|
Abortion by Dr. Robert Gange Introduction To what extent if at all, does evil occur when a pregnant woman enables destruction of the life within her womb? Some believe that the answer depends upon when she permits the act to occur. They believe that the life she carries is not human until it reaches some minimum stage of development. Knowledge from biology teaches that prior to the abortion, billions of cells form and arrange themselves into various structures under instructions from the DNA blueprint in the woman’s womb a blueprint that begins to function the moment the sperm fertilizes her egg. Growth After 2 weeks, blood vessels appear. Several days later, two of these join to form a heart that, by the end of the 3rd week starts pumping blood. Although the body in her womb at this time is less than 0.7 of an inch long, its tiny heart is already pumping blood-filled oxygen to its brain. By the 4th week a cellular boundary has formed that separates the abdomen from the back; another border marks the advent of the liver, while yet others show the start of the anulis umbilicalis, coccyx and naval. The arrival of shoulder grooves is also apparent, even though the body is now only 1.7 inches in length. By 8 weeks these billions of cells have formed ears, eyes and lungs for future use, and a nervous system that embraces optical, olfactorius (smell), calf, elbow and hip nerves, as well as nerves along the outer soles of the feet. The nervous system also includes the cerebellum and medulla oblongata. Although only 8 weeks old, there are now eyelids, fingers and toes, and neurulation the process that forms the spinal cord. All of this in a body now only 7 inches long. Development over these 8 weeks occurs in 23 “Carnegie stages that can be seen at: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/ After 12 weeks, cell differentiation is done, and all of the organs have now formed, including the liver, pancreas, spleen, kidneys, heart, brain, stomach, intestines and ovaries/testes. The incomprehensible complexity of any one of these structures cannot be overstated. Anyone who doubts this need only open Gray’s anatomy each page a superficial sketch of a subsystem of the human body. Page after page reveals intricate structures that strain the bounds of credulity, but yet that are functionally designed to harmonize with all of the other organs of the body to sustain life and it is all complete by 12 weeks! Life’s Advent Some believe that the life in a pregnant woman’s womb is not human until it reaches some minimum stage of development. If so, then the question is, “At what point is such life human? Since cell differentiation is complete at 12 weeks, it means that all human organs have been formed. Thus were the fetus removed from the womb at this time, he or she could be nurtured into a normal human being. But does human life begin when these cells stop differentiating? Some argue yes; others say no. The latter consists of at least three groups: Those who believe human life: (a) starts at conception; (b) begins at birth, and (c) began at life’s initial creation and continues as a process in the womb. Two other ‘intermediate’ views on the advent of human life is that it: (i) starts after conception but prior to the 3rd month, and: (ii) begins after the 3rd month, but is prior to birth. Common Views One website (http://forums.techguy.org/t289802.htm )attempts to resolve the question by taking a poll. Results reported in late November, 2004 showed: At Conception 41 62.1% Third month of pregnancy 3 4.6% Sixth month of pregnancy 1 1.5% Point of viability (can survive out of the womb) 10 15.2% At the moment of childbirth 8 12.1% Other 3 4.5% === ===== 66 100% Although this sample size is small, experience indicates that larger samples are likely to reflect a similar outcome viz. that most people believe human life begins at conception. However taking a vote in an attempt to answer this question hardly resolves the issue. Collegiate Views Another website (http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html) tries to answer the question by classifying the advent of human life in terms of various viewpoints. This website presents these to generate “discussion and debate. These viewpoints are listed below, but modified for clarity, and with added comment: 1. Metabolic since the spermatozoon (sperm) and oocyte (egg) are each alive, life exists prior to conception. Comment This view equates human life with cellular processes in the sperm and the egg. Human life is thus denigrated to a ‘reproductive process’, and life is pontificated to later “begin at birth. 2. Embryologic human life begins after the 12th day because it is then possible for twinning to produce two people with separate souls. Comment This view wrongly assumes that the rise of two (or more) souls due to twinning after day 12 precludes the existence of these souls in two separate beings before that time. This assumption is neither warranted nor justified by empirical data. 3. Neurologic we identify human death with loss of electroencephalogram (EEG) waves. Since such waves begin at the end of the second trimester, why not the same for human life? Comment The answer to this question is that EEG waves are electromagnetic radiation created by the motion of electric charges within brain tissue. Since the heart is pumping blood to such tissue by the 4th week, and since a nervous system that includes the cerebellum and medulla oblongata is in place after the 8th week, cerebral activity that includes neurotransmission and thus EEG waves exists almost 20 weeks earlier than we are first able to detect it. But since no one understands life, why should we link its existence to an arbitrary level of neurological activity? If so, then why not tie life to the existence of language a neurological feat in a three year old, but not a three month old? To link life to arbitrary levels of neurological activity is paramount to defining life to existing electromagnetic radiation detection technology a slippery slope indeed! 4. Organic human life begins at the time the organism can distinguish itself from others. Comment This view is more conceptual than tangible, and is, at best, deliberately vague. For example, recent studies indicate that life in a mother’s womb can hear, and respond to external sounds, including music. Since ears are formed by the 8th week, this view allows, at least in principle, for the advent of human life in an embryo. It fails, however, to answer the question: “How is “self-awareness measured? Stated differently, it identifies the beginning of human life to an event that can only be measured and conveyed by that life. It therefore consigns life’s advent to a capricious albeit external judgment call, but by biased, subjective observers. 5. Ecologic human life begins when it can no longer be aborted. Comment This view pontificates that human life begins when it exists outside the womb i.e. at birth. Since the umbilical cord provides oxygen immediately after birth (until the baby starts breathing and the cord is cut), saying that life begins when it is outside the womb is not equivalent to identifying its advent with breathing. However, and but for its means of oxygen transport (cord vs. lungs), the baby is virtually the same moments before and after his or her birth. It is therefore nonsensical to hallucinate some fictional pre/post “birth boundary as defining human life’s advent. 6. Physiologic human life begins after the umbilical cord is cut, and when the baby is breathing and its cells are nourished through orally-ingested food. Comment The latter implies a functioning circulatory system. This view suffers from the same failing as the ecologic view viz. it fantasizes a fictional pre/post “birth boundary as defining the advent of a life that is virtually identical moments before, and after birth. 7. Procreatic the biological question: "When does life begin?" is replaced by the legal question: "When in the reproductive process is the embryo/fetus entitled to legal protection. Comment Some answer, “At birth, others “At conception, and still others say, “At points between. Since a legal question replaces the biological one, its answer depends on the whim of a jury. 8. Genetic human life begins at conception. Comment This view is not only the most popular, but enjoys considerable scientific support. Expert Testimony In hearings held by a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the question,When does a human life begin,testimony was presented by a number of internationally known geneticists and biologists. Two things were noteworthy: a. All were unified in what they said; b. There was no opposing testimony. Highlights of their testimony can be found on the website: (www.roevwade.org/upl39.html) and are listed below, and in the order that the ‘roevwade.org’ website presents them: a) Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception. b) "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." c) Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." d) Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." e) Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being." f) Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous." g) Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion." h) Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty. Three things are clear from all of this: 1. Scientific testimony overwhelming states that human life begins at conception; 2. Popular opinion aligns with the scientific view that life begins at conception; 3. Nonetheless there are those who reject this conclusion, and espouse other views. Abortion Agenda The question is, Why do so many people reject the unanimous conclusion of so many well known international geneticists and biologists, and instead argue that human life begins after conception? If we examine all of the other viewpoints, we observe that they share a common thread: But for the belief that human life begins at conception, all of the other viewpoints allow aborting the embryo/fetus in a time window that grows larger the later that human life is said to start. We are thus led to ask, “Do the answers to the question: ‘When does human life begin?’ come from knowledge or are they an attempt to justify a preconceived abortion agenda? Value Judgments In each instance, whether Metabolic, Embryologic, Neurologic, Organic, Ecologic, Physiologic or Procreatic, human life’s advent is seen to be defined in terms of value judgments rather than science: > Metabolic asserting that the biological processes indigenous to a spermatozoon and oocyte are equivalent to human life is a value judgment it denigrates human life to biological processes. > Embryologic assuming that two souls in two separate beings cannot exist before the advent of ‘twinning’ is an arbitrary value judgment. > Neurologic assuming human life cannot exist because our technology is inadequate to detect electromagnetic radiation created by the motion of electric charges within brain tissue is a value judgment that implies equivalence between human life and electrical currents. > Organic assuming human life does not exist because external observers are unconvinced that this life has not yet distinguished him or herself from others is a self-serving value judgment. > Ecologic asserting that human life begins when it can no longer be aborted is a value judgment. > Physiologic asserting that human life begins after the umbilical cord is cut, and when the baby is breathing and its cells are nourished through orally-ingested food is a value judgment. > Procreatic replacing the biological question: "When does life begin?" with the legal question: "When is the embryo/fetus entitled to legal protection is a self-serving value judgment. > Genetic stating that human life begins at conception is not a value judgment when: 1. References from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks support it; 2. Fertilization is experimental evidence that a new human has come into being; 3. Modern molecular biology dictates that life is present at the moment of conception; 4. Personhood and the human body are genetically complete at the moment of conception; 5. After conception, no stage exists in which the human being is not complete. 6. It is a biological fact that conception confers life, and makes that life one of a kind; 7. The existence of human life at the moment of conception is a scientific certainty. Innocent Blood Since near unanimous scientific testimony indicates that human life begins at conception, the willful termination of such life is seen by many as murder. However killing is the taking of life, and murder is unlawful killing. Since human governments permit abortion, the practice is approved and is therefore not murder at least in the eyes of the human courts that legalized it. But the Bible declares otherwise. It reveals that God hates "hands that shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:17), that doing so is “doing evil, and that there was a time “the LORD would not forgive such acts (2 Kings 21:16b, 24:4). Since the number of human lives willfully killed in the wombs of would-be mothers is now of the order of forty million, our land is quite literally ‘polluted with blood’. Deception Sadly, and beyond this, ample evidence supports the conclusion that women who consent to these abortions are not only often deceived, but later suffer adverse physical and psychological problems. The following quote is taken from "Abortion Clinics: An Inside Look" published by Last Days Ministries: I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and were just lied to by the abortion counselor. Namely 'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression." Abortion Clinics Another viewpoint on abortion comes from those who do them. One website (www.abortionfacts.com) lists over 100 quotations under the heading: Abortionists speak on Abortion. Here are just five: "They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn't want to have an abortion." Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No" the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue). How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?" "Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot.'" I had taken anatomy, I was a medical student. I knew what I was looking at. There was a little scapula and an arm, I saw some ribs and a chest, and a little tiny head. I saw a piece of a leg, and a tiny hand and an arm, and you know, it was like somebody put a hot poker into me. I had a conscience, and it hurt. Well, I checked it out and there were two arms and two legs and one head and so forth, and I turned and said "I guess you got it all.' I walked in, and here was this little saline abortion baby kicking. It had been born alive, and was kicking and moving for a little while before it finally died of those terrible burns, because the salt solution gets into the lungs and burns the lungs too. I'll tell you one thing about D&E. You never have to worry about a baby's being born alive. I won't describe D&E, other than to say that, as a doctor, you are sitting there tearing, and I mean tearing- you need a lot of strength to do it- arms and legs off of babies and putting them in a stack on top of the table." Christian Belief It is remarkable that so many professing Christians accept abortion as a means of birth control. These (and other religious people) see human life in the womb as starting toward the end of the third trimester. But this view by Christians can be shown to be ill-informed by asking but one question: Where was Jesus Christ the moment He was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matthew 1:18-21, Luke 1:30-35)? The testimony given before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee cited earlier would agree with Scripture viz. that Jesus Christ came into being at the moment of conception. Although the means for that personality to express Himself was not yet physically developed, nonetheless embryology and medical textbooks would teach that His human life began when Mary’s ovum was fertilized to create the zygote. Scripture goes further: Jeremiah 1:5 declares that God consecrated Jeremiah before he was born. This therefore teaches, at least to Christians and believing Jews, that Jeremiah existed as a person in the womb. The same is true of Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:11-13). But the deeper question for these believers is the condemnation expressed by God toward the shedding of innocent blood. Psalm 106:37-42 reads, in part, They served (idols and) even sacrificed their sons and their daughters, and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, and the land was polluted with the blood. God then warns of the dire consequences that befall a nation that sacrifices the innocent blood of its sons and daughters to idols. Are we not slaughtering our unborn sons and daughters to sustain sexual pleasure? Well over ninety-five percent of all abortions in the United States are performed for non-medical reasons of convenience! The Bible reveals the outcome of this practice: God gave them into the hand of the nations; and those who hated them ruled over them. Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were subdued under their power (Psalm 106:41-42). Abortion Unmasked Here is a quote from an abortion doctor in Glen Ellyn, Illinois that is listed on www.abortionfacts.com, and describing abortion for what it really is: "They took that little baby that was making little sounds and moving and kicking, and set it on that table in a cold, stainless steel bowl. Every time I would look over while we were repairing the incision in uterus and finishing the Caesarean, I would see that little person moving in that bowl. And it kicked and moved less and less, of course, as time went on. I can remember going over and looking at the baby when we were done with the surgery and the baby was still alive. You could see the chest was moving and the heart was beating, and the baby would try to take a little breath, and it really hurt inside, and it began to educate me as to what abortion really was." Here’s another quote: I have been there, and I have seen these totally formed babies as early as ten weeks... with the leg missing, or with their head off. I have seen the little rib cages". Anne Finger, in her book: "Past Due" published by The Seal Press writes: "I am walking out the back door, and I see a plastic jar of tissue and blood waiting to be sent to the path lab, and in the plastic jar a tiny perfect white hand. That flat palm reaching up through a wine-red wash of blood. Why does that stay with me? Conclusions The legal issue I do not believe that governments should deny women the right to choose. But neither do I believe that governments should deny unborn Americans the right to live. If a woman does not want to bear a child, then she should choose not to do so. Since our government does not allow us to kill those we invite into our home, why should it permit a woman to kill the human being that she invites into her womb? Does she not abrogate her right to that womb until the person is born? But to permit her egg to be fertilized, and then kill the innocent human life that she conceived is evil and should be illegal. The diversion The issue regarding women who are forcibly impregnated is important, but one that must be addressed at a level of moral inquiry higher than that under consideration here. Suffice it to say that unless and until the first issue is addressed viz. the wholesale slaughter of unborn human life for non-medical reasons of convenience, we have little hope of rationally addressing the second issue: forced impregnation or, for that matter, the third issue: pregnancies that endanger the lives of women. Yet as important as these latter two issues are, in terms of numbers their priority diminishes when compared to the unassailable reality now confronting us viz. that the vast majority of women consenting to abortions, and who later suffer adverse physical and psychological problems, are doing so for non-medical reasons of convenience. The moral question When one examines the horror of what we are permitting as a nation under the label abortion, we can draw no conclusion other than that the practice is being nourished from the very pit of hell itself. Would-be mothers are being deceived, those performing abortions testify they no longer have a conscience, and doctors who took an oath to preserve life willfully impose unimaginable suffering, pain and death to unborn human lives that now total in the tens of millions. May God forgive them and us.
|