“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the powerful but simple statement from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America that is the root of the abortion issue. Which has precedence: the mother’s liberty to do what she wants with her body or the baby’s right to life?
The context of that statement should be our guide. “We (collectively all of us) hold these truths (believe these absolute truths) to be self-evident (everyone should be aware of them without them being written down), that all men (everyone) are created (not evolved) equal (in potential), that they are endowed (given) by their Creator (God) with certain unalienable Rights (that no one can abridge), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The logic is simple, one must be alive to experience liberty. One must have liberty to pursue happiness. We must determine two things here. Is the baby a part of the mother’s body and when is the baby considered alive? Here we can appeal to the science of biology.
It is undeniable that the baby, in its first nine months of life, resides in the mother’s womb. It is also undeniable that the baby is not of part of the mother’s body. The baby has different DNA. The baby may have a blood type that is incompatible with the mother’s blood type. That is the reason for the placenta is to prevent the two blood systems from mixing. Although the mother carries the baby, it is not part of her body.
What constitutes life? How do we recognize it? Scientists tell us bacteria is alive, yet a human is much more complex. Scientists will also tell you that all mammals with a heartbeat are considered alive. When in a human, an ovum and a sperm cell unite, a unique set of DNA is created. At this point, this zygote will only become a human.
So, when does life start? Conception appears to be the answer. Either the baby is alive, or it is dead, for when we discuss living systems, they are either alive or dead. There is no in-between state. Viability, personhood, or agencyhave no bearing on whether the baby is alive or not.
Proponents once said that abortions should be rare and safe. Roe vs. Wade nationally established abortions legality for the first trimester and said it could be limited beyond that. Now some advocates want abortion available up to three months post birth. This is the slippery slope argument in action. The goal posts just keep moving. But now the science is refuting these emotional arguments.
What about the woman’s liberty? She has the liberty, guided by whatever morals and ethics she has, to decide if she is going to have sex or not. She also decides who she will or will not have sex with. She can decide whether to use a contraceptive or not. If she chooses a contraceptive, she has more than one option. Further, she can insist her partner also uses a contraceptive.  She also has the responsibility for the consequences of her decisions. In this modern age, it is inconceivable that anyone, male or female, in not cognizant of the fact that having sex can cause the natural side effect of conceiving a child. Most people never even consider it, which is sad, especially since it has an eighteen plus year consequence. It is the “risk” of “unprotected” or natural sex.In fact, sexual intercourse the primary and only cause of pregnancy. Isn’t this taughtat home, in church, and at school anymore?
Then there are the minority cases of abortion (about 2 to 0.5%, depending on how you define them) that are used to justify the majority oftypes of abortions that most people are OK with occurring.Safe but rare and forrape, incest, or the life of the mother was the cry.  Rare is now obviously a lie.
Suppose that standing in front of you there is a two-year old child who is the product of rape or incest; would you be OK with killing them? What’s the difference since the justification is the same? In the womb or out of the womb, the justification doesn’t make an allowance for where the child is. Justify that using facts and not a “just so story” to build an emotional case. “Just the facts Ma’am” (Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet).
In California the law states that it is a felony to kill a child in the womb (one would be guilty of murder) with an exception made for if the mother doesn’t want the child and apparently, they are trying to extend abortion as an option up to three months after birth. If a mother doesn’t want a child, she should give it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples who can’t have children who would love to have your unwanted child.
The life of the mother argument is a difficult one. Here the balance is the life of the mother and the life of the child. That would have to be the mother’s choice. And someone is always going to be unhappy with how it is decided. But this is a very rare and very personal decision which shouldn’t be weighed lightly.
Liberty comes with responsibility and accountability. Each of us is responsible for the choices we make. Without responsibility and accountability, liberty devolves into licentiousness. With no morals to guide us other than “if it feels good, do it”, we become indistinguishable from animals, acting only on our baser instincts. But there are consequences for actions … always … whether we want to admit it or not.
How do we make our decisions? We are influenced by out morals and what we believe about them. Let’s look at one of those.
Going back into Judeo-Christian tradition, children were seen as gifts from God. If a woman was barren, she was looked on as cursed by God. Some of the women, recorded in the Old Testament, were so happy to have been blessed with a child that they gave the child to the temple for God’s service after they were weaned.
Further it is recorded that God told one of His prophets that He was appalled by the sacrifice of children to Molech by the heathens, something He would have never dreamed of. God obviously likes children. We see this again when Jesus tells His disciples to let the children come to Him and not to hinder them.
The next time the church addresses this issue in in 680 A.D. at the 6th E.C., Constantinople III, where a church canon (law) was issued banning abortion. The date is important because it is before the Great Schism of 1054 A.D. when the Church split into the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. This means that there was only one church at the time, not the thousands of denominations we currently see.
For those that don’t know, this paragraph is going to be an aside on Church Ecumenical Councils. Here is how they work. Dissent and/or heresy is brewing in the church. The bishops of the various church get together in a church council. They discuss the problem and talk about what their church believes. They reaffirm that the church already believes and pronounce canons to reflect that and to correct heresies. The council is not considered Ecumenical until afterward when its rulings are accepted by the vast majority of the local churches.
With that being said, clearly, anyone who claims to be a Christian and supports abortion is at odds with what the historical church and scripture teach. But let’s take it a little further and look at what the Christian response to abortion should be.
We Christians are told to hate the sin but love the sinner. This means we are to alert people to sin so they can repent. We are not to vilify them for their choices. For the Christian, judging means discerning right and wrong, not condemning. Alert them so they may repent and receive eternal life. How much would you have to hate someone if you know the way to eternal life and drive them from it? A simple statement of facts is all that is required. Loud arguing and name calling is unproductive. Further, if they have repented, you need to remember that God has forgiven them, and you must also.  “... Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us …”.Further, if they repent and come to faith in Jesus, to hold what they have done against them would be to blaspheme the Blood of Jesus as insufficient to cover sin.
The bottom line is that you can believe what you want to about this issue. You can accept the facts or deny them. Depending on your morals and ethics, your belief is your belief.But facts are facts, no matter what you believe. Actions have consequences. In the case of sexual intercourse, the consequences can last 18 years. If you aren’t ready for that, it would be morally better to abstain from sex than to kill an innocent child just because its life is inconvenient to you.