The Great Evil of Abortion

Jon Osterman said:

Nonsense. The poster to whom I was responding was claiming that these verses tell us that personhood is achieved at fertilisation of the egg. I was countering that it does no such thing because it only states the the person is formed in the womb, and never specifies a time point in the womb where this happens. Therefore, one should not use these passages as evidence that personhood is achieved at fertilisation. I am quite happy for you (or whomever) to claim that the ancient Hebrews were too ignorant to know that fertilisation of the egg doesn't happen in the womb at all (even though you are implying biblical error by adopting this position) because it does not dilute my point that these passages do not provide evidence of the stated position.



Again, this is nonsense. Legally, the term "human" only applies after birth (as does "child", "individual" and "person"). The issue of whether a foetus has personhood in a colloquial sense (or rather when it gains such personhood) is what is being discussed in this thread. You can't claim your conclusion as an ansatz.



I agree that in this context, the foetus has moral value. But again, this doesn't support the claim that abortion is wrong in the eyes of God. It only supports the claim that some types of abortions are wrong in the eyes of God. In this case, it is clear that it is wrong to forcibly and violently abort a foetus in the later stages of pregnancy without the mother's consent. I am more than happy to agree with that point.



I agree with this.



I agree with this too.



I disagree strongly with this and you have presented no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this claim.



I agree with this too. So it seems we are only having trouble with point 3.

Click to expand...

With respect, you are having trouble with the verses I provided. If God knows a person as a person before they are conceived, does he not also know them as a person when they are conceived ? If God knew me when I was made, in secret, what does that mean ?

SPF said:

Well then this must be the first abortion thready you've taken a look at. There is no debate scientifically about when a new human being comes into existence.

So once again I'll suggest that for Christians who have the benefit of Scripture and knowledge of an omniscient, omnipotent, immutable God, the question of whether or not abortion is immoral ought to be an easy one.

1. All humans are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. One human killing another human being without just cause is immoral and wrong.
3. Human beings come into existence at fertilization.
4. Abortion is the killing of a human being.
5. There can never be a just cause for an abortion committed for convenience sake (this accounts for 98.5% of all abortions).
6. All abortions committed for convenience sake are immoral and therefore wrong.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136



“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

Click to expand...

A so very excellent post, thank you !

HypnoToad said:

At best, the only abortions allowed, therefore, are those carried out directly by God. I'm fine with that. God has the authority to take life.


That passage is NOT a command. It's a prophecy that it is going to happen. It was done by the Assyrians. God knowing that the Assyrians would do those things does not mean God commanded nor condoned it.


At best, the only abortions allowed, therefore, are those directly commanded by God. How many of those are happening today? I'm fairly certain it's zero.


Same as last.

God having the authority to take life in no way translates to people being able to do the same whenever they feel like it.

Click to expand...

Yes ! Murder is defined as an act of killing another human in a manner that is illegal. God gave the laws of morality to man, he never said He was under this law. Since he is perfectly good, and perfectly just, there is no law but his nature that he needs to follow. The created cannot legitimately question the creator on anything. We may try, and we might get an answer.However, murder is murder as defined for us. What God does will always be good and just, we have to be satisfied with that, or not

SPF said:

Well then this must be the first abortion thready you've taken a look at. There is no debate scientifically about when a new human being comes into existence.

Click to expand...

You are confusing the ideas of "human" as defined by a zygote having human DNA, and "human" in the sense of personhood. Your entire argument is a categorization error.

Clint Edwards said:

With respect, you are having trouble with the verses I provided. If God knows a person as a person before they are conceived, does he not also know them as a person when they are conceived ? If God knew me when I was made, in secret, what does that mean ?

Click to expand...

Actually this viewpoint supports my argument, not yours. You are stating that conception (or egg fertilisation) is not a barrier to "God knowing us as a person". He knows us as a person before it and after it. Therefore conception has no effect on whether or not "God knows us a person" so cannot be implied a significant event from this argument.

Jon Osterman said:

You are confusing the ideas of "human" as defined by a zygote having human DNA, and "human" in the sense of personhood. Your entire argument is a categorization error.

Click to expand...

If you would like to put forth an objective argument for there being a difference between a human being and a human person, then I more than welcome it. I have never seen one to date.

What a lot of abortion proponents attempt to do now that it is established science that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization is to create an arbitrary and subjective term called "human person". The argument then goes that human beings do not possess moral worth and value, only human persons possess moral worth and value.

This distinction would permit people to do what we would normally consider immoral actions against human beings because human beings don't possess moral worth and value, only human persons do.

It sounds like you're supporting this subjective, arbitrary, and fabricated notion of a distinction between a human being and a human person. If this is the case, I would love to see you support this Biblically, scientifically, and logically. I've never seen it done.

Jon Osterman said:

You are confusing the ideas of "human" as defined by a zygote having human DNA, and "human" in the sense of personhood. Your entire argument is a categorization error.

Click to expand...

The confusion and errors are yours.

For one, we are NOT arguing "a fetus has human DNA". Tumors have human DNA, that doesn't make a tumor a human being. The unborn ARE, however, human beings, as all science & medicine attest to.

Second, there is no such thing as "human in the sense of personhood", precisely because the unborn are demonstrably shown to be human beings. The vast majority of the modern left do not dispute that in the slightest. They accept that the unborn are human beings. They simply argue that they don't have status as persons with rights, but they do NOT deny their status as human beings.

SPF said:

If you would like to put forth an objective argument for there being a difference between a human being and a human person, then I more than welcome it. I have never seen one to date.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, you are missing the point again. I don't need to argue the qualities of a human person to support my position because I am not the one who wants to make laws about them. If you want to claim that a single cell embryo has the same "moral worth" as an adult human being and make laws about it, it is you who must provide evidence (bibical or otherwise).

It is certainly not something intuitive. The Romans for example believed personhood only came when a child learned to speak, which is why they have found mass graves of discarded children. Obviously I wouldn't go that far, but I actually suspect conciousness or personhood isn't really there until quite late on in a pregnancy, most probably related to brain development. We should of course err on the side of caution and set abortion limits much earlier than this, but the first trimester seems reasonably safe.

Jon Osterman said:

Respectfully, you are missing the point again. I don't need to argue the qualities of a human person to support my position because I am not the one who wants to make laws about them. If you want to claim that a single cell embryo has the same "moral worth" as an adult human being and make laws about it, it is you who must provide evidence (bibical or otherwise).

Click to expand...

Whether or not you want to make laws about anything is not the point. We're talking about Truth.

It is either true or false that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. Science has demonstrated for us that it is True that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

It is either true or false that human beings possess inherent moral worth and value. As a fellow Christian, I would think we would be on the same page that Scripture teaches that human kind is unique among all God's creation, is created in the image of God and that all humans possess inherent moral worth and value.

Therefore, we ought to at the very least agree that the 98.5% of abortions which are committed for convenience reasons are immoral.

If you disagree with the above, can you pinpoint what it is you disagree with, and then provide a supported argument for your position?

Jon Osterman said:

but I actually suspect ... We should of course err on the side of caution...

Click to expand...

If all you have doesn't go beyond "suspicion", why wouldn't erring on the side of caution be better suited by not having any abortions?

Suppose you're out hunting. There's some rustling in a bush nearby. You don't know if it's the animal you're hunting for, or some other animal, or another person. Does "suspecting" it's just an animal justify firing your rifle into the bush? Suppose you can calculate the odds of it being a person... what threshold do the odds have to reach where you believe it's justifiable to fire your weapon?

Clint Edwards said:

Correct. How do you know what is right ? Do you just decide for yourself ? If I feel that killing all democrats is right, does that make it right ? We are subject to two laws, Paul talks about the law that most people are naturally born with. This natural law knows that murder is wrong, or rape for example. The second is the law of God throughout the Bible that tells us what is right. Sin is clearly defined, ignorance is rarely an acceptable excuse

Click to expand...

So you are unaware of this passage? I excuse you.

21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned away from the holy commandment passed on to them.

Clint Edwards said:

No, God does not will airplanes full of people to fall out of the sky, He does not will that people be burned alive in cages, He did not will that my wife waste away in abject agonizing pain that no drug could block. God allows the perverted processes of this world to play out, His will was that the process not start in the first place. He MAY reach into history for a specific purpose, but that may be very rare. Gods over riding will is that everyone chose to be saved, ultimately from this entire perverted physical and spiritual system

Click to expand...

I disagree. God holds each electron in the Cosmos in it's orbit and knows the location of each one. He has heard every past and future prayer and then formed the universe to answer each one. Your task in prayer, is to get up to speed and see how He has already answered you.

You must have already experienced, it's going to happen that way, whether you pray or not.

SkyWriting said:

I disagree. God holds each electron in the Cosmos in it's orbit and knows the location of each one. He has heard every past and future prayer and then formed the universe to answer each one. Your task in prayer, is to get up to speed and see how He has already answered you.

You must have already experienced, it's going to happen that way, whether you pray or not.

Click to expand...

Here we disagree. God gives us freewill, and he has not made us robots following a program he wrote a trillion years before. satan is the prince of this world and evil things are caused by him, not God. God allows this to show the entire creation, both seen and unseen, the consequences of self determination and ignoring Gods guidance. The object lesson will end, and all will return to what it was intended to be before man's rebellion.

SkyWriting said:

So you are unaware of this passage? I excuse you.

21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and turned away from the holy commandment passed on to them.

Click to expand...

Yep, it simply means they are worse off than they were before. Being lost in unknown disobedience is better than being lost by knowingly and perversely breaking specific commands you know should be kept.

Jon Osterman said:

You are confusing the ideas of "human" as defined by a zygote having human DNA, and "human" in the sense of personhood. Your entire argument is a categorization error.



Actually this viewpoint supports my argument, not yours. You are stating that conception (or egg fertilisation) is not a barrier to "God knowing us as a person". He knows us as a person before it and after it. Therefore conception has no effect on whether or not "God knows us a person" so cannot be implied a significant event from this argument.

Click to expand...

Ah, If you are a person before and at conception, then killing you after conception is killing a person. It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. The person God knows before conception is physically manifested at conception. Kill that physical person that God knows as a Person at any point after conception, you have murdered a physical person known as a person, by God.

Clint Edwards said:

Ah, If you are a person before and at conception, then killing you after conception is killing a person. It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. The person God knows before conception is physically manifested at conception. Kill that physical person that God knows as a Person at any point after conception, you have murdered a physical person known as a person, by God.

Click to expand...

Well, to be accurate we would have to say that before conception we don't actually exist, and therefore there is no person before conception.

God, being omniscient certainly knows prior to our existence exactly what we will be like, and how many hairs we will have on our head - but our actual physical existence does not occur until fertilization.

However, once fertilization has occurred, we exist. And we exist as a human being, created in the image of God, possessing inherent moral worth and value. I can't think of a single reason why 98.5% of the abortions committed today, which are done for convenience sake can be argued as anything but immoral when we have the proper understanding of human value, which Christians understand.

HypnoToad said:

If all you have doesn't go beyond "suspicion", why wouldn't erring on the side of caution be better suited by not having any abortions?

Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples where one needs to make a decision. Imagine a woman with a medical condition that will kill her if she gives birth. Now imagine she is raped and made pregnent. Is it better to let her die in childbirth or abort the embryo?

I don't believe that a single cell contains a human soul. Most fertilised eggs do not ever make it to birth and I find it hard to imagine that heaven is full of people who have never lived on Earth. As I have pointed out above, there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that a fetilised egg contains a human soul, so the claim that it does is entirely arbitrary. Jesus tells us to love our neighbour, to spread compassion, and frankly a zero tolerance policy on abortion is contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Jon Osterman said:

There are plenty of examples where one needs to make a decision. Imagine a woman with a medical condition that will kill her if she gives birth. Now imagine she is raped and made pregnent. Is it better to let her die in childbirth or abort the embryo?

Click to expand...

You're putting the cart before the horse. The first thing you have to do is understand principles, you have to have a foundation, and then from that you can determine the right actions, or practice. Principles first, followed by practice.

So for example, if we were to agree that human life is created in the image of God and is morally valuable, and if we agree with the entire scientific community that human life begins at conception, then we would logically conclude that the unborn possess the same inherent moral worth and value as the human whose womb they are inside.

Therefore, in the small percentage of pregnancies where there is a threat to life, the right approach would be for the doctor to consider both the mother and the unborn as his patients with the goal of saving both lives. Now, there are times in which the unborn has not reached the age of viability, and their death will be the outcome. And as tragic and sad as that is, there's nothing immoral about that.

But those situations are a far cry from analogous to the 98.5% of abortions committed for convenience sake.

Jon Osterman said:

I don't believe that a single cell contains a human soul. Most fertilised eggs do not ever make it to birth and I find it hard to imagine that heaven is full of people who have never lived on Earth. As I have pointed out above, there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that a fetilised egg contains a human soul, so the claim that it does is entirely arbitrary.

Click to expand...

Instead of consisting telling us what you don't believe, why don't you actually tell us what you do believe, and why you believe it.

In Luke 1, John the Baptist, before he was born, leaps for joy in his mother's womb. He literally leaps for joy. You really think that John is not a human being even though he's leaping for joy? And Scripture goes on to say that he was filled with the Holy Spirit while even still in his mother's womb. Surely then you can at least acknowledge that at the very least there are human beings inside the womb before birth.

And what's more, you talk about the unborn not having a soul, yet I don't know what you base that on because as far as I understand Scripture, I don't know of a single instance where there is a human being without a soul - can you show one example of a human being without a soul?

And since we know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and since we as Christians have the benefit of knowing that humans possess inherent moral worth and value on account of being made in the image of God - on what basis do you declare that unborn don't possess a soul? What's your positive argument for that position? I've seen nothing of substance from you yet, just a lot of denials.

The development cycle of a human being lasts roughly 25 years, beginning with conception. Human beings look exactly like they should look at each stage of development. A zygote looks different than a fetus, and a fetus looks different than a toddler, and a toddler looks different than a teenager, and a teenager looks different than a fully developed adult. Yet, at no point during the development cycle of the human being are the NOT a human being! And we DO know Biblically speaking that human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Therefore, one can only conclude that people who deny that the unborn are human are only doing so for the sole reason of rationalizing to themselves actions against the unborn which we would otherwise consider immoral. If you disagree, provide an actual reasonable and supported argument as to why certain human beings possess souls and have moral worth and value and other human beings don't.

Where in Scripture does it teach that humans must be developed to age X before they have moral worth and value? I've never found that in there.

Jon Osterman said:

There are plenty of examples where one needs to make a decision. Imagine a woman with a medical condition that will kill her if she gives birth. Now imagine she is raped and made pregnent. Is it better to let her die in childbirth or abort the embryo?

Click to expand...

In your scenario, the child survives at least to the point of the birthing process. At that point, why do you believe the mother is a more valuable life?

I don't believe that a single cell contains a human soul. Most fertilised eggs do not ever make it to birth and I find it hard to imagine that heaven is full of people who have never lived on Earth. As I have pointed out above, there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that a fetilised egg contains a human soul, so the claim that it does is entirely arbitrary. Jesus tells us to love our neighbour, to spread compassion, and frankly a zero tolerance policy on abortion is contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary at all. Human beings have souls. The Bible NEVER indicates that a human being starts to develop and only then gets a soul. The Bible NEVER indicates that a baby must be born before it receives a soul. Since it never gives any indication whatsoever that any human at any point of their existence lacks a soul, the position that it always has one is not "arbitrary" in the slightest.

I would think that in the court of God those responsible will pay their dues. Not just the one deciding the child's future but also those who walk away from the decision-making responsibility. Christians will be judged differently than nonchristians, those in the know different than those not knowledgable about the responsibility their action carries.

Jon Osterman said:

There are plenty of examples where one needs to make a decision. Imagine a woman with a medical condition that will kill her if she gives birth. Now imagine she is raped and made pregnent. Is it better to let her die in childbirth or abort the embryo?

I don't believe that a single cell contains a human soul. Most fertilised eggs do not ever make it to birth and I find it hard to imagine that heaven is full of people who have never lived on Earth. As I have pointed out above, there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that a fetilised egg contains a human soul, so the claim that it does is entirely arbitrary. Jesus tells us to love our neighbour, to spread compassion, and frankly a zero tolerance policy on abortion is contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Click to expand...

You simply refuse to see what is obvious. You do what those who support abortion always do, bring up a litany of what if's. My education, training, and career was in the law. I am now retired. A theological discussion about abortion is pointless, abortion supporters always twist and squirm to find a position that allows them to kill a person whom God foreknew. That is between God and they. The legal question, in American jurisprudence, that allows abortion is also based upon the Supreme Court also twisting and squirming, Roe v. Wade is flawed. My legal position is simple. The belief that a fertilized egg is a human being is difficult to make legally, because it is a theological position. To make an atheist, or alleged Christians who think like atheists on this issue, believe that a clump of non specialized cells is a human is virtually impossible. Certainly the Constitution must be considered, and it was written, as far as possible to be religious neutral. I have no right to try and compel others to accept my theological position, under the law. So LEGALLY I would support unrestricted abortion for the first trimester, and let God deal with the participants and providers as He will. After the first trimester the clump of cells has become a recognizable human being. It has a beating heart, a brain, arms and legs that it moves. From this point forward there should be NO ABORTIONS. Abortion becomes the premeditated killing of another human, under the Constitution, MURDER. And all statues regarding murder should apply. There should be exceptions, if it is alleged that death or extremely serious PHYSICAL harm would apply to the mother, an abortion should be allowed. Her importance to her family and her established life must take precedence over the life of her child. This clear and present harm should be certified by three specialists unknown to one another. IN an emergency the attending physician must certify under oath that the abortion was required under the danger to physical health statute. NO MORE should the "mental health of the mother" be a criterion. That means, "Dr. Kill my baby because I am nervous because he/.she will be inconvenient for me" The number of believers in life, are growing in comparison to the death dealers. I am confident Roe v. Wade will be overturned on the merits. It may not happen in my lifetime, but if time lasts long enough it will occur. A plethora of "what if's " will arise. TOUGH, three months were given as a killing season, after that, except for a compassionate narrow exception, the murdering stops.