity and therefore fail to qualify as subjects with rights. There are two problems that underscore the arbitrary and counterintuitive nature of this claim. First, the self-awareness argument proves too much. Newborns lack meaningful self-awareness until several months after birth, so what’s wrong with infanticide? Second, George and Lee point out that if humans have value only because of some acquired property like self-awareness or sentience and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.⁶ Do we really want to say that those with more self-awareness are more human (and more valuable) than those with less? Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

The crux of the matter

Here’s the question to ask your critics at work, school, or church: Given a choice between a therapy that happens to be lethal for human subjects and one that is not, wouldn’t we be inclined to favor the therapy that is not lethal? Wouldn’t that be even more the case if that non-lethal therapy turns out to be vastly more promising, and far less speculative, than the lethal therapy?⁷ Stem cells drawn from adults have already yielded some striking achievements, and they do not require the killing of the human being from whom they are drawn.⁸ The extraction of stem cells from human embryos does, however, result in the destruction of defenseless human beings. Therefore, it is morally wrong. There’s nothing complex about it.

Notes:
1. “Don’t turn Against Science, Blair Warns Protesters,” London Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2000
2. Cited in “Clone Wars,” National Review On-Line, July 1, 2002
3. See, for example, Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; Ronand O’Rahilly and Pabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
4 Ronald Bailey, “Are Stem Cells Babies?”  Reason, July 11, 2001.
5. Robert George and Patrick Lee, “Reason, Science, and Stem Cells,” National Review Online, 7-20-01.
6. Robert George, “Cloning Addendum,” National Review Online, 7-15-02; Patrick Lee, “The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity,” Tollefsen Lecture, St. Anselm’s College, 11-14-02.
7. I owe this question to Hadley Arkes, “Senseless on Stem Cells,” National Review Online, 8-23-04.
8. For a complete summary of these adult stem cell treatments, go to www.stemcellresearch.org.

Go to part 22 here

Pro-abortion advocates want to hide the fact that abortion can be harmful to the mental health of women.  Here are two articles that look at studies that demonstrate the psychological damage done due to having an abortion.

Abortion tied to sharp decline in women’s mental health[1]

By Ryan Jaslow

(CBS) Do women who have an abortion risk their mental health?

A provocative new study shows that women who have an abortion face an increased risk for mental health problems including substance abuse, anxiety, and depression.  “Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the September 1 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

For the study, researchers analyzed data on 877,000 women, including 164,000 who had an abortion. They found women who had an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental problems.

Women who had an abortion were 34 percent more likely to develop an anxiety disorder, 37 percent more likely to experience depression, 110 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, 155 percent more likely to commit suicide, and 220 percent more likely to use marijuana.  Nearly 10 percent of the problems could be attributed to abortion, the authors concluded.

“There are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counseled prior to an abortion,” Dr. Priscilla Coleman, professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University, told the Daily Telegraph.   About 827,000 women have an abortion in the U.S. each year.

Abortion & Depression[1]

Christchurch, New Zealand (LifeNews.com) 1/4/06– A new study conducted in New Zealand finds women who have abortions are more likely to become severely depressed. The report confirms the results of a comprehensive study in 2004 in the U.S. showing abortion leads to a host of mental health problems.

The New Zealand study found that having an abortion as a young woman raises the risk of developing mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.  The findings come from the Christchurch Health and Development Study of 1265 children tracked since their birth in the 1970s.

Some 41 percent of the more than 500 women in the study became pregnant by the age of 25 and 90 women had abortions.  Some 42 percent of the women who had abortions had experienced major depression within the last four years. That’s almost double the rate of women who never became pregnant. The risk of anxiety disorders also doubled.  According to the study, women who have abortions were twice as likely to drink alcohol at dangerous levels and three times as likely to be addicted to illegal drugs.

David Fergusson, who led the study, said the results show access to legal abortions is not necessarily good for women. He also said the study confirms abortions cause women mental health issue — rather than alleviating them as abortion advocates claim.

Meanwhile, researchers at Bowling Green State University in 2004 examined data on nearly 11,000 women between the ages of 15 and 34 who had experienced an unintended pregnancy.   Their survey found that women who have abortions of unexpected pregnancies were 30 percent more likely to experience subsequent problems with anxiety than those who don’t have one.  Women in the study who had abortions and suffered from general anxiety disorder experienced irritability, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, a pounding or racing heart, or feelings of unreality.

Go to part 21 here

[2] http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortionAndDepression.htm

Some pro-abortion advocates admit the unborn is human but say the fetus is not a person and therefore can be killed. In the following article pro-life president of the Life Training Institute Scott Klusendorf will provide some clarity to this issue.  For additional arguments on the person-hood of the unborn I suggest reading my answer to my atheist friend Tom on January 18^th in the comment section of “Defending the Life of the Unborn part 5.”

Confusing human value with human function [1]

Abortion advocates like Mary Anne Warren claim that a “person” is a living entity with feelings, self-awareness, consciousness, and the ability to interact with his or her environment.  Because a human fetus has none of these capabilities, it’s not a person. Warren makes two assumptions here, neither of which she defends.  First, she doesn’t say why should anyone accept the idea that there can be such a thing as a human being that is not a human person.  What’s the difference?  I’ve never met a human that wasn’t a person, have you?  Second, even if Warren is correct about the distinction between human being and human person, she fails to tell us why a person must possess self-awareness and consciousness in order to qualify as fully human.  In other words, she merely asserts that these traits are necessary for personhood but never says why these alleged value-giving properties are value-giving in the first place.

In his article “Why Libertarians Should be Pro-Choice Regarding Abortion,” Libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson makes points similar to Warren.  His larger purpose is to tell us who is and is not a subject of libertarian rights.  He argues that humans have value (and hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired property, in this case, the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices.  Because fetuses lack this acquired property, they have no rights.  A woman’s choice to abort, then, does not negatively affect the fetus or deny it any fundamental liberties.

But this can’t be right.  Newborns, like fetuses, lack the immediate capacity to make conscious, deliberate choices, so what’s wrong with infanticide?  What principled reason can Narveson give for saying, “No, you can’t do that?”

Peter Singer in Practical Ethics bites the bullet and says there is none, that arguments used to justify abortion work equally well to justify infanticide.³⁸ Abortion-advocates Michael Tooley and Mary Anne Warren agree.  For example, if the immediate capacity for self-consciousness makes one valuable as a subject of rights, and newborns like fetuses lack that immediate capacity, it follows that fetuses and newborns are both disqualified.  You can’t draw an arbitrary line at birth and spare newborns.  Hence, infanticide, like abortion, is morally permissible.

Lincoln raised a similar point with slavery, noting that any argument used to disqualify blacks as subjects of rights works equally well to disqualify many whites.

You say ‘A’ is white and ‘B’ is black.  It is color, then: the lighter having the right to enslave the darker?  Take care.  By this rule, you are a slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again: By this rule you are to be a slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.

But you say it is a question of interest, and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another.  Very well.  And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

In short, if humans have value only because of some acquired property like skin color or self-consciousness and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.  Do we really want to say that those with more self-consciousness are more human (and valuable) than those with less?  As Lee and George point out, this relegates the proposition that all men are created equal to the ash heap of history.

Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.  Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property that they may gain or lose during their lifetimes.  If you deny this, it’s difficult to say why objective human rights apply to anyone.

Go to part 20 here

The pro-life position is both the mother and the child are worthy of protection.  However, there are rare circumstances when the life of the mother and child are in mortal danger.  This time I will use an article by Steve Wagner, from Stand to Reason, to answer this question.

What if the Mother’s Life is in Danger[1]?” Is abortion always wrong?

Key Tactical Point

Just as there is an underlying test of your compassion when people bring up abortion in the case of rape, when someone asks “Would you say that abortion is wrong when used to save the mother’s life?” they are testing whether you are a reasonable, compassionate human being. It’s critical that you pass this test in order to maintain credibility and have further opportunity to make the case for the unborn. But it’s also critical that you use this opportunity to clarify the moral logic of the pro-life position.

My First Response

”What life threatening conditions are you referring to?”

(They will likely not have any idea; you can then offer them the following helpful information.)

A Thorough Response

Note: This response clarifies the moral logic of the pro-life position and explains how that position should be applied to ectopic pregnancy.

“When the motherʹs life is truly in danger, we must treat both the mother and child as human beings worthy of protection, for that is what they are. I’m aware of only one medical circumstance when abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life: ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the newly conceived human being implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) instead of on the wall of the uterus. As the embryonic human being grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood loss and probably death. In these cases, there is no way to save the child’s life. If we do nothing, both human beings will die. Because we believe it is better to save one life than to lose two, we remove the child (causing his death) and save the mother. The death of the child is an unintended, although foreseen, consequence. So abortion in this instance is the killing of an innocent human being WITH proper justification. Notice though, this is not because the child is not human, but rather because the child is going to die no matter what. The childʹs death is unavoidable, so protecting the mother becomes our primary concern.”

Pass the Test of Compassion

The response above also passes the test of compassion that is involved with this objection. You are not more concerned about the fetus than the mother. You are equally concerned with both. To further show your views on the value of the mother are no different than the average person’s, you may want to make reference to other life threats (see below) and the dystocia case (also below).

One Key Distinction: Life Versus Health

See the article entitled, Is Abortion Legal Through All Nine Months for Any Reason? for a review of the legal importance of distinguishing between life and health threats.

Should we allow abortion for a threat to the health of the mother? If so, we are placing the health of one human being (the mother) over the life of another (the child). This seems clearly wrong. There is no other circumstance in which we would allow someone to kill an innocent person to protect herself from a health threat. We don’t allow those who are exposed to disease to kill those who exposed them, do we? No. When someone’s health is threatened by the existence of another, we attempt to remove the one threatening and treat the one threatened. We can do this in the case of the pregnant woman whose health is affected by her child. We can remove the child (as soon as possible for him to live) and treat the mother of her condition.

Threats That Are Not Threats

We agree that there are a number of conditions that threaten the pregnant woman’s life. But with many of these threats, we can treat the mother and save the child:

• Preeclampsia (Toxemia): Occurs in 1 in approximately every 12 pregnancies (5% – 8%). This is a condition of swelling, elevated blood pressure, and protein in the urine. This condition can be effectively treated either by delivery (after 36 weeks) or by bed rest (prior to 36 weeks). Delivery can also be attempted after 24 weeks with reasonable assurance the fetus will live. In some cases delivery prior to 24 weeks may be necessary although the likelihood of the child’s survival is reduced.
• Eclampsia (Toxemia with Seizures): Occurs in 1 in approximately 2000 pregnancies (.05%). This condition is marked by seizures that are caused by pregnancy (as opposed to some other known factor). Treatment is the same as for Preeclampsia, but this condition is more severe, usually requiring delivery either naturally or by C-section.
• Placenta Previa: Occurs in 1 in 200 pregnancies (.5%). The placenta covers all or part of the cervix. Although this condition has the potential to be life-threatening, with proper medical management (usually bed rest, but sometimes hospitalization), both mother and child can be protected from harm. In the case of an early placenta previa, sometimes the baby does not survive. There is no moral wrong here; this is simply a specific case of miscarriage, in which no person causes or intends the child’s death. Click on babycenter.com. Helpful information on placenta previa, including drawings, can be found on this page as well as the March of Dimes page linked under Placental Abruption, below.
• Placental Abruption: Occurs in 1 in 100 pregnancies (1%). The placenta detaches from the uterine wall. If not treated, this can harm both mother and child.  See marchofdimes.com

For more information about pregnancy risks, see Medline Plus: Health Problems in Pregnancy

One Other Threat Worth Mentioning: Dystocia

Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, one type of dystocia (any case of abnormal or difficult labor) – when the baby’s head is too large to pass through the mother’s pelvis – presented pregnant women in developed countries with an agonizing choice to save her child (by undergoing a dangerous and probably lethal Caesarean Section) or to save her own life (by undergoing a craniotomy operation that crushed the baby’s skull). Even today, this choice may still be presented to some women in developing countries where C-sections are not routine. Although some dispute whether craniotomy is truly necessary, let’s assume it is for the sake of the argument. What if there truly was a case where we could save either mother or child, but where one must die to save the other.

Are There Other Threats to the Mother’s Life that Warrant Abortion?

In most other cases of life endangerment, we can treat both mother and child. For example, a pregnant woman with cancer can be treated while the baby tolerates the chemotherapy given to the mother. See Thomas Murphy Goodwinʹs excellent article on high-risk pregnancy management.

Go to part 19 here

Incoming search terms for the article:

• defending life of the unborn (2)

Abortion would not even be a major issue if people were committed to sex only within the confines of marriage.  Individuals would still have abortions, to limit the size of their families, but the number of unborn babies killed would drop dramatically.  The Bible gives insight into how God views sex.  Pastor Mark Driscoll wrote this article for Fox News as a preview to his new book, “Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together.” Mark is a dynamic speaker and at times a controversial Christian leader.  I like him because he doesn’t pull any punches; he says it like he sees it.  He makes no apologies for writing what he believes the Bible teaches.

What the Bible Really Says About Sex By Pastor Mark Driscoll January 03, 2012

Sex is a selfish act, a conquest of personal fulfillment.  That’s the mindset of most people in our culture regarding sex—even if it’s only subconscious. For the most part, our society celebrates the process of hook up, shack up, and break up.

All you have to do is take a moment to observe the way sex is communicated in our culture.
Thousands of articles are churned out on how to cope with a past of multiple partners and how to find the next one.  Porn is a massive industry, generating $10 to $14 billion annually in revenues.

Nearly every sitcom on the air seems to make light of sleeping around, and films like “No Strings Attached” and “Friends with Benefits” lure young eyes to the theater, while a sex-crazed Tucker Max boasts about his conquests and skyrockets to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, becoming a cult hero for young slackers everywhere.

It also explains why sex trafficking is a $32 billion global industry, 45,000 to 50,000 young girls are trafficked in the United States every year, and why one in 12 youths experience sexual victimization, including sexual assault and attempted or completed rape.

The problem, however, is not sex.  It’s us.  In order to understand this, we must first understand the underlying cause of all the problems in this world: sin.

In the Bible, Paul says of the human condition:  For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.  “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” Amen (Romans 1:21-25).

And in case you think Paul is on some self-righteous kick to condemn sinners, he makes clear in the same letter that all of humanity is in the same boat, writing, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things” (Romans 2:1).

And to drive the point home, he writes, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”   Thankfully, he also adds, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” (Romans 3:23-25).

The point is this: as humans, we’re all sinners and all in need of God’s grace, given freely through Jesus. And apart from Jesus, we all pervert God’s good gifts, such as sex.

Thankfully, God is also merciful and loving. This is why he sent us Jesus to save us from our sin, and it is also why he gave us the Bible to help us understand his plan for a life that honors him and as a result leads to true fulfillment.

The Bible has a lot to say about sex—including that it’s good and that it glorifies God when we enjoy sex in the context for which He created it.  So, I thought I’d share seven sex essentials from the Bible that my wife Grace and I included in our new book, “Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, & Life Together”:

1. God created us male and female in His image and likeness with dignity, equality, value, and worth. Men and women are different and complement one another (Genesis 1:27-28).

2. Love is more like a song than a math equation. It requires a sense of poetry and passion to be any good at it, which is why people who are stuck in their heads struggle and are frustrated by it, and lovers prefer songs to syllogisms (Song of Solomon, all of it).

3. Marriage is for one man and one woman by God’s design. This is the consistent teaching of the Bible from the table of contents to the appendix and the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself (Genesis 2:24-25, Matthew 19:4).

4. God created sex. God made our bodies “very good” with “male and female” parts and pleasures. When our first parents consummated their covenant, God was not shocked or horrified, because He created our bodies for sex. The reason that sex is fun, pleasurable, and wonderful is because it is a reflection of the loving goodness of God who created it as a gift for us to steward and enjoy (Genesis 2:24-25).

5. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Sinful sex includes homosexuality, erotica, bestiality, bisexuality, fornication, friends with benefits, adultery, swinging, prostitution, incest, rape, polygamy, polyandry, sinful lust, pornography, and pedophilia (I Corinthians 6:9-11,18-20, Hebrews 13:4).

6. Sex is to be done in such a way that there is no shame (Genesis 2:25; Proverbs 5:18-23). Many people experience shame in regard to sex. Sometimes shame is a gift from God in response to our sexual sin, sometimes it is the devastating feeling we bear because we have been sexually sinned against, and other times we have not sinned or been sinned against sexually but feel shame because we have wrong thinking and feelings about sex in general, or a sex act in particular.

7. Your standard of beauty is your spouse. God made one man and one woman. He did not ask them if they wanted someone tall or short, light or heavy, pale or dark skinned, with long or short hair. In short, He did not permit them to develop a standard of beauty. Instead, He gave them each a spouse as a standard of beauty (Genesis 2:23, Proverbs 6:20-35).

I understand that I’m writing to an audience that may not consist entirely of Christian believers, including some who may even be hostile to Christianity. I also understand that many of these points will either rub some of you the wrong way or even enrage you. But, I make no apologies for the Bible and what it says.

I will say this, however… I don’t write them to condemn you, nor does the Bible. Rather, I ask you to consider your motivations for sex.

Have you ever truly given yourself to someone selflessly to love them, explore them, and cherish them until death do you part? Have you spent your life pursuing pleasure instead of seeking to give pleasure to a lifelong spouse? And, are you truly happy and fulfilled with your sex life?

The problem isn’t our partners. It’s us. We’ve perverted sex and misused it. God’s way is the best way, and I encourage you to humbly pray and think about what he has to say about us and sex in his word, the Bible.

As someone who was sexually active before becoming a Christian, I don’t consider myself more holy than anyone else. But, after experiencing Jesus’ forgiveness, becoming a Christian, understanding what the Bible teaches about sex, having massive change in my thoughts and actions about sex, marrying, and today, happily and faithfully married to the same woman for what is approaching 20 years, I sincerely want you to experience the fullness of what God has for you in Jesus Christ.

Mark Driscoll is the founding pastor of one of America’s largest, fastest-growing and most innovative churches (Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington). He was recently named one of the “25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years” by Preaching magazine. Driscoll is also co-founder of the Acts 29 Network (which has planted over 500 churches in the U.S. and 13 other nations around the world). He is the author of 15 books, including the newly-released “Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together” (Thomas Nelson 2012).

Go to part 18 here

I will finish my series by posting a few good articles on various issues dealing with the unborn.  The first one comes from Alan Shlemon, a friend who is on staff at Stand to Reason.  He is the author of The Ambassador’s Guide to Islam and speaks on a wide variety of topics.   In this article he helps give some clarity to this difficult issue of rape and abortion.

Rape and Abortion by Alan Shlemon

My friend, Susan, chose the easy route when she found she was pregnant. Susan was raped. She thought about going to the local abortion clinic. Except the head of the pro-life club – the one Susan had joined at her Christian university – was a frequent protester outside. How could Susan walk past her friend and then into the clinic? But without an abortion, she’d feel guilty, shameful, and embarrassed once her Christian friends and family found out. Given the option of a quick abortion or enduring a nine month pregnancy with the rapist’s child, Susan chose the easy route. She chose life.

“Easy” was the word she used. It caught me off guard. How can she call that easy? The physical demands of pregnancy and childbirth are difficult. There’s morning sickness, backaches, the pains of childbirth, and all the possible complications. Then there’s the psychological component: the stigma of being an unwed mother, the humiliation of rape, feelings of guilt, and the anger at the man who hurt her.

And after giving birth, you either endure the gut-wrenching turmoil of handing over your child to an adoption agency or begin the arduous task of parenting a newborn – as a single mom.

So, why did my friend refer to her decision as the “easy” route?  Two reasons. The first was her understanding of the logical reasoning and arguments against abortion. She believed that, despite being raped, having an abortion was the wrong choice.

I remember being challenged with this question by a student during my debate against a women’s studies professor at California State University in San Marcos, CA. I explained that rape doesn’t justify abortion. Here’s how I knew. I asked the audience, rhetorically, if a mother can kill her three-year-old girl who is conceived through rape. No, because rape doesn’t justify killing a three-year-old. If you can’t kill a three-year-old girl because she was conceived through rape, then you can’t kill that same girl because of rape if she’s still inside her mother’s womb. It’s the same girl; it’s just she’s not born yet in one case.

Some abortion-choice advocates protest this reasoning by pointing out that I’m talking about two different things. The three-year-old is a born girl and the one inside is not. That’s a big difference. But notice now that they’re changing the distinction. It’s no longer a matter of being raped or not, but whether the child is born or not. This proves that rape is not the real issue. Abortion-choice advocates think that the unborn is not a human being like the three-year-old girl. They just use rape as an extreme example because of its powerful rhetorical effect.

Here’s another way I look at this question. Imagine a woman is raped, gets pregnant, and the rapist is caught. Would we allow the woman to shoot and kill the rapist? No. If we don’t allow the woman to shoot the rapist who’s guilty, then why would we allow the woman to kill the child who’s innocent? Why should the child pay for the crime of her father?

Yes, my friend was victimized. But she realized that it would be wrong to then turn around and victimize another completely innocent person – her own daughter.

Susan knew this. She decided that to carry her child to term was easier because these apologetic arguments simplified the logic of her predicament. They provided a powerful moral compass during a tumultuous time.

But there was a second reason that Susan felt her decision was the easy route. She avoided the heartache of abortion. Rape creates a long-term, painful memory of a past event. And the child may be a reminder of that for years to come. But an abortion adds a second painful memory – that of killing your own child. It often leaves a woman broken and guilty. It neither un-rapes her nor erases the memory of that event.

Instead, women who abort often remember what the birthdate would have been had their child survived. Each year that day reminds them of not one crime, but two: the rape and now the abortion. That leads many women into anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. Susan didn’t want that. It would only make her situation more difficult.

So my friend chose life to avoid the heartache of abortion. Now, her daughter, Mandy, is a beautiful, six-year-old girl. Although Susan wasn’t ready to be mother, she found loving Christian parents who were. Susan still gets to see Mandy and they’ve developed a loving relationship.

It is often thought that a woman who has become pregnant through rape only needs emotional support. Logical arguments are said to be largely irrelevant. But it turns out that Susan was able to work out her dilemma through moral reasoning. Apologetic arguments she learned at her pro-life club, combined with her friend’s emotional support, gave her a foundation to make the right choice.

But Susan knew it was also the easier choice. If Susan chose abortion, she’d be consumed with guilt and shame for untold years. Instead, her choice to give Mandy life also gave herself life. Not only was her daughter able to live, but Susan was able to live – live with herself for making the right and easy choice.

This is why I do what I do. The pro-life skills I teach around the country are designed to help people like Susan. It gives them the logical tools to ground their thinking when emotions are blowing them in every direction. And your partnership helps me do that. Not only are you equipping the Susan’s of this world, you’re also helping to save the Mandy’s.

Go to part 17 here

Bible verses that “support” abortion

The following verses are used by opponents to say the Bible supports abortion.  I am going to show they actually do the opposite.

New American Standard Bible: Exodus 21:22, 23 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. ²³ “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,”

The Living Bible: Exodus 21:22 “If two men are fighting, and in the process hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband shall demand, and as the judges approve.”

Pro-abortion advocates point out that in the case of an injury to the mother, which causes a miscarriage and the baby comes out dead, there is only a fine unless the mother dies.  The penalty in that case is the perpetrator’s life for the mother’s life.  They say according to this passage the baby is not considered fully human because instead of life for life for killing the baby the intruder is only fined.

The key to answering this objection is answering the question, what is being communicated about the child?  Is miscarriage the best English word?  The Hebrew verb yasa [which some English translations call a miscarriage] means “to come forth.”  Whenever yasa is used in the Old Testament it refers to something “coming forth” alive unless otherwise indicated.  In Numbers 12:12 “Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!” Here the baby “comes from” the womb dead but the passage itself says the baby was dead.  Without stating the baby is dead yasa always means alive.  Interesting is the fact that yasa is used 1,061 times and is only translated by some as miscarriage in this one passage.  Why should this Exodus passage be different?

Moses had at his disposal Hebrew words that could have meant miscarriage, nepel and sakal, but he didn’t use them.  These words are used elsewhere in the Bible but not in this Exodus passage.

Let’s read the Exodus passage with what the verb yasa means.  Exodus 21:22, 23 “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that the baby comes out, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” The passage seems to indicate that if either the mother or the baby is injured there is a penalty and if death occurs to either party it is life for life.

So why require a fine?  The person is fined because a premature baby requires special care.  The fine is levied for punitive damages and for the expense of an early birth.  Plus, even if the fine was for a miscarriage, this wouldn’t prove the baby isn’t human because a few verses later (v. 32) Moses says there will be a fine for the death of a slave.  We wouldn’t take that to mean the slave is somehow subhuman.

To summarize the case 3 points have been established:

1. Yasa never means the baby is dead.  The English word miscarriage is simply a bad translation.  Verse 22 should say come forth or come out.
2. Is there anything in the context of the passage that we should take Yasa to mean the baby comes out dead?  The obvious answer is no.
3. If Moses had wanted to convey the baby came out dead why didn’t he use Hebrew words he had at his disposal that would have conveyed that message?  Obviously, he never intended the readers to interpret the passage to mean a dead baby.

Bottom line is the Exodus 21:22, 23 is actually a strong pro-life passage supporting the full rights and humanity of the unborn[1].

Go to part 16 here

Incoming search terms for the article:

• greg koukl what exodus 21 says about abortion (1)

Bible speaks out against killing an innocent unborn human being

The Bible does not use the word abortion, therefore, there a no verses that state “Thou shalt not abort an unborn fetus.”  However, if the unborn is human, the Bible speaks out against murder.

The following verses establish the fact the Bible teaches the unborn is human:

• Luke 1:41 “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” Only a living human baby can leap in a mother’s womb.

• Luke 1:44 “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” The NASB Greek New Testament Dictionary says the transliterated word brephos (baby) means an unborn or newborn child.  The Bible teaches the unborn is human.

The 6^th commandment deals with murder.

• Exodus 20:13 (NASB) “You shall not murder.” This moral law is one of the Ten Commandments.  Author Moses used a Hebrew word (ratsach) that in context refers to taking an innocent life with premeditation (English translation murder).  The KJV version of the Bible reads, “You shall not kill.” Using the word “kill” instead of “murder” can be misleading.  During the 17^th century the word “kill” carried a connotation more closely resembling today’s use of the word murder.  This Biblical commandment teaches it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human; therefore in Exodus 20:13 “murder” is the more likely English word.

Murder is a universal or objective moral wrong.  The verses in Luke establish the unborn baby is human.  Therefore, according to the Bible to abort a baby in the womb is murder.  This constitutes a clear violation of the 6^th commandment, “You shall not murder.”

Go to part 15 here

The Bible supports all humans are intrinsically valuable

Intrinsically valuable means a person has great worth simply because he or she is human.  According to the Bible intrinsic value is given to all humans because we are all made in the image of God.  On the other hand, instrumental value is judged by what we can or cannot do.  Many people argue the unborn can be killed because he or she lacks instrumental value or is completely dependent upon the mother.  The fetus makes no contributions to society and needs the help of others to survive.  Therefore, the unborn can be killed.  The same could be said concerning an older adult who no longer contributes to society.   My dad is currently 95 years old and cannot walk and is completely dependent on my older sister, who lives in his house.  Mentally he is still vibrant and carries on conversations.  Since he can no longer contribute to society and is completely dependent, should he be euthanatized?  This argument could be used to eliminate a sizeable portion of the world’s population.  What about individuals currently in a coma who have no instrumental value?  Should we simply eliminate them?  How about quadriplegics?  Should we kill them because they cannot contribute?  How about babies who are completely dependent upon their parents, especially mom?  Are they expendable?

In the movie “Million Dollar Baby,” the lead character, a woman boxer, becomes a quadriplegic and is helped by her trainer to commit suicide.  Why?  In her mind her quality of life wasn’t worth living; she felt she no longer had instrumental value and was dependent upon others.  This movie was supposed to be a true story.  However, in reality the woman boxer, who the movie was based on, is still alive.  As a quadriplegic she saw the film and became extremely depressed.   The fact that the movie was promoting a lie has motived her to speak out against this film and other individuals who promote ideas like doctor assisted suicide.  Her mission is to let people to know that just because a person is a quadriplegic he or she is still valuable; that all humans, including those with special needs, have intrinsic value.

The movie “Million Dollar Baby” won an Oscar for best picture while promoting a lie.  Obviously, the screenwriter was motivated to push a certain misleading philosophy.  Humans by nature have intrinsic value, not by what they can do, but by the fact they are human.  The Bible supports the intrinsic value of all humans, including the unborn.

• Genesis 1:26-27 “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ ²⁷ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Since God is not physical, to be made in God’s image is to be given rationality, will, an immaterial self, and character traits that God possesses.  Humans by virtue of being made in God’s image are intrinsically valuable.  The unborn is human based on the evidence from science, philosophy, and the Bible.

• Psalm 139:13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” God oversees the birth of all humans.  He created the process by which we all come into this world.  God is sovereign and He knows us and has a plan for us even before we were born.  Our value is intrinsic, founded upon the plan and purposes of God.

Part 12 supplied verses for the humanity of the unborn and here I have shown how the Bible supports the intrinsic value of all precious unborn human persons.  Abortion is wrong for taking the life of a valuable unborn human, even if the Bible doesn’t have the words “abortion is an abomination.”  Next I will show how the Bible prohibits the killing of the unborn.

Go to part 14 here