Church Matters
Church Matters
Life or Death? Abortion, Roe, & the Sanctity of Life
On June 24th, 2022 the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which enshrined the right to an abortion was overturned by a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. With all the swirling conversation on this topic, why should we speak out against abortion and why is it is imperative that Christians understand the sanctity of life and the common arguments against the life of the unborn child? Gabe and Riley discuss.
SHOW NOTES
Relevant Scripture Passages:
Links
The Atlantic: “Science is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost”: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/
British Journal of Medical Ethics: “Reconsidering fetal pain”: https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3
Patrick Tomlinson Twitter Thread on “Fertility Clinic Problem": https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672?lang=en
The Federalist: “No, Saving a Child Instead of Embryos Does Not Negate Pro-Life Position”: https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/no-saving-child-instead-embryos-burning-building-not-negate-pro-life-position/
Guttmacher Institute: “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives”: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3711005.pdf
Analysis of the Study Above: https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Ana Kasparian Clip: https://twitter.com/theyoungturks/status/1521623073132138496?lang=en
The Gospel Coalition: “Whole-Life Objectives Harm the Pro-Life Cause”: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/whole-life-harm-pro-life/
Washington Post: “Analysis | Planned Parenthood’s false stat: ‘Thousands’ of women died every year before Roe”: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/
CDC Statistics on Abortion in the US: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm
Crossway: “Resources Related to Abortion and the Sanctity of Life”: https://www.crossway.org/articles/resources-related-to-abortion-and-the-sanctity-of-life/
On June 24th, 2022, the Roe V Wade Supreme court decision, which enshrined the right to an abortion was overturned by a six, three decision in Dobbs versus Jackson women's health organization with all the swirling conversation on this topic. Why should we speak out against abortion? And why is it imperative that Christians understand the sanctity of life and the common arguments against the life of the unborn child?
Thank for being with us, you're listening to church matters and ministry of Redeemer church. Hey there, this is Gabe with Riley and, uh, you are listening to church matters and ministry of Redeemer church designed to help the church understand and apply a biblical worldview to all of life. And today we are talking about, um, a very relevant topic, a topic that, uh, is certainly making waves and headlines and everything else.
Um, it's the overturning of Roe V. Wade that happened June 24th. So, yep. Um, big. Moment big day, uh, a day that that many Christians have been praying for, um, for geez, what is that? 50 years. Yeah, almost 50 years. Yeah. Wow. So, uh, 49 I think. Yeah. I mean, 1973. Three. Yeah. So I mean, long, long time Christians have been praying for and working, uh, toward the end that has, has, uh, come at least federally.
Now there's still a lot of work to do in Washington. Obviously Washington is one of the states that is very solidly in the, uh, pro-abortion pro-choice, uh, world. And so, yeah, Washington has legislated process to abortion. Right. And so, but what I, the reason why we're doing the, the podcast on this topic today is because really, if, if part of the goal of this podcast is to help the church understand and apply a biblical worldview to all of life.
Anytime there's a big topic like this, that comes out in the news, what tends to happen is, um, you know, more conversations are possible around this topic because more people are discussing it. Yeah. Because they're hearing about it on the news mm-hmm and their friends are talking about it and it's kind of the, the water cooler talk, if you will.
Yeah. Um, and so Facebook's blown up all that sort of stuff. Yeah. Facebook, uh, I I've had multiple people from our church tell me that they're having these conversations in their workplace. Mm-hmm or it comes up with family members. Um, so it's kind of out there and around now, I know this is a very sensitive topic.
Um, it's a topic that a lot of people have personal experience with. Um, but it's also something that I think for Christians, they're not always quite sure how to. To think about it. I hear all the time, uh, a number of Christians, conservative Christians Bible, believe in Christians that really get kind of, uh, thrown off by certain pro-choice arguments.
And so the goal of today's podcast is to walk you through a couple of things. Uh, Address some of the common arguments, but also just try to help you apply a biblical worldview to this topic and understand, um, H how, how you can engage this topic confidently and not arrogantly, hopefully. And, um, uh, be, be speaking the truth in love.
So that's, that's the goal of the podcast today. Um, so I felt like the first question that would actually be good to address is why is abortion wrong? Um, sometimes we jump right away to pro-life arguments and that's fine. Um, but we need to kind of that foundational thing. If you're a Christian, you need to understand why you ought to believe abortion is wrong.
Okay. Um, so the, the first reason why we as Christians should believe abortion is wrong is because all life is created in God's image. Therefore all life has value, dignity and worth. We looked at this a little bit when, uh, we are in the gospel sermon series. Oh, yeah. We looked at the creation story and, and created in God's image.
Uh, we read that in Genesis, uh, 1 27 that, that both men and women are created in the image of God. Um, and then there's lots of verses biblically that talk about including, uh, Psalm 1 39. Uh, clus is 11 that talk about, uh, life beginning in the. And, and, uh, another one that we looked at, oh gosh, I don't remember when that was, if that was during advent or, uh, when that was, but we looked, oh, no, it was, uh, the songs of, I think, I think that was during advent, we looked at the, the songs of, of Mary and song of Elizabeth and, and those things in Luke, 1 24, uh, in 25, the same word that's used to talk about John, the Baptist in the womb and Jesus in the womb is the same word in the Greek REOs that is used to say the baby lept within her womb.
Right? Exactly. It's the same word that's used to describe a, a child outside of the womb. And so, um, biblically, there's all sorts of, uh, reasons why we would say, okay, this is a, a life, a child in the womb is a life. And so one of the reasons then that we believe, uh, abortion is wrong is because God says ending of life.
It's sinful murder is wrong. We read that in Exodus 2013. Right? So, and most people not, you don't have to be a Christian to agree. Murder is wrong now. Yeah. I, I think we would say that if you're not a Christian and, and you draw on that idea that you're really drawing on a, a biblical worldview, um, a Juda Christian worldview, when you say that murder is wrong, but to say that that, uh, the life in the womb, um, or the pre-born child, that that's a life.
And then to say that to end that life is murder is wrong. That's, that's like foundational Christian belief that you'll find that murder is wrong in almost every right. Yeah. Um, across civilization you'll find, I don't know that there's one that thinks otherwise yeah. I, I mean, even if they murder yeah.
They think it's wrong to be murdered. Mm-hmm right. They don't want to be murdered. Right. Um, or they would even think that it's wrong to murder within their own, uh, tribe. You know, if you look at throughout, throughout history, so. And so Christians certainly have good textual reasons biblically to believe that, uh, life in the womb is in fact, a life that that's a child.
Um, and so as Christians, we don't want to ever, um, feel ashamed of standing on scripture as our authority as our foundation. But I do know that for many of us, when we're talking to friends or family members or, or coworkers, neighbors, whatever, it may be that they don't wanna start with that same presupposition.
Right. They don't wanna start with a Bible verse. Um, they don't, they go. Yeah. Yeah. I, I actually believe you that your Bible says. L that the, the baby, the fetus in the womb is a child is alive. Um, but I don't believe the Bible. So why then should I have to, uh, you know, live out as though these things are true as though what the Bible says is true.
So, um, I, so just saying it again as Christians, I think it's, it's the best starting place for us is to begin with God's word that that's our foundation. That's what we can rest in. We don't believe ultimately that that life in the womb is life because science tells us it's life. We believe it's life in the womb because scripture tells us it's life.
And then amazingly wonderfully science actually confirms that reality. So that's, that's where I think we should start that being said, because this is true because this is how God designed it. Then part of the beauty of science is that science actually confirms. That truth. So, um, there was an article in the Atlantic now we don't always do this, but on this episode in particular, this is gonna probably be kind of a big episode.
So, uh, no offense, if you listen on one and a half speed, if you listen to two on two speed, there is a offense taken, but no, just don't listen on half speed. It'll get really weird. Yeah. I sound like I've been drinking too much. Yeah. Um, but, but we will have, we don't always do this, but we'll put, uh, resources, um, on the website.
Where can they find that Riley? I mean, they'll be under the episode wherever you're listening to. Okay. I know Spotify does this pretty too. I'm pretty sure podcast apple podcast does too. Gotcha. And you can also find them on the website. We'll put a little button for show notes there. Awesome. Okay. Yeah.
So it'll be called show notes and that'll have some of the different resources and articles that I'm gonna reference throughout this. Okay. So one was a, an article in the Atlantic that came out. Let's see. When was that? Uh, came out in the Atlantic in. Uh, 2018, January 18th, 2018. And the title of the article is science is giving the pro-life movement, a boost.
And, uh, it says advocates are tracking new developments in neonatal research. and technology and transforming one of America's most contentious debates. And, uh, as the article goes on, um, it's talking about the advancement of medical techniques and, uh, and how that has helped us, um, has actually helped us understand all of the things that, that pre-born children are doing in the womb before they're actually born.
So we can see, uh, a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks and smiling and clapping. Um, and. It says, it says this, it says it becomes harder to score the idea that a 20 week old, that, that unborn baby or fetus is discardable. Um, because the, uh, when Roe V Wade was the law of the land, it was legal to have an abortion up to the moment of birth.
That's that's what Roe V. Wade covered. It covered that entire, the entire length of time that a child was in the womb. And so, um, it also. As, as the article goes on, it talks about that. With these new medical techniques, doctors are able to, um, save the life of a child in the womb. That's having some sort of issue earlier and earlier.
So it says now with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether the threshold, uh, should be closer to 22 weeks, meaning, um, That, uh, most people considered viable life, uh, to be outside of the womb or at 28 weeks. Um, but now they're saying with these new medical techniques that maybe that threshold should be pushed closer back to 22 weeks, and then there's cases of, of doctors being able to save children even earlier than that and do lifesaving techniques and, and surgeries even earlier than that.
Um, and even, uh, delivering a viable. Child earlier than that, which is incredible. Yeah. So, I mean, in this article, we are seeing all sorts of ways that medical technologies helped us understand more about children in the womb. Um, there's also an article that was, uh, published in the British journal of medical ethics, where it says pre-born children feel pain as early as 12 weeks.
We'll have that article listed in the resources as well. Um, that pre-born children have a unique genetic composition different than every other human being that has existed, including their mother. Um, pre-born children fulfill the four scientific criteria for life of metabolism, growth reaction to stimuli and reproduction.
Um, these are all different. Facts that aren't dependent on a Christian worldview to argue for and to make a case for that. The child in the womb is in fact, a life it's a, it's a person, it's a child. It's everything that we would consider a human being to be. So even if you take religion out of this conversation, which I'm not advocating for, but even if you did what I want you Christian to know is, um, there are many good scientific, uh, medical reasons to affirm life beginning in the womb and being pro-life okay.
So abortion is wrong because a child in the wo is life. And then this is not simply a theologically defensible position. Right, right. But also an evidently defensible position, correct? Yes. We can actually go to, uh, to the real world and to the secular world even, and it will affirm. That the child is a, is a life.
Right. Which is so often the way that, that things work is we'll read something in scripture and go, okay, the Bible says, this is true. And then we'll see that truth confirmed in society or in creation. Right. Right. So, um, Uh, abortion is wrong. This the simple way of putting this would be abortion is wrong because, um, the, the child, the, the fetus, the, um, the, uh, embryo is a life.
It's a life, it's a child. And, um, God says murder is wrong. That it's sinful. And therefore we ought to defend and protect that life because that life is created an image of God biblically. That's the language and science backs up that. Embryo, even in this embryonic state and then as it's developing, it matches the criteria of life.
Okay. Yeah. So now the other thing that kind of comes up sometimes for Christians is why talk about this? Um, either why talk about this on perhaps it's social media? Um, obviously I engaged for some people know, I engaged that topic a little bit on social media. Um, not that somebody has to, but why speak up about, uh, Up about this at all, whether that be with a coworker, uh, a family member, isn't it better that we just go, you know what?
This is too sensitive, a topic, uh, this is a little bit too difficult. Everybody can just kind of have their own private beliefs. Um, let's not try to, uh, impinge on anyone else's beliefs. Um, I don't think we can do that as Christians because Christianity is not, uh, just meant to be a private religion. It's not meant to just be something that we kind of keep these private, uh, this private biblical worldview in our head.
And then we talk about it maybe in our homes and then our churches on Sundays and then everything else. It's just kind of like, Hey, nobody should really know. Okay. Um, we don't need to live out our worldview. We don't need to speak up about our worldview. Um, that is not what Christianity is. Christianity is a public.
Faith. Um, the apostles very early on, took Christianity, uh, out into the marketplace. Um, they discussed with people, they reasoned with people. They argued with people. Um, uh, our, we, we have to remember that, that our faith is not just a private one. It's a public one because we believe it has implications for all of life, all of life.
And so therefore it has to be public. Um, it's also important for Christians to remember that, that the Bible tells us our enemy is not merely flesh and blood meaning. The, the debate around this issue. We as Christians, shouldn't just see it as us contending against, uh, other, other human beings and, uh, their positions and arguments and very sensitive areas of their life.
We shouldn't just see it, is that what we, the way that we need to conceive of this is the way that Paul talks about it in Ephesians six, which is a spiritual battle that there's actually, uh, demonic, power and energy, and, uh, intention strategy scheme that is given to destroy image bears of God life. And so as Christians, when we engage this issue, we're actually assaulting the kingdom of darkness.
If that sounds too spiritual for you, you need to open your Bible and read Ephesians six and, and see what we're talking. And the other, the other thing that we need to remember as Christians is that, uh, you know, Paul says this in second Corinthians 10, he says for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
We destroy. Arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God and take every thought captive to obey Christ. And so part of our, our goal as Christians is to recognize that there are arguments which are, which are, uh, erected against the knowledge of God. And when I think of the pro-choice arguments, so many of them are to, um, degrade diminish, uh, the, the fact that children are image bearers of God.
Um, and so I see that as very much an argument that they have raised up against the knowledge of God, because one of the ways that we know God and what he is like is through his image that he's placed on the earth in human beings to then be displayed. And so, um, I, I, I very much believe that it's not just a, uh, thing that we're meant to be kind of quiet about private about, but that we actually are meant to engage it.
And Christians. Are supposed to be those who care about the truth. Um, we, as Christians should be people who, who want the truth to be known and seen. Um, because we believe that that ultimately God is the author of truth. And then the last reason would be this people are being harmed. Um, there's, uh, 63 million children.
They estimate that numbers, um, sometimes closer to 60, sometimes 63, but around, let's just say 60 million, even if we said 60 million children since 93, uh, since 1973. Yeah. Have been aborted. That means people are being harmed, that children are being harmed. And so we engage this topic because we would like to see less children killed.
I think that's a good thing, but it's not just the children. It's also, um, the mothers and the fathers, the families, um, the communities that are then affected by this, because it's sort of a myth that for the person who has an abortion, then they can kind of, um, you know, they're good to go. Now. Life is gonna be so much better.
They can achieve all of their dreams. Um, so often I've been in, involved in quite a bit of, of post-abortion counseling. and so often, uh, there is trauma, there is grief, there are nightmares that can last, uh, years upon years. Um, so it's not just for the good of the child, although of course it is. It's also for the good of the mother.
Yeah. And the, those, uh, men who in many cases simply we're passive and we're not being who God had called them to be. And this is not something that just happens out there. This very much happens in the church also. And so, um, I think for Christians, for all of us to recognize there is no sin for which God will not forgive us when we come in repentance.
And that includes the sin of abortion, the sin murder. But it is that we as Christians can't allow the fact that this is a sensitive topic, mean that we then disengage from the topic. Yeah. Um, so these are the reasons I think that we speak up. Now, what we're gonna do for the rest of the time is bring up some common arguments against a pro-life view.
Okay. So let's say you're with me so far, let's say you are in the place where you're like, yep. I agree. Um, that a child in the womb, uh, is in fact, a life it's a person, it's a child. They, they ought to be defended. Um, I believe that murder is wrong, but here's what happens. Sometimes we, as Christians, we get sort of sucked into some of the, uh, pro-choice arguments that then.
Either one, leave us silent or two kind of leave us in this place of, well, these are my opinions that a child's life should be preserved and I would never get an abortion, but they leave us less confident to engage people, um, and exhort them not to get abortions either. It, it feels like we, we can't cross that bridge sometimes.
And so my hope is in addressing some of the common arguments against a pro-life view, you might have more confidence to be able to look at that person and say, look, uh, I actually have a vested interest in, in trying to also convince you to be, pro-life not just to say your choice, my choice, um, but actually to try to convince you of a pro-life view.
And so one of the ways that we can do that is by examining some of the common pro-choice arguments and, uh, and seeing man, there are so many just fatal flaws. Some of these arguments, I think really proliferate on places like Twitter, um, or, uh, Instagram, maybe even Facebook, I don't know, do people. Is it Facebook just for old people now, like, like, uh, I won't say that out loud on the podcast.
Yeah. Okay. No, , I've heard that kind of recently is that, uh, you know, TikTok is where it's at. I just can't bring myself to, to go to TikTok, but yeah, if you're on one of those platforms, I would be extremely surprised if you have not heard most or all of these arguments right. On those platforms. Yeah. And possibly on Facebook also, but on, on TikTok, TikTok is unique because, um, I think before that vine was kind of similar to that.
Mm-hmm but there are these social media forms where there's short videos, right. A minute or so. I don't know if the exact amount of time, but a lot of times they're close to a minute and uh, people can kind of put forth an argument and it happens really rapid fire. And, uh, a lot of times it's appealing to emotions or making a, a ton of false equivalencies or, or whatever.
but it happened so quick and it's, uh, oftentimes, uh, communicated by a person who's really engaging and really gifted in their communication. And so we don't really get a, a chance to process it, to think about their argument. Um, they're not having it in a dialogue. We're just kind of hearing it rapid fire.
Then we go, oh man, that was super convincing. I hope nobody ever says that to me in person. right. Yeah. Uh, we don't really get a chance to, to kind of analyze it and think about it. Um, and so, uh, one of the ones that kind of blew up recently was an argument that was on Twitter. I can't remember the name of the guy that put it out.
Uh, let's see if I can find that really quick. Um, let's see. It was the, the burning building argument on, uh, Twitter. Here it is. Um, so the guy's name is. Uh, Patrick Tomlinson and, uh, it, he put it up, but the really like, like the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun. This isn't really, although some of the, um, you know, some of the facts of the scenario, if you will, or some of the scenario is a little bit different than it's been in other years.
Uh, it's a scenario that's been put out there many, many times, but this time it went viral. So I'm gonna read to you what he wrote on Twitter, and then we'll kind of engage it a little bit. Okay. Here's what he said. He said, whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for 10 years now of the life begins at conception crowd and 10 years, no one has ever.
Ever answered it, honestly, it's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there is a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. By the way, I said, this was on TikTok. This was, this one was actually on Twitter.
Although I've encountered, I think this, I, I think I actually encountered this for the first time on some like TikTok reel or, or something like that. But I think it was originally posted on, on Twitter. Mm-hmm here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit.
As you run down the hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five year old child crying for help. They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled 1000 viable human embryos. The smoke is rising. You start to choke, you know, you can grab one or the other, but not both.
Before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die saving, no one. Do you a save the child or B save the thousand embryos. There is no C C means you all die. In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life. I've never gotten a single straight a or B answer to this question.
And I never will. They will never answer, honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is a human child is worth more than a thousand embryos or 10,000 or million, because they're not the same. Not morally, not ethically, not biologically that, that phrase. Let's just remember that phrase.
Okay. They're not the same. Not morally, not ethically, not biologically. All right, moving on. This question. Absolutely eviscerates their arguments and their refusal to answer confirms that they know what to be true. No one anywhere actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist.
They're lying to you. They're lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response using false equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception conception. No one believes embryos are babies or children. Those who claim he misspelled it. He actually wrote CLM, but I'll give him, he probably meant claim Twitter.
You can't edit it, right? Oh, you can't. Okay. I don't have Twitter either. Uh, those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. Don't let them use this question to call them out, reveal them for what they are, demand the answer, your question. And when they don't slap that big old Scarlet P of the patriarchy on them, the end.
Okay. Well, I guess I get the Scarlet P because it went a little off the rails at the end there. Yeah. if you are not, uh, pro-choice then you are, uh, just upholding the patriarchy, I guess. Well, there's a bunch of problems with this argument, but one of the main problems is that his argument was originally set up to say that, uh, That the life of the five year old and the life of the thousand embryos are not equal.
And, um, not just that they're not equal, his argument would be the embryos aren't life. Right? He says, no one believes life begins at conception. Nobody. Well, okay. What are we talking about? Where are we? We're talking about one of two things here. We're either saying that the child is alive, but the embryos are not a life, or we could be having a different discussion, which is what I say it is, which is, um, an ethical dilemma, an ethical problem here of what to do when you have the possibility of saving two different.
Lives two different, even if it's, uh, you know, a, a thousand embryos or, uh, one child, right. And all the various scenarios that we could compare with, it just becomes the trolley problem. It becomes a trolley problem. Yeah. Which is a classic philosophical mm-hmm , uh, problem. Um, and so that's. So here, here's what I think we have to do.
If, if he wants to say the embryos are alive and the child is alive. Okay. Well then he's actually moved quite a bit toward the pro-life, um, argument in this scenario. That's not what he's trying to do. He's trying to say that by the fact that you would save the five year old, which of course you would.
And so would I, but the fact that you would save the five year old, um, it means that you don't think the embryos are life. That's not true. That that is a false equivalency that he is doing. Yeah. Um, you can fully say the embryos, the hundred, the million, the 1000 embryos are life and the child is a life.
You can say both things. Um, now here's, here's what I would say. This falls into this falls into an ethical scenario of how do you determine, um, life in, in how you're saving it, meaning ethically, like, so let me give you another scenario. Maybe this will help explain it. Um, if you have your family in a burning building, And you have another family in, in a different room in that same burning building, but your family has, you know, four people in it and the other family has 10 people in it.
Do you go and save the family with 10 people in it or do you save your family? Right? Well, most of us, if not all of us would say, well, we save our family, even though there's less lives now. Here's what you're, you're not saying when you do that, you're not saying. My family is alive and that other family is not alive.
Right, right. You're not, you're not saying that. Yeah. You're, you're making different ethical judgments about what is a really, really, really tough scenario of how do I preserve all of the life that is present here would be my ideal scenario. Um, if I could, I would save the five year old and the thousand embryos.
Um, if I didn't believe the embryos were life, then who cares? What, why risk? I would even say it's worthwhile and ethically, right. To go risk your life to try to save those thousand embryos. Yeah. Um, but if I didn't believe they were life at all, then who cares? Right. So. It that's, that's part of the ethical situation that you're having to weigh.
Um, when it comes to the, the five year old, some of the things you have to think about are, okay, well, a five year old can experience pain. They they're actually going to, um, experience the, the brutal, uh, pain of being burned alive. Uh, in that building, the embryos are not going to experience that now making again, an ethical judgment about, okay, this person, this five year old will not experience that physical pain and these, or rather they would.
And the embryos would not, is not the same thing as saying one is a life and the other is not give you the same scenario just to make it. To explain what I'm talking about. If there was a, a ward in the hospital of, uh, 10, uh, coma patients who were all completely comatose, they didn't know when they were gonna come outta their comas or if they ever would.
And there was a, um, 60 year old, 70 year old woman standing there. Right? The, uh, and the coma award is all younger people. Um, who would I say the 60, 70 year old woman, um, or the people in the coma, uh, ward, I'd say the 60 or 70 year old woman, um, she's alive, she's conscious. She's going to, um, have to deal with the physical effects of that torment and pain.
And so, um, I think when you're faced with a choice between, uh, a letting a human being die in profound and brutal agony, and then letting many die with no agony at all, it seems, uh, to me, A fairly simple choice. Um, the other aspect is that even though many people could be perhaps attached to those embryos, um, they could be thinking about the life that they, uh, want to live with that child and, and have all of that planned out.
I absolutely know that we also know that there is a difference. People will grieve a miscarriage. Um, I I've had, uh, several friends and, and family members who have experienced miscarriage and when they have a miscarriage, they grieve that miscarriage rightly, rightly they should grieve it and they should grieve that miscarriage mm-hmm but that makes no sense if you do are not pro-life.
Yeah. Why would you grieve that miscarriage? I, it, it absolutely baffles me when I see pro-choice, um, celebrities, the most recent one was, um, John legend and Chrissy Tegan. They had, uh, that, that I think of at least they had a, a miscarriage, uh, maybe it's been a year ago now. and they're very, uh, adamantly pro-choice.
They had a miscarriage and they were grieving the life of that child. Rightly so mm-hmm but yet they would be pro-choice and I'm just like, man, that makes no sense. You should really only grieve a miscarriage as the loss of a, a, a child, if you're pro life. And then the thing that, um, is interesting to me in that further is, um, if, if somebody has a miscarriage, okay.
Versus somebody has their two year old child, um, die. Right. There is, there is a different kind of grief that occurs. Why? Well, because with a two year old you've seen their personality, you've looked at them, you've beheld them. They've looked at you, they've desired. You you've desired them. There's relationship, there's connection.
And so saying that, um, the loss of a child in the womb is, uh, not a life simply because you grieve it differently than you would. A two year old is not accurate. You can grieve both. And yet the, the two year old with a five year old in this scenario of Patrick's scenario, um, is going to be different because, uh, there's more relationship with the five year old than there is with the embryos.
So it's, there's all sorts of, uh, issues in his argument here. Um, even more that, that, uh, I won't go into, but there is an article that will post, uh, again, in the resources page that was done on, I think it was the, was it the Federalist, um, that, uh, a, a new, a journal or a, uh, What am I looking for? What's the word I'm looking for?
They put out articles. There you go. Newspaper. I think their newspaper, paper and online magazine. Yeah. Um, but they have, uh, a sort of fuller, uh, breakdown of that, but that's, that's the first objection. Um, that one went. Really, really viral. And, uh, I I'm disappointed that it did. Um, actually I'll say this last one, which is Scott Korf.
If you don't know who Scott clues Endorf is, he's excellent. He's, uh, very involved in the pro-life movement, but he has this quote, which they quote in the article. He says, um, He says the debate over the status of embryos is not about choosing whom we're going to save as in the case of the burning lab, it's about whom we're going to deliberately kill to benefit us.
So that's even a different scenario, right? Yeah. Like, are we talking about you don't go in and shoot the five year old boy, right? You right. Exactly. So the, the, the scenario is breaks down when you start to realize no, no, no. The pro-life position is that abortion would be murder. And so that is not, oh my gosh, I'm faced with this really, really difficult scenario.
And I would like to preserve all of the life that I can. And yet I have to make this really tough, ethical decision and dilemma and choose, um, the embryo life or the five year old child life. Um, that is different than making a choice about whether or not you want to deliberately kill. One of these two lives, right?
Yeah. So, um, okay. So that's, that's uh, the first argument we'll kind of look at first objection. Um, the second one is this, uh, rape incest life of the mother fetal viability. Okay. So a common argument that's given is, um, well what about, uh, abortion and instances of rape or incest or life of the mother or fetal viability?
Um, Riley, have you encountered these arguments as you've talked with people? Yeah. I feel like this is probably one of the most common yeah. Would be my, uh, assumption. And so maybe those of you listening, you've encountered this as well, or maybe for you, this is the one that really gets you. Um, first of all, I think it can be helpful, at least to me, it it's helpful to have a sense, even just statistically of what percentage of people actually face this now in saying a percentage, cuz this it's a lower percentage in saying this percentage.
What I'm not trying to say is that then when this scenario occurs, um, okay then that's I guess, uh, I guess now we don't really have anything to say because we're really just gonna deal with the majority of people, um, or right. But that is to say that this is one, one way I've heard this referred to, I think this is the technical term is, uh, arguing from the fringe or arguing from the edge.
Right, right. Where you take the smallest percentage of cases and apply it to the majority of cases. Right. And say, well, since this happens in. This 1% of cases, then we must allow this for a hundred percent of the cases. Right. Which is just kind of logically dishonest. Yeah. It's, it's similar to when I've had conversations with people around transgenderism and, and some of those things and they, well, what about folks who are born intersex?
Yeah. You know, and so they're born with both female and male, um, parts now, now what, and it's like, well, the percentage of people that are born with that is so small. And even then it is a genetic abnormality. Right. And also, uh, but sometimes people will take the, the, the most fringe percent and amplify that in such a way that people have a outsized perspective of how.
Occurs. Right. Okay. so yeah, the amount of times that I see this brought up, or this argument is used is vastly disproportionate to the percentage of cases that this is. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, uh, the, the gut marker Institute, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. Maybe it's the yeah. Uh, Institute. Um, they're not a pro-life organization.
In fact, they're, um, quite a bit, uh, liberal really. Um, but they track these sorts of things and, and their best estimates are that the majority of estimate or of abortions anywhere between 90 to 92% are not result of incest, rape, or medical necessity, but boil down to some combination of the person not feeling ready and it not being convenient for them to have a child at that time.
Okay. Yeah. So 92%, they're saying that means only 8% of abortions fall into the category of incest rape medical necessity. Now. And the medical necessity being medical necessity of the saving life of the mother and even fetal viability. Okay. Now within that they get there's, uh, states have actually tracked some of this data.
Not all of the states will provide that data to, um, the CDC or to, uh, the gut marker Institute. But those that have tracked abortion more closely, here's what they found. They found that 0.01% of abortions were a result of incest. 0.15% were a result of rape. And when you combined the risk to the mother's life and serious fetal abnormalities, it's still accounted for less than 3% of abortions.
So they found and on a state level, the states that submitted data, that there was that, uh, less than 3% of all abortions actually fell in the category of rape incest and serious risk to the life of the mother or the. Okay. That, that we're talking about a, a very small percent. Yeah. Um, and yet how often this argument comes up, it makes it seem like it is, it is a, a, a large majority of people that are experiencing, um, this, and that's just not the case.
Um, it's something that pulls at our heartstrings. It's something that, um, causes those who are pro-life to doubt whether or not they should be pro-life or at least should be vocally pro-life. Um, but we're talking about a, a very, very small percent of people now. Here's what I don't wanna do with that small percent.
I don't want to then say, so that doesn't occur. So let's, let's talk about, we'll still make the argument. We'll still make the argument. Right. So, um, let's look at the example of rape, for example, uh, if somebody came to you and they said, you know, uh, well, what about in instances of rape? You can't possibly expect someone to carry a child to term, um, when they've been a victim of rape and here, here is a question I would have for that person.
What's wrong with rape, what's wrong with rape? Why is rape wrong? And, and then rightly what they would normally say in that kind of a scenario is, well, it's, it's wrong to violate another person's body. Nobody should get to do that, right. That's why rape is wrong. You shouldn't get to violate another person's body.
Well, what is happening in abortion? What's happening in abortion is you are, uh, violating the life of that child. You are violating that child's autonomous life. And so, um, the, the rape victim can, can become the person who is, who is sitting against their own child in a way that's similar to how they were raped.
That that's, that that's tragic. So while I can absolutely empathize, um, and think it's, uh, horrible, anybody that, again, I've, I've counseled people that have been sexually assaulted. It is, um, Uh, I'm a person who is actually, uh, in favor of, uh, the death penalty for those who are raps. Uh, I, I think that is a serious, serious, um, crime against another person against them physically, emotionally, spiritually.
Um, it's horrible. Um, but I think that what we have to be able to say as Christians is why should a child, an innocent child, why should they be put to death for the crimes? Their father. Yeah. Why should they be child did not choose to be, they didn't choose that, or, yeah. Yeah. And so for the rape victim, let's not add to the trauma of your situation by, um, now having an abortion, let's not add to, um, the sin that you've experienced by also then becoming a sinner in aborting your child.
Um, so I, I recognize that that case in those, in that 3%, um, would require a lot of care, a lot of, uh, pastoral attention. I don't think that it would require a lot of grace, um, for that person. And just, uh, certainly not a time to come in with a, uh, you. Just being as harsh as possible. Um, but as when this most often comes up is with those who are trying to make a pro-choice argument, not with the person who is necessarily in the midst of that, or has experienced that.
And they're normally trying to use it as a way of saying if you're pro-life, you're heartless, if you're pro, if you're, pro-life, you're not thinking about this instance and therefore that's why I'm pro-choice well, I, I would call, call them on that because in the vast majority of instances, that's not actually, what they're defending is the person who is experienced rape.
And even if that is what they're talking about, even if that is exactly the scenario, that 3% that we're going to discuss and debate. I think that the Christian still can, has solid ground to stand on in arguing for a pro-life position, even then. Um, incest is another example where, uh, obviously that child is, was conceived through some sort of criminal means whoever that was, that, uh, that raped or the incest situation.
That's, uh, again, horrible. But what we don't wanna say is that that child has less value or is dispensable because of the means by which the child was conceived. Um, a child conceived through incest has as much worth as any other child. Um, and the third category of the life of the mother. Um, this one is the one that I think, uh, sometimes people.
Uh, again, appeal to it and it's in that 3% category life of the mother. Um, and so when you look at something like a high risk pregnancy, so where it's a topic, for example, physicians have a, a choice as they're approaching that they can either, uh, treat two patients, the mother and the baby, or they can, um, not think of the child as a child and not really give any consideration or care whatsoever right now, if they can, they should try to preserve both patients' lives to the best of their ability.
But sometimes there are complications of the arise and only one life can be saved, then that life is saved, right. And often that would be then the life of, uh, the mother, but even, and just to, cause I think ectopic pregnancies are the one that is used most. In that, uh, in that example in an ectopic pregnancy, as far as I understand it, I'm not an OB GN or a doctor or anything, but as far as I understand it, uh, in an ectopic pregnancy, the baby is implanted in the fall Philippian tube, not in the uterus.
The baby will, will die either way, whether you save the life of the mother or not, mm-hmm in an ectopic pregnancy. Mm-hmm so it makes, it makes no sense to let the mother die with the. It makes more sense to preserve the life of the mother because the baby will die in either scenario. Yeah. Which is again, tragic, terrible.
Yeah. Pro I mean, even so for the Catholics, um, who are at least official church teaching known to be very, uh, pro-life um, that they would consider the removal of an ectopic pregnancy as still consistent with being pro-life that it is not right. Um, ending the life of, uh, a child. In fact, they call it the principle of double effect and say that because the death of the child is an UN unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother's life.
They do not involve the intentional and willful destruction of an unborn child. Yeah. So it falls into this D. Category. Um, there's also an article that, uh, or a, uh, YouTube video rather that we'll link to as well. That is a, uh, an OB GYN talking a, a doctor who used to perform, uh, abortions, but he's talking about how rare it actually is for them to encounter a scenario where the life of the mother.
It is in jeopardy and where they must choose between either saving the life of the mother or saving the life of the child. Um, it's a, a good video. Uh, he talks about that from a medical perspective. Um, but together when this results in an abortion results in the death of that child that is altogether different than intentionally choosing an abortion as a means of.
Uh, reproductive, uh, care or what's the, the phrasing, um, as reproductive healthcare reproductive healthcare, or just as a means of, of, um, you know, contraception. Yeah. Contraceptive contraception. I can't speak contraception. Thank you. Mm-hmm . And, uh, or, or even just getting the life that you want or whatever, right.
This is an together different thing. And, and preserving the life of the mother is still very much in alignment with a pro-life, uh, view and perspective. Yeah. Okay. And just, just for context with the Dobs decision, as far as I know, and if you wanna correct me on this, you can, uh, as far as I know, there is no state in the union that, uh, because of the do's decision, uh, makes ectopic pregnancy a criminal offense, right?
Like the abortion of, of an ectopic pregnancy. I don't think that's, that's the case anywhere in the union. And I doubt that it. Right. Uh, yeah, so, so I've heard that circulated too, like, well, this means that ectopic pregnancies are gonna be charged like a criminal offense. No, it's not, that's not how this works.
Like, right. It's more nuanced than that. Uh, the last one here is UN fetal abnormality, which again, in that 3%. And, uh, here's what I think we need to realize about that. One doctors are not always right about, um, their, their thought that, or their, um, perspective that the child is gonna be born and is not going to be viable that they're going to die.
Um, experientially, many of us know that, um, doctors wouldn't say that. Yeah, they're right. A hundred percent of the time about that. Right. So, yeah. Uh, that's just true that it's not always the case, um, that the child is, is going to die, but even if the child is gonna be born with some kind of severe disability, uh, let's just think about that for a minute.
If we say, well, the child is gonna be born with a severe disability, some severe abnormality. Um, therefore we ought to kill them in the womb. Well, why would we not do that once they're outside of the womb? Right? What, so let's say your child, you have the child, something happens or perhaps a genetic defect that manifests later on and, uh, or they're injured in some sort of way.
And now they have some sort of serious abnormality, some sort of serious disability. Why should you then not be permitted to end their life? I mean, most of us would consider that unthinkable. Um, but because they're in the womb, then we say, well now, um, it's thinkable now. It's okay to, to do that. Um, but I think we have to be able to say that I, if the child is a life in the womb, if that's a pre-born child, which.
I would obviously AR argue that it is then even if they're diagnosed with disabilities, um, that they would deserve to be treated with the same respect as, as people born with or without a disability. Um, and we've seen in countries, uh, places like Iceland where tragically, um, there's massive abortion rates for down syndrome.
Um, and yet, um, I've known multiple people with down syndrome in my life that, uh, I'm glad they're alive. They're a blessing. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I'm thankful for them. And yet there's a whole country that has adopted this philosophy and said, that's a genetic defect that we don't want to see in our population.
And so, um, let's make sure that there's a means to eradicate any who would be born with down syndrome. I think that's evil. Um, let's deal with the, the fourth argument here. Uh, and this one's kind of a combo and, and you're gonna get a video clip. And, uh, this, this objection would be my body, my choice, or don't like abortion, don't have one.
Okay. These are similar kinds of slogans. And there was this viral video that, that, uh, was on Twitter a while back. Um, I think her name's Anna cast, um, and, uh, Anna had this to say, Riley mind cueing it up. These comments might be strong, but it's how I genuinely feel. Um, I don't care that you're a Christian.
I don't care what the Bible says. Like, I feel like it's a clown show, like sitting here trying to decipher what your little mythical book has to say about these very real political issues. Right. I don't care if you're Christian. In fact, I will fight for you to have your religious Liberty and practice your Christianity.
I believe in. I don't believe in Christianity, which means that you do not get to dictate the way I live my life based on your religion. I don't care what the Bible says. You have every right in the world, all those women who identify with your religion have every right in the world to not get an abortion, to not take birth control, but they do not have the right to dictate my life.
And what I decide to do with my body, I don't care about your religion. I'm so tired of having nonstop conversations about what the Bible says. You live your life in the way that you interpret the Bible. Again, I don't care, but you don't get to take the Bible and tell me, well, the Bible says this and this chapter in this verse, I don't care.
I don't care. I don't believe in it. And I have the right based on our constitution to not believe. Okay, well, that was a lot, um, this was a, another one of those, uh, arguments that kind of went, uh, viral, um, that got, uh, tons and tons of, of views and, uh, folks interacting with it. I was trying to see, um, how many, uh, clicks the original one had.
Yeah, that was a repost, huh? Yeah, that was a repost. Um, but it went viral and, uh, it was certainly, uh, retweeted and, and everything by by friends and, and even family. Uh, this argument. And, you know, here's what I'm sort of distilling or, uh, distilling it into, um, my body, my choice, which is her saying, right, when she says fine, if you wanna be a Christian and you wanna have this perspective, um, you can go ahead and have that perspective, but this is my choice.
It doesn't have anything to do with your religion. I don't care what your religion has to say. Stay off of my choice, essentially. Mm-hmm right. Um, and then it, it's similar to the don't like abortion, don't have one it's like, okay, fine. You, you are free Christian women. She says to, if you want to, um, not have an abortion, then don't have one, right?
Yeah. Here's the problem in what other situation would we say? Um, I'm, I'm personally against decapitating, dismembering poisoning, other human beings, but people should be free to decide and choose for the. There's no other SNA where we would say that, right? It still all boils down to the personhood question.
Exactly. Because of the life is not a life is a person is not a person, right? Because here here's the issue. If you believe that that child in the womb is a life, right? Whether that's informed by your Christian perspective and your pro-life because you're a Christian or it's informed by a scientific perspective, because you, there are pro-life people who are not Christians, regardless of why you have, um, become, pro-life why you are pro-life.
Um, it is, it is then in, uh, on, upon you to be able to advocate for those lives, um, that we actually to, to care about justice means that we fight for the lives of the, I. The least of these biblically. Right? Um, the, uh, the verse that I was thinking of is from Proverbs and, uh, Proverbs. I think it's, let me see here, uh, Proverbs 31 8 says open your mouth for the mute for the rights of all who are destitute.
And so, but even those who are not Christian at all, Anna, for example, um, the, the person who is went did this rant. I guarantee you that there are causes that she would speak up about for other people. I hope so if she's a, um, any kind of a good citizen, if she saw someone abusing their child, uh, and she was out to dinner and she saw someone, uh, abusing their child, she shouldn't then say, well, um, I don't that's their, they can do what they want.
Um, I'm gonna live in my world. They live in their world. And, um, if, and that's fine or, or put it a different way if Anna was abusing her child. And my perspective is, okay, abuse is wrong. Abuse is sinful. The Bible says that abuse is, is wrong. And therefore I want to protect the life of that child. I ought to then say something to.
I ought to then try to save the life of that child from her abuse, right? Yeah. I, I don't go well. Um, well, gosh, I guess Anna wants me to keep my religion over here, so I really can't do anything. So it all comes down to still, do you believe that that life in the, in the womb is a child or not? Because then you have a vested interest in trying to protect that life?
Um, sometimes. Uh, situation, uh, the abortion movement and, um, everything that happens there and slavery are compared. Yeah. And I think rightly so, because mm-hmm , if my perspective, if let's just switch, let's put the scenario as slavery. If Anna said, you know, I have slaves and I believe it's perfectly fine to have slaves.
Um, and your Bible tells you that all human beings are created in the image of God. All human beings are created with value, dignity, and worth. Keep your Bible to yourself. I don't care about your perspective. Yeah, I do not think all human beings are created with value, dignity and worth. In fact, I don't believe that my slave is a human being.
And so who are you to tell me that it is I can do with them? What I would like to do? We would say, no, Anna, that's wrong. And we are gonna exhort you. We are going to challenge you. We are gonna work legally. We're going to do everything within our means to try and preserve and protect yeah. The life of that person that you have made a slave and that you are calling less than a person.
And yes, we're informed by our biblical perspective. Um, just as you are informed by our perspective. And then we all work according to whatever our worldview is, right? Yeah. So it's, um, it, it ultimately comes down to, if you believe that that child, that, that is a life in the womb, then of course you don't wanna see that life ended.
Of course you don't wanna see that life poisoned and dismembered. Right. And that, that doesn't even have to be a religious thing, but of course, for the Christian, it should be okay. Mm-hmm um, that's uh, that's the, the next one we'll look at is that's number four. The next one we'll look at number five is to really be pro-life.
You must be pro all of life. Um, I'm just gonna touch on this one really briefly. Um, there's a, again, an excellent article that we'll post to, um, that was published on the gospel coalition actually by, uh, Scott Kus, endorphin and name I've already mentioned. Um, but he, uh, he talks about this and the very short summary is he.
And his thesis is that whole life objectives harm the pro-life cause. And what he's saying is not that Christians shouldn't be whole life, um, oriented, that they shouldn't care about all of life we should. But often when this argument comes up, this idea that to be pro-life, you must be, uh, pro all of life or, um, oh, you're not really pro-life you're pro-birth or it's usually brought up in such a way as to make the Christian feel hypocritical.
Yeah. To make them feel like they can't really talk about what it means to be pro-life unless they've also adopted children, unless they're also doing work to take care of the homeless, unless they're also fighting sex trafficking, unless they're also right. And there's just this frame, like, there's this big list of prerequisites you need to meet before you can even have the conversation right.
For abortion or advocates or that you have to be doing all of that. If you want to talk about one of those things. Right, right. Yeah. What's weird is nobody does this with the other issues, right? So like if somebody, it would be so bizarre if someone was working to end homelessness in our region, which is a, a cause that, that, uh, many people want to see.
Right. Uh, changed because homelessness is, is a, a horrible problem. Um, but someone working to end that they're working to get housing for those who are homeless or whatever, nobody. And, uh, nobody comes up to them and says, You say that you care about the lives of those who are homeless, but if you really cared about life, you'd also care about fill in the blank, right?
You'd also be pro-life, you'd also be against sex trafficking. You'd also, I don't know a Christian at all that doesn't want there to be a humane and, uh, actually a practical, good working solution to solve homelessness. I, I don't know a Christian that would say no, just let him stay on the streets. Who cares?
I don't know one that that would say that, um, I don't know a Christian that could care less about sex trafficking. I don't know a Christian who could care less about drug addiction and the problems that that are, are people face there. I don't know a Christian that doesn't care about adoption. I, all of these are issues Christians care about, but it's absurd to act like to care.
The pro-life movement means that you have to equally care about all of the other list of things that a person might have. The reality is no one can, can possibly have that degree of, of, uh, time commitment, financial commitment, um, empathy sort of load to carry that. Yeah. Yeah. Um, that's why we need the whole church to engage in all these issues.
Right. You can also just look historically who are, what are the institutions that care for all of those kinds of people? Right? Uh, the church does like the church, right. Historically has set up almost every orphanage that ever was like, historically has cared for these people in this way. It's not like we don't care.
Uh, the women who are having abortions, for example, there was a great, uh, kind of call to action from a podcast. I was listening to, um, about this and talking about how it's good that, uh, Roe V Wade was overturned. That's a good thing. Uh, it's also a good thing to remember and kind of have a, you know, a kick in the butt for the church to like, okay, also advocate for the women who feel forced into this.
Right. Who feel like they have no other recourse, but to abort to terminate their pregnancy, to kill their child, uh, that should also be on the radar. And I think it is for the church, uh, and maybe some churches do it to a different, to different degrees. But, uh, to say that because you're not doing a means, you can't care about B is ridiculous, um, on just on its face, like that's right.
Like you're saying, nobody makes that equivalency in any other sphere. Like, that's just not how we do it. Yeah. And I, I think, uh, clues Endorf makes this argument in his article, uh, And I think this is so spot on is he says, um, biblically speaking, the shedding of innocent blood represents a preeminent moral crisis.
Um, and he he's his point is that it's a, uh, Whole life demands promote a false moral equivalency. So he says during the five decades that Roe V Wade was the law of the land. 62 million human beings were legally killed in the us. That is the Holocaust times 10. That is Yankee stadium filled 1,143 times over.
And that's just in the United States. So there's plenty of injustice to go around, but none so egregious and violent as abortion. That's reason enough for pro-life advocates to make protecting unborn humans, their top priority. So yeah, if you're gonna choose between a cause, right, that, uh, if you're gonna choose between stopping somebody from getting murdered and feeding somebody on the street, I'm gonna choose stopping somebody getting murdered every time.
Right. So I mean, where this comes up and has come up, even at Redeemer is people will say, well, why? Because every year at Redeemer starting last year, uh, we have. We'll dedicate, um, a Sunday to preach a sermon on the sanctity of life that'll happen every year. Um, and the sanctity of life sermon people would say, well, why not a sermon then on, uh, homeless homelessness?
Why not a, a sermon addressing mental health crisis? Why not a sermon on? And it's because, although of course, I think all of those are issues that we ought to, uh, address. I think that the issue of abortion is so severe is so serious that people are being killed. We're not talking even just about quality of life.
Although of course that's important. We're, we're talking about life or not having life. Um, uh, I, I think one of the reasons that we will address that issue is because we think it is a, a severe. Moral crisis in our country and that it is disproportionate to most other kinds of suffering and, and whole life issues.
So, um, yeah. And that's not to say, read that article, see what you think. It's not to say that we don't care about the women who are getting abortions. We do care about that. And if you're one of those women and you're listening to this podcast and you've had an abortion, or you're considering an abortion, we care about you.
Like, we want to care for you. And we support ministries who do like one that's in the region is CareNet mm-hmm, , they they're crisis pregnancy center around the Puget sound. We support them and we love the ministry that they're doing. And so we don't need to, uh, we, when we, when you say that we care for the baby in the womb, we're not saying that we don't care for the women that's outside of the womb for both of them.
Absolutely. I think that's maybe a good segue into your. Yeah. So here's, here's the next one, the next, uh, objection to address or argument that comes up as this, um, without abortion being legal, thousands of women died. Every will die. Thousands of women will die. Um, and this is repeated often, uh, it's repeated by the, uh, president of planned parenthood, Leanna Wynn.
Uh, she said this in an interview with w F a a of Dallas in 2019, she said, we face a real situation where Roe could be overturned and we know what will happen, which is that women will die. Thousands of women died every year, pre RO. Um, then again in, uh, in April 24th on a tweet, she said before Roe V Wade, thousands of women died every year and because of extreme attacks on safe, legal, abortion care, this could happen again right here in America.
And then lastly, May 22nd in an interview on MSNBC's morning, Joe. She said, we're not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year, because they didn't have access to essential healthcare. So this is a claim that is repeated. Often. I heard someone even just recently in, in conversing with somebody about this, uh, the topic of, uh, of abortion brought up this exact argument, which is now that Roe V.
Wade has been overturned. Thousands of women are going to die from, from back alley abortions. And, uh, they try to conjure up images of, of, uh, of coat hangers and all these sorts of things. The Washington post did sort of a deep dive into the stats and into these claims. And, uh, they have this fact checking aspect of their paper.
Now the Washington post, as most people know is not some conservative bastion. Right. It's not, um, the, uh, ultra far. Right. Uh, or anything close to that. Um, in fact, some people think it's pretty liberal actually, right? Yeah. Yeah. And yet they did a, uh, analysis of all of the various arguments in, at the end.
Um, here's what they said. They said. This they, and they do it. They rank they're fact checking. They rank by Pinocchios. And so they gave it four Pinocchios, which I believe is their highest level of falsehood four outta four Pinocchios four outta four Pinocchios . And, uh, here's what they said. Uh, when is a doctor talking about the president of planned parenthood and the ACOG is made up of doctors, they should know better than the pedal statistics based on data that predates the advent of antibiotics.
Okay. So part of their, uh, statistics that they're referencing in certain scenarios, Uh, at dates that that predate antibiotics, right? So people were dying from infections. Yeah. Um, even given the fuzzy nature of the data and the estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme court's decision.
Thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal. Abortions when's repeated use of this number. Remind us of the S shotty data used by human trafficking. Opponents unsafe abortion is serious is certainly a serious issue, especially in countries with inadequate medical facilities, but advocates hurt their cause when they use figures that do not withstand scrutiny, these numbers were debunked in 19 69, 50 years ago by a statistician celebrated by planned parenthood.
There's no reason to use them today. So this person is, is coming from the perspective in saying that these are lies that thousands of women died before. Uh, Roe V. Wade was in place. He's saying that's actually a lie. The estimate that they have is, uh, the CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided mm-hmm in 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was 20.
Yeah. And from illegal abortions, it was 39, according to the CDC. So, and well, short of a thousand wealth, short of a thousand. Yeah. And the illegal abortions is not back alley abortions. It's those, it it's oftentimes those who then went to a doctor who performed in illegal abortions. That's also part of what constitutes an illegal abortion.
So in many instances, they're still in a medical facility and all of that, but it's a doctor who's chosen to, to violate the law in order to perform an abortion. So the Washington post, uh, writer comes from the perspective of not wanting a pro-choice advocates to embarrass themselves by, by stating this it not because he's, pro-life, he's not.
Um, but he is trying to, uh, get them away from this, this kind of, uh, slogan, because there's no evidence of it whatsoever. And yet it's something I've heard repeated even just recently. So, uh, he says it was debunked 50 years ago, but it's still being repeated today. So you can read that article more in depth.
It'll be, uh, linked to in the show notes there. Um, the last or the, the last two of this, uh, number seven is, is this not the government's place to decide? Um, this one again, I'll, I'll do quickly. Um, but. Romans 13 Christians biblically. We, we believe that that the government is meant to be a, um, terror to, to bad conduct.
Mm-hmm not to good that the role of the government is to allow flourishing and good and life to, um, to increase and, and to punish wrongdoing. Well, if you believe that the, um, child in the womb is in fact a life, then you should believe that it's the government from a Christian perspective. you should believe that the government should protect that life.
And even if you're not a Christian, then you clearly believe that the government a, uh, has an interest in preserving life, right? Yeah. Um, so you, you have to say the argument that this is not the government's place to decide means that then you've made the decision that that is not a. Right. Yeah. That it's sort of like saying it's not the government decision to decide, um, whether or not I have a, a particular, uh, tumor removed or not.
And I would agree with you, but if it's a life, then just like the government protects other kinds of life, right. Just like the government protects your life, um, that there are laws and, and there's justices that's enacted if someone tries to end that life. So it is actually the government's place to, and, and role God-given role even to help protect the life that's within the room.
Right. And from seculars perspective, governments should be about having a good birth rate. Like it is governments should incentivize healthy families that raise good citizens for the perpetuation of their people and their government. Sure. Like, just from that secular viewpoint, The abortion rate in the United States, same from that CDC 20, 20 19 study that quoted earlier, um, is close to 20% of all.
Pregnancies are aborted, which is an incredible statistic. Mm-hmm , uh, that's just in 2019. Um, they don't have data yet from the last couple of years. Uh, but even from that, that perspective of the government is for the, uh, is for the perpetuation of itself or for its citizens. It's in the government's interest to protect that life and to promote a healthy birth rate.
Mm-hmm yeah. Uh, the last one is this it's just a Fe. Uh, or, you know, sometimes people say it's just a clump of cells. Well, so are you right? I'm also a clump of cells. Mm-hmm , uh, but here's what that really gets at when someone says it's just a fetus, it's just a clump of cells. It's really a war for the dictionary.
Isn't it? Mm-hmm I, I mean, we've talked about this in other other podcast episodes, I think, but there really is a war for language. Um, because if you can get people to think that by saying fetus, you're saying something other than, uh, a child where you're saying something, you're talking about something other than a person, but, uh, the word fetus is just a lot more.
That means little, one referring to the relatively small size of a pre-born, uh, baby. And even if you go to the Oxford dictionary, um, it's gonna describe a fetus as a human baby, a human child. Mm-hmm an offspring. So, but what happens is when people use the word fetus. Uh, because it's not the word child and it's, it's a UN they can kind of sometimes sneak some other meaning or, or confuse you and make you think then that this is a, a different thing that's being talked about, but the word fetus is referring to a pre-born child.
Yeah. So there's always this war for the dictionary. Um, right. You know, we see that with, what does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? What is a man? What is a woman? All, all of that kind of stuff, right? It's a, it's a war for the dictionary, but, uh, so saying this is just a fetus, um, really should hold no weight, just look at what the word fetus means and we're right back to the same place that we've been with with all the other arguments.
Yeah. So the, uh, the last, very last thing, it's not one of the arguments, but that I just wanna say to, um, Christians and, and people at Redeemer specifically is, um, you know, these are, these are arguments. These are things that can. Come up, you don't have to be an expert in every single, uh, pro-life response.
You don't have to. Here's the main thing I want you to know. You can be confident in holding a pro-life physician. You don't have to be ashamed of the Christian perspective of when life begins. You don't have to, uh, retreat from that. And that it is, it is good to continue to, uh, grow in your understanding of how to talk about these things as part of living your faith out publicly.
Yeah, it's okay. If you don't know all these things out, hopefully this, uh, helps you. Hopefully this is edifying to you in some way and helps equip you in, in some way to, to feel more confident about some of those conversations. But if I think the starting places are you. Um, theologically pro-life. Are you, uh, are you committed in a, to a pro-life worldview because you believe that it's consistent with a biblical worldview?
Um, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with the way that everybody talks about it. It doesn't mean you have to agree with every, uh, Republican politician that says they're pro-life and, and all of the different thing. It doesn't mean that you have to believe that, but are you pro-life because you are convinced that that is what it looks like to be consistent with a biblical worldview.
Um, if you're not that I would encourage you to be so, and to engage that topic more thoroughly. Um, but I also just think, uh, that too many Christians I know, uh, really do fall into some of the, these objections. And one of the most common is that, that whole idea that I, I don't like abortion personally, but I don't think that, uh, any that I should say anything about anybody else that has an abortion mm-hmm , but if you're convinced.
If you're convinced biblically, scientifically how however you're convinced ethically, if you're convinced that that is a life in the womb, then it's wrong not to speak up. It it's wrong not to say something it's wrong, not to work for protecting that life. Um, it it's cowardly to do otherwise. And so my encouragement to you as Christians would be to, to come to some settled convictions that become deep convictions, um, that are consistent with a biblical worldview on when life begins.
That would be my encouragement, my expectation to you. Mm-hmm . yeah, I would say just tack onto that. Yeah. I think that one of the best ways that you can do that, if you're wondering, like, that's great Gabe, but how do I actually like get to that point? Uh, where do I go for my resources? Uh, I think the first place you go is your community.
You go to your church, you go to your elders. Like if you have questions about these things, you're like, you'll listen to this episode. You're like, I don't really, I don't know if I agree with that point or I don't understand that argument. Come ask us, uh, come find out, we'll have a conversation. We enjoy talking to you about these things and we feel strongly that you should have these convictions and we can help you walk through that.
You know, I'd say that's a great place to start is in community. That's great. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, hopefully this helps you better apply a biblical worldview to all of life. That's, uh, the goal of this, uh, podcast. And, uh, please do check out the, uh, the resource page that we'll have. I mentioned several, um, there will probably be a couple more on there as well, but, uh, and, and know that these things aren't meant to just.
You know, sort of spark debate at the, the dinner table or with your coworker. Um, but they are meant to help equip you to feel confident in this conversation and to stand solidly in a biblical worldview and, uh, speaking up for life. So thank you for listening to this podcast. Hope it was beneficial to you and, uh, cause we'll catch you next time.
See you later.
