How Many Gospels s4
Infant Lives Matter by Brett Hickey, sermon #1053 2 of 6
Infant Lives Matter
“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven,” Jesus warned.[i]
Two prostitutes came before King Solomon (1 Kings 3:16-27). One of the women told the King, “We live in the same house and gave birth only days apart. When her son died in the night, she took my son while I was sleeping and put her dead child in bed with me. When I awakened, I knew the dead infant was not my son.” The other woman insisted that the living child was hers. They argued back and forth. King Solomon interjected, "Bring me a sword." Then the king said, "Divide the living child in two; give half to one, and half to the other." The mother of the living son “yearned with compassion for her son; and said, ‘…give her the living child, and by no means kill him!’ But the other said, ‘Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.’ So the king answered and said, ‘Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.’"
Frequently, Bible students highlight the wisdom of Solomon in this passage, and, with good reason. However, for now please focus, instead, on the attitude of these three adults toward the living child. King Solomon had no intention of killing the baby, but, rather, offered it as a test to determine which harlot genuinely cared about the child. In contrast, some leaders today appear unmoved by babies being dismembered—even shortly before they are born. Both women standing before Solomon engaged in immoral lifestyles, but we see a vast difference between their two hearts. Setting aside herself and her personal preferences in concern for the welfare of the baby, the true mother preferred to let her vindictive, lying, conniving roommate keep the child rather than allow any harm to come to her child. She knew the meaning of love and compassion!
Bitter over her tremendous loss and being envious of the true mother, the hard-hearted prostitute preferred to see the baby cut in half over seeing it live on with his real mom. She cared only about herself. If she could not have the surviving child, she would rather see the baby halved. Her indifference toward the child’s welfare exposed her as the imposter. After all, how could a real mother react this way?
When King Solomon placed the fate of this newborn in her hands, she said, “Kill him.” We shudder over such brutality! The apostle Paul describes people like this when he speaks of people “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3). The same word in the original text (astorgos) can be also translated “inhuman or unloving.” The Spirit says this condition is evidence of a “reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28). The apostle Paul says further that these individuals—and those who support them—“are worthy of death” (Romans 1:32).
We would be hard-pressed to find anyone, especially a professing believer, willing to defend the spirit of the hostile harlot; yet, we find many who despise little ones in other ways.
When asked to single out the greatest global crisis we face today, reputable sources point to gender inequality, high unemployment and underemployment, food and water shortages, and political and social instability.[ii] President Obama declared in his January 20, 2015, State of the Union address, “No challenge … poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” But are any of these challenges really the greatest global issue?
Consider the following BBC report: “Scientists say the annual number of abortions worldwide increased from 50 million a year between 1990-1994 to 56 million a year between 2010-2014”[iii] This number of innocent lives slain every year is more than the combined total populations of: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.[iv] Surely, this is the greatest crisis in our world today.
The United States cannot look down at their international neighbors in this arena. Approximately the same number of abortions have been performed in the United States since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973[v]. Statistics provided by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute in the June 2011 issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology, report that “At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in ten women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in ten by age 45.”[vi] In the U.S., over one million abortions are performed annually: nearly 3000 daily a day, 121 hourly.[vii]
A Guttmacher Institute “Facts Sheet” from August, 2011, reports the reasons women give for having an abortion: “Three-fourths… say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.”[viii]
Abortion is the most tragic of all human rights violations and the most abhorrent way of despising the little ones whom Jesus defended. Abortion is age-based discrimination against those little ones yet to be born.
How do people try to justify abortion? Some refer to the baby as “a blob of tissue.” The term “fetus” is used, in part, to depersonalize the unborn child. Have you ever asked an expectant mother, “When is the fetus due?” Even the word “fetus,” though, points to human life. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word “fetus” as “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.”[ix]
When ultrasound scans determine that an unborn child is female, many in India discriminate against her by terminating the pregnancy. Carl Gierstorfer explains in a CNN article that this gruesome practice presents a societal imbalance that leads to bride trafficking: “Census data shows some districts in India have fewer than 800 girls born for every 1,000 boys.” [x]
China faces a similar problem largely as a result of the national policy limiting families to having one child. Societal preferences favor having male children: the wealthy want a son to take over the family business and other prospective parents want a son that can provide for them in old age [xi]
People in the United States discriminate against disabled people through abortion. Although there is a small risk of miscarriage, doctors regularly offer expectant mothers an amniocentesis to detect any abnormalities in the unborn child (e.g., Down syndrome, spina bifida). When the prenatal test reveals the presence of a Down syndrome child, over ninety percent of mothers abort their child.[xii]
How far along must the unborn child be before it should be respected as a human life? A May 7, 2015, Newsweek article by Lucy Westcott titled, “Finding That Babies Born at 22 Weeks Can Survive Could Change Abortion Debate” highlights a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine observing “5,000 babies born before 27 weeks of gestation.” While full-term babies are born at 40 weeks, this study “found that a significant number of babies who were born at 22 weeks, just over five months of gestation, survived after being medically treated in a hospital.” These infant lives matter!
At twenty-five days, before the mother knows she’s pregnant, the baby’s heart is beating. At thirty days, the baby has a brain of unmistakable human proportions, eyes, ears, mouth, kidneys, liver and blood pumping that is often a different blood type than his mother. Can a “fetus” with a different blood type than its mother be considered just a part of her body? At forty-five days, the baby has measurable brain waves. One is declared dead when his hearts stops beating and he has no brain activity. So, wouldn’t a heartbeat and brain activity constitute human life? All abortions take place after the baby has a heartbeat and brainwave activity. These lives are precious.
Former abortionist, Dr. David Brewer, describes his first encounter with abortion:
"I opened the sock up and I put it on the towel and there were parts in there of a person. I’d taken anatomy; I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula and there was an arm, and I saw some ribs and a chest, and I saw a little tiny head, and I saw a piece of a leg, and I saw a tiny hand. ... I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head, etc., and I turned and said, I guess you got it all ... It was pretty awful that first time... it was like somebody put a hot poker into me."
These descriptions evoke strong emotions, but we can also access the medical and biblical facts demonstrating that abortion takes a human life.[xiii]
Consider the testimony of embryology textbooks:
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th edition, Moore and Persaud: "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins AT fertilization... This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (emphasis BH)
Human Embryology & Teratology by O'Rahilly and Muller: "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed..." (emphasis BH)
Human Embryology, 3rd edition by Bradley M. Patten: "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that …marks the initiation of the life of a new individual." (emphasis BH)
Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics by Greenhill and Friedman: "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (emphasis BH)
In 1981, a U. S. Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following from medical experts:
· Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." (emphasis BH)
· Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
· Dr. Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes: "After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." (emphasis BH)
· Professor Hymie Gordon of Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
· Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." (emphasis BH)
The conclusion of the official Senate report reads: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”[xiv]
Even if overwhelming evidence did not exist in the medical community, but only reasonable doubts about whether the baby in the womb is a living human being, one wouldn’t want to say, “We’re just not sure, so just go ahead and abort.” Wouldn’t you wait until you were sure the “fetus” was just a “blob of tissue” before legalizing the torture and disposal of the unborn child?
Some people make an ugly compromise. They say, “I’m against abortion, but I’m pro-choice. I believe a mother should have the right to decide for herself.” That’s like saying, “I’m pro-choice when it comes to child abuse. I oppose child abuse, but believe each parent should have the right to choose.” This is similar to the person who says, “Don’t legislate morality.” What? Isn’t it “legislating morality” when we make laws against stealing or drunk-driving? Of course it is! Aren’t all laws about legislating morality—about enforcing consequences for those who do wrong?
“What about abortion to save the life of the mother?” First of all, only about 1% of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life.[xv] In nearly every case, the baby can be taken by C-section and both mother and child can be spared. The late Dr. C. Everett Koop (United States Surgeon General under President Reagan) said in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon that “he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn life had to be taken…to save the life of the mother.” The late Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood (leading provider of surgical abortions in the U. S.) acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any parent to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”[xvi]
What about abortion after a horrible experience of rape or incest? When a woman endures such a painful experience, it rightfully generates deep sympathy for the victim. But do the physical, mental, and emotional wounds associated with rape or incest justify the terminating of the resulting pregnancy? First of all, understand that the Guttmacher Institute says just over one percent of all abortions are due to rape or incest. In addressing whether it is right to abort a child conceived through rape or incest, Gregory Koukl says in his book Tactics, “Let me see if I understand. Let’s just say I had a two-year-old child standing next to me who had been conceived as a result of incest. On your view, it seems, I should have the liberty to kill her. Is that right?” Violence against the mother does not justify violence against the baby. There is no death penalty even for rapists themselves. No adverse circumstances for one human changes the nature and worth of another human.