Free Grac e

Broadcaster ISSUE 220

Abortion

“Thou shalt not kill.”

Exodus 20:13

Our Purpose
“To humble the pride of man,
to exalt the grace of God in salvation,
and to promote real holiness in heart and life.”
Thou Shalt Not Kill ....................................................................................................2
Ezekiel Hopkins (1634-1690)
The Silent Holocaust ..................................................................................................5
Peter Barnes
The Bible and Sanctity of Life .................................................................................12
R. C. Sproul
Mankind and the Death Factor .................................................................................18
George Grant
Answers to Abortion Arguments ..............................................................................22
Joel Beeke
When Does Life Begin? ...........................................................................................27
R. C. Sproul
Proclamations of God’s Word and Abortion ............................................................33
Joel Beeke
Molech Is Alive and Well ........................................................................................37
Franklin E. (Ed) Payne
Great Forgiveness for Great Sin ...............................................................................41
Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

• •
 “Thou shalt not kill.”—Exodus 20:13

T
HIS[commandment] forbids that barbarous and inhuman sin of murder,1
the first-born of the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning (Joh
8:48). [It forbids] the first branded2 crime that we read of, wherein natural
corruption, contracted by the Fall, vented its rancor and virulence: 3 the sin of
Cain—that great instance of perdition4—who slew his brother Abel “because his
own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous” (1Jo 3:12).5
The murdering of another is a most heinous6 and black sin, a sin that God doth
detect and bring to punishment, usually by some wonderful7 method of His prov-
idence.8 [Murder] dogs the consciences of those who are guilty of it with horrid
affrights9 and terrors and hath sometimes extorted from them a confession of it
when there hath been no other proof or evidence.
The two greatest sinners that the Scripture hath set the blackest brand upon
were both murderers: Cain and Judas. The one [was] the murderer of his brother;
the other, first of his Lord and Master and then of himself.
God so infinitely hates and detests it that, although the altar was a refuge for
other offenders, He would not have a murderer sheltered there. He was to be
dragged from that inviolable10 sanctuary unto execution according to that law:
“But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile;
thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die” (Exo 21:14). Accordingly,

1
The scope of this command is the preservation of that life which God hath given unto man, which is
man’s greatest concern. No man is lord of his own or his neighbor’s life; it belongs to Him alone
Who gave it, to take it away. (Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. 2, 260)
2
branded – marked with evil fame.
3
rancor and virulence – deep, bitter anger and extreme hostility.
4
perdition – destruction.
5
The purport [intended meaning] of this commandment is that since the Lord has bound the whole hu-
man race by a kind of unity, the safety of all ought to be considered as entrusted to each. In general,
therefore, all violence and injustice, and every kind of harm from which our neighbor’s body suf-
fers, is prohibited. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, viii, 39)
6
heinous – hateful; highly wicked.
7
wonderful – causing astonishment.
8
providence – What are God’s works of providence? God’s works of providence are His most holy,
wise, and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures, and all their actions. (Spurgeon’s
Catechism, Q. 11, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY)
9
affrights – sudden and great fears.
10
inviolable – to be kept sacred.
Thou Shalt Not Kill 3

we read that when Joab had fled and taken hold on the horns of the altar, so that
the messengers who were sent to put him to death durst not violate that holy place
by shedding his blood, Solomon gave command to have him slain even there, as if
the blood of a willful murderer were a very acceptable sacrifice offered up unto
God (1Ki 2:28-31).
Indeed, in the first prohibition of murder that we meet withal,11 God subjoins12
a very weighty reason why it should be so odious 13 unto Him: “Whoso sheddeth
man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he
man” (Gen 9:6). So that Homicidium est Decidium: “To slaughter a man is to stab
God in effigy.14 ” Though the image of God’s holiness and purity be totally defaced
in us since the Fall, yet every man—even the most wicked and impious15 that
lives—bears some strictures16 of the image of God in his [mind], the freedom of
his will, and his dominion over the creatures. God will have every part of His im-
age so revered by us that He esteems him that assaults man as one who attempts
to assassinate God Himself.17
Murder is a crying sin. Blood is loud and clamorous. That first [blood] that ever
was shed was heard as far as from earth to heaven: “The voice of thy brother’s
blood crieth unto me from the ground” (Gen 4:10). God will certainly hear its cry
and avenge it.
But, not only he whose hands are embrued 18 in the blood of others, but those al-
so who are accessory19 are guilty of murder. As,
(1) Those who command or counsel it to be done. Thus, David became guilty of the
murder of innocent Uriah; and God, in drawing up his charge, accuseth him with
it: “Thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon” (2Sa 12:9).
(2) Those who consent to murder are guilty of it. Thus Pilate, for yielding to the
clamorous outcries of the Jews, “Crucify him, Crucify him” (Luk 23:21), though
he washed his hands and disavowed the fact, was as much guilty as those who
nailed Him to the cross.

11
withal – therewith.
12
subjoins – to add at the end of a speech or writing.
13
odious – repulsive; causing hatred.
14
in effigy – to inflict violence upon the image or figure that represents a person.
15
impious – not showing deep respect for God and His ways; wicked.
16
strictures – slight traces.
17
Scripture notes a twofold equity on which this commandment is founded. Man is both the image of
God and our flesh. Wherefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must hold the person of
man sacred—if we would not divest ourselves of humanity, we must cherish our own flesh. (Calvin,
Institutes, II, viii, 39)
18
embrued (imbrued) – stained.
19
accessory – aiding and encouraging a crime.
4 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

(3) He that concealeth a murder is guilty of it. Therefore, we read that in case a
man were found slain and the murderer unknown, the elders of that city were to
assemble, wash their hands, and protest “Our hands have not shed this blood, nei-
ther have our eyes seen it” (Deu 21:6-7), intimating that if they had seen and con-
cealed it, they had thereby become guilty of the murder.
(4) Those who are in authority and do not punish a murder, when committed and
known, are themselves guilty of it. Thus, when Naboth was condemned to die by the
wicked artifice of Jezebel—although Ahab knew nothing of the contrivance until
after the execution—yet, because he did not vindicate that innocent blood when
he came to the knowledge of it, the prophet chargeth it upon him. “Hast thou
killed, and also taken possession?” (1Ki 21:19). The guilt lay upon him, and the
punishment due to it overtook him, although we do not read that he was any oth-
erwise guilty of it than in not punishing those who had committed it.
And those magistrates who, upon any respect whatsoever, suffer a murder to es-
cape unpunished are said to pollute the land with blood: “Moreover ye shall take
no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be
surely put to death…So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it
defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed there-
in, but by the blood of him that shed it ” (Num 35:31, 33).
From “A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments” in The Works of
Ezekiel Hopkins, Vol. 1, Soli Deo Gloria, a division of Reformation
Heritage Books, www.heritagebooks.org.
_______________________
Ezekiel Hopkins (1634-1690): Anglican minister and author; born in Sandford, Crediton,
Devonshire, England.

Violations of the sixth commandment are manifestly on the increase all over the land by sui-
cides, murders, homicides, parricides, fratricides, infanticides, feticides (abortion); and these
awful crimes are often perpetrated with such circumstances of horrid cruelty as to cry to
heaven for vengeance.—Original Covenanter Magazine (Vol. 3:1-3:16, 1881)
J OHN Powell1 has referred to the widespread practice of abortion in our own
day as “the Silent Holocaust.” This description is tragically apt, as the treat-
ment of unborn children in the Western democracies can indeed be compared
with the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. Most significantly, Dietrich Bon-
hoeffer,2 the Lutheran pastor whom Hitler sent to the scaffold in 1945, spoke as
strongly against abortion as ever he did against Nazism. 3 His views are worthy of
quotation: “Destruction of the embryo4 in the mother’s womb is a violation of the
right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent 5 life. To raise the question
whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to
confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a hu-
man being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of
his life. And that is nothing but murder.”6 As early as 1933, as Nazi persecution of
the Jews gathered momentum, Bonhoeffer saw clearly the duty of the Christian.
He turned to the Word of God, and Proverbs 31:8 was often on his lips: “Open
your mouth for the dumb.” This same duty rests upon the Christian in our own
day as increasingly abortion is practiced and accepted.
An age of slogans and deadened moral sensibilities inevitably has many de-
pressing features, but two of the more serious are the lack of clear thinking and
the debasement7 of language. In many places, girls as young as eleven have had
abortions; and fourteen-year-olds have returned for their second operation. Yet
they would not be allowed to buy liquor and usually would require parental con-
sent before having their ears pierced (this consent is not always required in abor-
tion cases). There are government-sponsored campaigns against smoking by preg-
nant women because the practice could harm the infant. And unborn children in-
volved in automobile accidents have even secured compensation through the law
courts. Yet no action has been taken against the practice of killing the unborn
child. In fact, there has been a subtle and pervasive assumption that pro-
abortionists are sensitive, liberal, and humane8 people who are articulate, intelli-

1
John Joseph Powell (1925-2009) – author of Abortion: The Silent Holocaust.
2
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) – German Lutheran theologian and pastor.
3
Nazism – the political doctrines implemented by Adolph Hitler and his followers.
4
embryo – an unborn baby less than 8 weeks old.
5
nascent – beginning to develop.
6
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, 175-76.
7
debasement – reducing in quality.
8
humane – showing compassion or sympathy for others.
6 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

gent, and in touch with the needs of modern living, while the pro-life side has
been often portrayed as a group of dogmatic hard-liners who may even have lean-
ings towards fascism.9
In addition, the unborn child has been labeled a “protoplasmic10 mass” or “fetal
tissue,” while abortion itself has been called “a method of post-conceptive fertility
control” or, more simply but just as deceptively, “the termination of pregnancy.”
This demeaning of words has had profound effects: language is to be treasured,
and it was not for nothing that Augustine of Hippo 11 referred to words as “pre-
cious cups of meaning.” In the present situation, however, words have been used
to disguise reality rather than to reveal it. Therefore, before proceeding any fur-
ther, we should be very clear as to what exactly takes place during every abortion.
Three main methods are used to end the life of an unborn child. First, for
early pregnancies, there is the dilation and curettage technique (D&C). The
cervix is first dilated, and a tube is inserted into the mother’s uterus. This
tube is attached to a suction apparatus that tears the little baby apart and
deposits him in a jar. A curette 12 is then used to scrape the wall of the uterus
to remove any parts of the baby’s body that might still be present. Often the
suction tube is not used at all, and the curette is simply used to cut the ba-
by’s body to pieces and scrape out the placenta.
After about the third month of pregnancy, this technique becomes too dan-
gerous for the mother, so a saline abortion is employed. This might be called
salt poisoning. A solution of concentrated salt is injected into the amniotic 13
fluid in the sac around the growing baby. The salt is absorbed by the baby
who is poisoned to death after about an hour. The outer layer of his skin is
burned off by the salt; and about a day later, the mother goes into labor and
delivers a discolored and shriveled-up baby. A few such babies have been de-
livered alive, although they rarely survive long. Prostaglandins 14 can also be
used after the third month of pregnancy. Prostaglandin chemicals are injected
into the uterus, causing the mother to go into premature labor and deliver a
dead baby. However, prostaglandin babies have been born alive, much to the
embarrassment of some in the pro-abortion camp.
The third method, which is used for more developed pregnancies, is the hys-
terotomy.15 This is like a Caesarean operation, except that in the hysterotomy,
the object is not to save the child but to kill him. In this case, the baby has to
be either killed outright or allowed to die…
9
fascism – extreme right wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
10
protoplasmic – the colorless liquid of a living cell, composed of proteins, fats, and other organic sub-
stances in water, including the nucleus.
11
Aurelius Augustine (354-430) – Bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa and theologian.
12
curette – a surgical instrument shaped like a scoop to remove tissue from a bodily cavity.
13
amniotic – having to do with the amnion, the innermost membrane enveloping an embryo.
14
prostaglandins – a potent substance that acts like a hormone; found in many bodily tissues; has var-
ying hormone-like effects, notably the promotion of uterine contractions.
15
hysterotomy – surgical incision into the uterus.
The Silent Holocaust 7

It is sometimes said that we cannot know when the fetus becomes a human
being. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States maintained just this
view in its momentous and tragic decision of 1973,16 when it virtually allowed
abortion on demand. The Court stated, “We need not resolve the difficult
question of when life begins.”17 It then went on to imply that issues of theolog-
ical, philosophical, and biological speculation have no place in a court of law.
Such a statement gives the appearance of humility, but it flies in the face of
biological reality. Even if it were true, the Court’s cavalier18 attitude to life
gives grave cause for alarm. If there is any uncertainty as to when life begins,
the duty of the Court is surely to protect what, on the Court’s own admission,
might be human life…
Abortion has…become so much accepted in places like Britain, the United
States, and Australia, that one child out of every three or four conceived is de-
liberately put to death in the womb. The statistics have indeed become horrify-
ing. In the United States, for example, perhaps as many as fifteen million died
in the ten years following 1973. Based on these figures, it is calculated that the
number of babies killed through abortion in four months is approximately
equal to the number of Americans killed during the whole of World War II.
The womb has become more deadly than the battlefield.
Yet all this has taken place in the name of care and compassion, complete
with the touching catch-cry, “Every child a wanted child.”19…Modern human-
ists no longer deviate from an accepted standard; it has become increasingly

16
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973): decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held unduly restrictive
state regulation of abortion to be unconstitutional. In a 7–2 vote the Supreme Court upheld the
lower court’s decision that a Texas statute criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a wom-
an’s constitutional right of privacy, which the court found implicit in the liberty guarantee of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (“Roe v. Wade,” Encyclopedia Britannica Ulti-
mate Reference Suite, 2011)
17
Harold Andrew Blackmun (1908-1999): Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
from 1970 until 1994, author of Roe v. Wade.
18
cavalier – haughty, careless lack of concern.
19
This phrase appears on the Planned Parenthood web site. Christian apologist Greg Koukl replies to
this kind of thinking: “Life might not be beautiful for an unwanted child—I’ll grant that—but why
isn’t it?...The initial answer is, ‘The unwanted child’s life is not beautiful because she’s not wanted.’
But it goes deeper than that, doesn’t it? No child’s life is miserable simply by the bare fact that she
is unwanted. Being unwanted doesn’t make her life miserable. In this case, it isn’t a what that makes
the child’s life miserable (being unwanted), but rather a who that makes the child’s life miserable
(the people, the adults, the parents who don’t want the child). You see, people are miserable not be-
cause of the conditions of their conception, but rather because of the way others treat them after-
wards…Yes, many unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the ba-
by’s fault. It’s the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and
care for them.” (Greg Koukl, Every Child a Wanted Child,
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5238)
8 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

true that there is no longer any standard from which to deviate…The Prophet
Amos had a plumb line by which he could judge Israel (Amo 7:7-9), but mod-
ern secular man has been left without any plumb line. As a result, in the abor-
tion debate, he has not simply come up with the wrong answers, he has been
unable even to frame the right questions…
Abortion in the Light of God’s Word: It is frequently contended that the Bible
says next to nothing on the subject of abortion...It is true that the Bible says noth-
ing directly on the subject of abortion, but we do well to remember the important
principle laid down by the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The whole counsel
of God concerning all things necessary for His glory, man’s salvation, faith and
life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary conse-
quence may be deduced from Scripture” (I.vi).20 On these premises, it is certainly
possible to derive the biblical attitude to abortion.
The starting point for any study must be Exodus 21:22-25. This text is not with-
out ambiguities and can be interpreted in two possible ways. The first interpreta-
tion can be found in the New American Standard Bible: 21 “And if men struggle
with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet
there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may
demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further
injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
If this is the correct translation, it would appear to justify the view that the
mother’s life is of greater value than that of the unborn child. The unborn child
would then be viewed as nascent life rather than as a full human being. However,
even this translation does not open the door to abortion but precludes22 it. Here,
an accidental abortion leads to a fine. “Good and necessary” deduction would en-
tail that deliberate abortion warrants a much heavier punishment. At most, this
view of Exodus 21:22-25 might justify abortion in the now extremely rare case in
which the pregnancy seriously threatens the physical life of the mother. The point
of the passage would then be the extraordinary protection given to the expectant
mother, for manslaughter was not usually a capital offence (Jos 20)—not the less-
er protection given to the baby.

20
The same declaration appears with a slight variation in the Second London Baptist Confession of
1677/89: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salva-
tion, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture”
(I.vi).
21
The use of modern translations by the author does not mean that CHAPEL LIBRARY endorses or
agrees with these translations. See English Bible Translations: By What Standard?, William Einwecht-
er, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY.
22
precludes – rules out; prevents.
The Silent Holocaust 9

The second interpretation, namely that Exodus 21 refers to the death of either
mother or child, gains support from the translation of the Authorized
sion23…This says, “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart from her,24 and yet no mischief follow:25 he shall be surely punished, ac-
cording as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.”
On this translation, it is possible that the verses do not refer to a miscarriage,
but to a premature birth. If the young infant survives, the guilty men are fined;
but if he dies, it is life for life. In fact, the passage has been understood in this way
by the learned Puritan exegete, Matthew Poole, and by Keil and Delitzsch, whose
commentaries on the Old Testament have long been regarded as standard works
of reference. Calvin’s comments are also most instructive. The great Genevan Re-
former wrote, “The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a
human being.” Hence, he concluded that the passage referred to the possible
death of either mother or child. He therefore protested vigorously against the
murder of the unborn: “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house
than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought
surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has
come to light.”
This second interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 has not found widespread sup-
port today, but there is much to be said in its favor. In the first place, the Hebrew
word for miscarriage is not used in the passage, although it can be found in other
parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 31:38; Hos 9:14). Instead, Exodus 21:22 uses
a word that simply means “to depart” or “to go out.” It is used, for example, to de-
scribe Abram’s departure from Haran in Genesis 12:4. It is also used to describe
live births (e.g. Gen 25:26; 38:28-30). Admittedly, it is used of a stillborn infant in
Numbers 12:12, but it still needs to be said that the modern translations that in-
sert the word miscarriage into the text are interpreting rather than translating.
The second reason for accepting that Exodus 21 refers to the death of either
mother or child is more compelling. The Scriptures, as the Word of God, consist-
ently refer to the unborn child as a human being. Every child in the womb is fear-
fully and wonderfully made by God (Job 31:15; Psa 139:13-16; Isa 44:2, 24; Jer 1:5)
in a way that we can never completely understand (Ecc 11:5). There is continuity
in life from conception to death; so naturally, when David refers to his origins in
the womb, he uses the first-person personal pronoun (Psa 139:13). Even sin is
traced back, not to the newborn baby, but to the unborn infant (Psa 51:5; 58:3). As
a result, the unborn are always treated in Scripture as human—they can move,

23
The NIV follows the AV’s translation here.
24
“she gives birth prematurely” (NIV)
25
“serious injury” (NIV)
10 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

even leap (Gen 25:22, Luk 1:41, 44), be consecrated in God’s service (Jer 1:5; Gal
1:15), filled with the Holy Spirit (Luk 1:15), and blessed (Luk 1:42). Furthermore,
the same Greek word is used to describe the unborn John the Baptist (Luk 1:41,
44), the newborn baby Jesus (Luk 2:12, 16), and the young children who were
brought to Jesus (Luk 18:15). If the unborn child is not a human being, it is diffi-
cult to see how these statements could have any meaning. And it is surely signifi-
cant that when the eternal Son of God became man, He entered Mary’s womb.
The incarnation,26 the union of the divine with the human, must be dated from
the conception, not the birth, of our Lord.
Since the unborn child is a live human being, it is therefore possible for him to
die in the womb (cf. Job 10:18). The Apostle Paul could even refer to himself as an
abortion—an abortion who lived (1Co 15:8). When the prophet Jeremiah broke
out into that remarkable cry of despondency27 in Jeremiah 20, he cursed the day of
his birth and went on to curse the man who could have killed him in his mother’s
womb, but did not (Jer 20:14-18). Had the prophet lived in twentieth-century Eu-
rope, he might have had his wish fulfilled! The unnamed recipient of Jeremiah’s
curse was guilty in Jeremiah’s jaundiced28 eyes “because he slew me not from the
womb” (Jer 20:17). The word that is used here to describe the killing of a child in
the womb is the same word that is used to describe David’s slaying of Goliath in 1
Samuel 17:50-51. Apparently, Jeremiah knew of no euphemism 29 such as “termi-
nation of pregnancy.”
Throughout Scripture, God’s judgment always falls on those who slay the un-
born. The prophet Elisha wept when he thought of the crimes that Hazael, the
king of Syria, would commit against Israel. In Elisha’s words, “[thou] wilt dash
their children, and rip up their women with child” (2Ki 8:12). Later, the same evil
was perpetuated by Menahem, one of Israel’s last kings (2Ki 15:16). When the
heathen Ammonites ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead, the prophet
Amos declared that God’s judgment lay close at hand (Amo 1:13). All this indi-
cates that, contrary to some claims, God’s Word does give clear-cut guidelines on
the subject of abortion.
The Biblical injunctions30 against child sacrifice are also not without relevance
for the abortion debate. God did not allow the Israelites to enter Canaan until the
iniquity of the Amorites was complete (Gen 15:16). As Canaanite culture became
more debased, God prepared the Israelites to take possession of the Promised
Land. Repeatedly, God warned the Israelites not to imitate their heathen neigh-
26
See FGB 219, The Person of Christ, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY.
27
despondency – feeling downcast, disheartened, and hopeless.
28
jaundiced – the state of taking an unfavorable view.
29
euphemism – a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh,
unpleasant, or offensive.
30
injunctions – formal commands.
The Silent Holocaust 11

bors (e.g., Lev 18:24-30; 20:23). One of the things that God especially warned
against was the sacrificial offering of children through fire to the Ammonite god
Molech (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Deu 12:31; 18:10). However, as early as Solomon’s
reign, the worship of Molech was taking place in Israel (1Ki 11:7). The practice of
child sacrifice soon spread to Moab (2Ki 3:27) and even to Judah, where Ahaz in
the eighth century B.C. (2Ki 16:3; 2Ch 28:3) and Manasseh in the seventh century
B.C. (2Ki 21:6; 2Ch 33:6) were guilty of the crime. In 722 B.C., the northern king-
dom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, partly because of Israel’s participa-
tion in this brutal and idolatrous practice (2Ki 17:17, cf. Psa 106:34-39).
These child sacrifices prompted the prophets to declare God’s judgment upon
His people and to command repentance. Isaiah and later Jeremiah and Ezekiel
were particularly moved to denounce the worship of Molech (cf. Isa 57:5; Jer 7:31;
19:4-5; 32:35; Eze 16:20-21; 20:31; 23:37, 39). When God said that He would not
hear the prayers of the Judeans because their hands were full of blood, it is likely
that the child sacrifices were at least partly in mind (Isa 1:15). Much later, as Je-
rusalem edged closer to disaster, the godly king Josiah tried to reform Judah ac-
cording to God’s Law. Part of this reformation consisted of trying to abolish these
sacrifices of children to Molech (2Ki 23:10). It is indeed a sobering thought that
the valley of Hinnom, to the south of Jerusalem, which was the site for these child
sacrifices (2Ch 33:6; Jer 7:31), was later used by Jesus as a picture of hell (e.g.,
Luk 12:5). The word hell or Gehenna comes from the Greek word geenna, which in
turn comes from the Hebrew gê (valley of) hinnöm (Hinnom).
God’s Word thus has much to say to us on the issue of abortion. Today, we see
again Rachel, the woman of faith, weeping for her children because they are not
(Mat 2:18). Arguments in favor of abortion will also prove to be arguments in fa-
vor of euthanasia and infanticide—and hence a return to the practices of Pharaoh
(Exo 1) and Herod (Mat 2:16-18). Those who hate God invariably love death (Pro
8:36). Unborn life is indeed human life, and so embraced by God’s commandment
that forbids murder (Exo 20:13). The cause of the unborn child is thus God’s
cause: “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me
up” (Psa 27:10).
From Abortion, 3-6, 9, 15-21, The Banner of Truth Trust. Used
by permission of US office, 4/24/12, www.banneroftruth.org.
_______________________
Peter Barnes: Minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia; now serving in the parish of
Macksville after ministering in Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides).
I
Nbiblical terms, the sanctity1 of human life is rooted and grounded in crea-
tion. Mankind is not viewed as a cosmic accident but as the product of a care-
fully executed creation by an eternal God. Human dignity is derived from
God. Man as a finite, dependent, contingent creature is assigned a high value by
his Creator.
The creation account in Genesis provides the framework for human dignity:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them” (Gen 1:26-27). Creation in the image of God is
what sets humans apart from all other creatures. The stamp of the image and
likeness of God connects God and mankind uniquely. Though there is no biblical
warrant for seeing man as godlike, there is a high dignity associated with this
unique relationship to the Creator. It has often been suggested that whatever dig-
nity was given mankind through creation was erased or canceled through the Fall.
Since evil mars the countenance of human beings, is the original image still in-
tact? Because of the Fall, something profound has stained the greatness of human-
ity. Therefore, we now must distinguish between the image of God in its wide and
narrow senses.
The image of God in the narrow sense concerns mankind’s ethical capacity and
behavior. In creation, man was given the ability and the responsibility to mirror
and reflect the holy character of God. Since the Fall, the mirror has been
splotched2 by the grime of sin. We have lost our capacity for moral perfection, but
we have not lost our humanity with this ethical loss. Man may no longer be pure,
but he is still human. Insofar as we are still human, we retain the image of God in
the wider sense. We are still valuable creatures. We may no longer be worthy, but
we still have worth. This is the resounding biblical message of redemption. The
creatures God created are the same creatures He is moved to redeem.
Because Christians speak so tirelessly about human sin, do they have a low view
of humanity? Indeed, they have a low view of human virtue, but not a correspond-
ing low view of human worth or importance. It is precisely because the Bible has
such a high view of human dignity that Christians take human sin so seriously. If

1
sanctity – the quality of being sacred or holy.
2
splotched – marked with heavy splashes, spots, or stains.
The Sanctity of Life 13

one rat steals another rat’s food, we do not get morally outraged. But if one human
steals another human’s food, we rightly become concerned. The biblical view in-
dicates that human theft is more serious than rat theft because humans are a
higher order of being. As the psalmist indicated, we are created “a little lower
than the angels” (Psa 8:5). This ranking of value is deeply rooted within our own
humanity. For instance, when the president of the United States is killed, we do
not refer to the deed merely as homicide or murder. We have a special word for it:
assassination.
During the news reports that followed the announcement of the assassination of
President Kennedy,3 the reporters seemed to have difficulty finding words power-
ful enough to express their outrage. They called the assassination “diabolical,”
“fiendish,” “inhuman,” and other such terms. I wondered at the time what made
it difficult to describe Kennedy’s murder simply as one human being killing an-
other human being. Not only a devil or a fiend can commit murder. A person is
not instantly shorn of humanity when he kills another human. Lee Harvey Os-
wald4 was a human being when he pulled the trigger in Dallas. Does this mean,
then, that in the hierarchy of value President Kennedy had more human dignity
than Officer Tippet,5 who was killed the same day in the same city by the same
man? By no means! The murder of Officer Tippet was just as much an assault on
his dignity as the murder of Kennedy was on his. Each was a human person. Each
had personal worth and dignity. Kennedy’s person was no more laden with digni-
ty than Tippet’s. What made the outrage over Kennedy’s death greater than that
over Tippet’s death was the office Kennedy held. He was the president of the
United States. He was the supreme publica persona6 of our land. It is by similar
reason that an offense against a human is more outrageous than an offense against
a rat. Both the rat and the human are creatures created by God. But the “office” of
a person is considerably higher than the “office” of the rat. It is mankind—not the
rat—who is made in the image of God. The human is given a role of dominion
over the earth. Man, not the rat, is God’s vice-regent over creation. Does capital
punishment violate the sanctity of life? The principle of the special dignity of
mankind is echoed later in Genesis in the institution of capital punishment:
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of
God made he man” (Gen 9:6). This text is not a prophecy. It is not saying simply
that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Rather, the passage is a di-
vine mandate for capital punishment in the case of murder. The significant point
is that the moral basis for capital punishment in Genesis is the sanctity of life.

3
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) – 35th President of the US, assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
4
Lee Harvey Oswald (1939-1963) – alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
5
J. D. Tippit (1924-1963) – Dallas police officer shot and killed by Lee H. Oswald.
6
publica persona – public person.
14 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

The biblical ethic is [this]: because man is endowed with the image of God, his
life is so sacred that any malicious destruction of it must be punished by execu-
tion. Note that this verse implies that God considers an assault against human life
an assault against Himself. To murder a person is to attack one who is the image-
bearer of God. God regards homicide as an implicit attempt to murder God. The
sanctity of life is reinforced and reaffirmed in the Ten Commandments. We read,
“Thou shalt not kill” (Exo 20:13). The biblical prohibition against murder is
widely known in our society. It is frequently appealed to as a moral ground
against capital punishment. When the state of Pennsylvania voted to reinstate the
death penalty for murder, the legislation was vetoed by then-Governor Milton
Shapp. Shapp explained to the news media that the ground for his veto was that
the Ten Commandments said, “Thou shalt not kill.” Governor Shapp should have
read on. If we turn just a single page in Exodus, we see what the Law of God re-
quired if someone broke the command prohibiting murder: “He that smiteth a
man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exo 21:12). The punitive
measures against murder underscore the gravity of the crime precisely because of
the value of the victim. Life is regarded as so sacred that it must never be de-
stroyed without just cause. Many Old Testament statements speak of the dignity
of human life as it rests in divine creation, including the following:
“The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given
me life” (Job 33:4).
“Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we our-
selves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (Psa 100:3).
“Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the
potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest
thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father,
What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? Thus saith
the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come con-
cerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have
made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the
heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa 45:9-12).
“But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and
we all are the work of thy hand” (Isa 64:8).
Interestingly, Jesus Christ gave the most important explanation of the Old Tes-
tament view of the sanctity of life: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old
time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judg-
ment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother,
Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
be in danger of hell fire” (Mat 5:21-22). The words of Jesus have vital significance
The Sanctity of Life 15

for our understanding of the sanctity of life. Here Jesus broadened the implica-
tions of the Old Testament law. He was speaking to religious leaders who had a
narrow and simplistic grasp of the Ten Commandments. The legalists of His day
were confident that if they obeyed the explicitly stated aspects of the Law, they
could applaud themselves for their great virtue. They failed, however, to grasp the
wider implications.
In Jesus’ view, what the Law did not spell out in detail was clearly implied by
its broader meaning. This quality of the Law is seen in Jesus’ expansion of the
prohibition against adultery: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”
(Mat 5:27-28). Here Jesus explained that a person who refrains from the physical
act of adultery has not necessarily been obedient to the whole Law.
The law on adultery is a complex one, including not only actual illicit inter-
course but also everything that falls between lust and adultery. Jesus described
lust as adultery of the heart. The Law not only prohibits certain negative behav-
iors and attitudes, but by implication, it requires certain positive behaviors and
attitudes. That is, if adultery is prohibited, chastity and purity are required.
When we apply these patterns set forth by Jesus to the prohibition against mur-
der, we understand clearly that, on the one hand, we are to refrain from all things
contained in the broad definition of murder; but on the other hand, we are posi-
tively commanded to work to save, improve, and care for life. 7 We are to avoid
murder in all of its ramifications8 and, at the same time, do all that we can to
promote life.9 Just as Jesus considered lust a part of adultery, so He viewed unjus-
tifiable anger and slander as parts of murder. As lust is adultery of the heart, so
anger and slander are murder of the heart. By expanding the scope of the Ten
Commandments to include such matters as lust and slander, Jesus did not mean
that it is just as evil to lust after a person as it is to have unlawful physical inter-
course. Likewise, Jesus did not say that slander is just as evil as murder. What He
did say is that the law against murder includes a law against anything that in-
volves injuring a fellow human unjustly.

7
As every positive command implies a negative, so every negative implies a positive. Therefore, in so
far as God says, “Thou shalt not kill,” viz. thyself or others, He thereby obliges men to preserve their
own life and that of others. (Thomas Boston, The Complete Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. 2, 260)
8
ramifications – consequences of actions, especially when complex or unwelcome.
9
To be clear of the crime of murder, it is not enough to refrain from shedding man’s blood. If in act
you perpetrate, if in endeavor you plot, if in wish and design you conceive what is adverse to anoth-
er’s safety, you have the guilt of murder. On the other hand, if you do not according to your means
and opportunity study to defend his safety, by that inhumanity you violate the law. (Calvin, Insti-
tutes, II, viii, 39)
16 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

How does all of this apply to the abortion issue? In Jesus’ teaching, we see an-
other strong reinforcement of the sanctity of life. Murder of the heart, such as
slander, may be described as “potential” murder. It is potential murder because,
as an example, anger and slander have the potential to lead to the full act of phys-
ical murder. Of course, they do not always lead to that outcome. Anger and slan-
der are prohibited, not so much because of what else they may lead to, but because
of the actual harm they do to the quality of life.
When we link the discussion of the sanctity of life to abortion, we make a subtle
but relevant connection. Even if it cannot be proven that a fetus is an actual living
human person, there is no doubt that it is a potential living human person. In
other words, a fetus is a developing person. It is not in a frozen state of potentiality.
The fetus is in dynamic process—without interference or unforeseen calamity, it
surely will become a fully actualized living human person. Jesus Christ sees the
law against murder as including not only the act of actual murder, but also ac-
tions of potential murder. Jesus taught that it is unlawful to commit the potential
murder of an actual life.
What, then, are the implications of committing the actual destruction of poten-
tial life? The actual destruction of potential life is not the same thing as the poten-
tial destruction of actual life. These are not identical cases, but they are close
enough to make us pause to consider carefully the possible consequences before
we destroy a potential life. If this aspect of the law does not fully and finally cap-
ture abortion within the broad and complex prohibition against murder, a second
aspect clearly does. As I stated earlier, the negative prohibitions of the law imply
positive attitudes and actions. For instance, the biblical law against adultery also
requires chastity and purity. Likewise, when a law is stated in a positive form, its
negative opposite is implicitly forbidden. For example, if God commands us to be
good stewards of our money, clearly we ought not to be wild spenders. A positive
command to diligent labor carries an implicit negative prohibition against being
lazy on the job. A negative prohibition against actual and potential murder im-
plicitly involves a positive mandate to work for the protection and sustenance of
life.
To oppose murder is to promote life. Whatever else abortion does, it does not
promote the life of the unborn child. Although some people will argue that abor-
tion promotes the quality of life of those who do not desire offspring, it does not
promote the life of the subject in question—the developing unborn child. The Bi-
ble is consistently strong in its support for the exceedingly great value of all hu-
man life. The poor, the oppressed, the widowed, the orphaned, and the handi-
capped—all are highly valued in the Bible. Thus, any discussion of the abortion
issue ultimately must wrestle with this key theme of Scripture. When the destruc-
The Sanctity of Life 17

tion or the disposal of even potential human life is done cheaply and easily, a
shadow darkens the whole landscape of the sanctity of life and human dignity.
From Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, copyright 1990, 2010;
used by permission of Reformation Trust Publishing, www.ligonier.org/reformation-trust.
_______________________
R. C. Sproul: Presbyterian theologian and teaching elder; president of Ligonier Academy of
Biblical and Theological Studies; founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries.

The more unnatural any act is the more horrid. It is unnatural for a man to be cruel to his own
flesh; for a woman to go about to kill the child in her womb—O how your
ears tingle at such a flagitious [shockingly brutal] act!—William Gurnall
 “All they that hate me love death.”—Proverbs 8:36

S
ADLY, because all men without exception are sinners, the most fundamental
factor in understanding anthropology1 is the Thanatos factor. With entirely
non-Freudian implications,2 the Thanatos Syndrome is simply the natural
sinful inclination to death and defilement. All men have morbidly embraced death
(Rom 5:12).
At the Fall, mankind was suddenly destined for death (Jer 15:2). We were all at
that moment bound into a covenant with death (Isa 28:15). Scripture tells us,
“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways
of death” (Pro 14:12; 16:25).
Whether we know it or not, we have chosen death (Jer 8:3). It has become our
shepherd (Psa 49:14). Our minds are fixed on it (Rom 8:6), our hearts pursue it
(Pro 21:6), and our flesh is ruled by it (Rom 8:2). We dance to its cadences 3 (Pro
2:18) and descend to its chambers (Pro 7:27).
The fact is “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23) and “all have sinned” (Rom
3:23). “There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are to-
gether become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their
throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison
of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their
feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the
way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes”
(Rom 3:10-18). And, all those who hate God love death (Pro 8:36).
It is no wonder then that abortion, infanticide, exposure, and abandonment
have always been a normal and natural part of human relations. Since the dawn-
ing of time, men have contrived ingenious diversions to satisfy their fallen pas-
sions. And child killing has always been chief among them.
Virtually every culture in antiquity was stained with the blood of innocent chil-
dren. Unwanted infants in ancient Rome were abandoned outside the city walls to

1
anthropology – the study of men.
2
non-Freudian implications – thanatos in the theories of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was mankind’s
urge for self-destruction. The author’s point is that the Thanatos Syndrome to which he refers is
not Freud’s, but the revelation of man’s radical depravity set forth in God’s infallible Word.
3
cadences – rhythms.
Mankind and the Death Factor 19

die from exposure to the elements or from the attacks of wild foraging 4 beasts.
Greeks often gave their pregnant women harsh doses of herbal or medicinal abor-
tifacients.5 Persians developed highly sophisticated surgical curette procedures.
Chinese women tied heavy ropes around their waists so excruciatingly tight that
they either aborted or passed into unconsciousness. Ancient Hindus and Arabs
concocted chemical [contraceptives] …Primitive Canaanites threw their children
onto great flaming pyres as a sacrifice to their god Molech. Polynesians subjected
their pregnant women to onerous6 tortures—their abdomens beaten with large
stones or hot coals heaped upon their bodies. Japanese women [stood over] boiling
cauldrons of parricidal brews.7 Egyptians disposed of their unwanted children by
disemboweling and dismembering them shortly after birth. Their collagen8 was
then ritually harvested for the manufacture of cosmetic creams.
None of the great minds of the ancient world—from Plato and Aristotle to Sen-
eca and Quintilian, from Pythagoras and Aristophanes to Livy and Cicero, from
Herodotus and Thucydides to Plutarch and Euripides—disparaged child killing
in any way. In fact, most of them actually recommended it. They callously dis-
cussed its various methods and procedures. They casually debated its sundry legal
ramifications. They blithely9 tossed lives like dice.
Abortion, infanticide, exposure, and abandonment were so much a part of hu-
man societies that they provided the primary leitmotif 10 in popular traditions, sto-
ries, myths, fables, and legends.
The founding of Rome was, for instance, presumed to be the happy result of the
abandonment of children, [Romulus and Remus]…Oedipus was presumed to be
an abandoned child who was also found by a shepherd and later rose to greatness.
Ion, the eponymous11 monarch in ancient Greece, miraculously lived through an
abortion, according to tradition. Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, was
supposedly a fortunate survivor of infanticide. According to Homer’s legend, Par-
is, whose amorous indiscretions started the Trojan War, was also a victim of
abandonment. Telephus, the king of Mysia in Greece, and Habius, ruler of the
Cunetes in Spain, had both been exposed as children according to various folk ta-
les. Jupiter, chief god of the Olympian pantheon, himself had been abandoned as

4
foraging – searching for food.
5
abortifacients – drugs or other means that cause abortion.
6
onerous – oppressive.
7
parricidal brews – boiling mixtures used to kill a near relative, in this case, one’s baby.
8
collagen – protein that is present in the form of fibers that make up bone, tendons, and other connec-
tive tissue in the human body, which yields gelatin when boiled.
9
blithely – carelessly.
10
leitmotif – recurring theme.
11
eponymous – of a person who gives his or her name to something, e.g., Ion founded the Ionians, a
primary tribe of Greece.
20 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

a child. He in turn exposed his twin sons, Zethus and Amphion. Similarly, other
myths related that Poseidon, Aesculapius, Hephaistos, Attis, and Cybele had all
been abandoned to die.
Because they had been mired12 by the minions13 of sin and death, it was as natu-
ral as the spring rains for the men and women of antiquity to kill their children. It
was as instinctive as the autumn harvest for them summarily to sabotage their
own heritage. They saw nothing particularly cruel about despoiling the fruit of
their wombs. It was woven into the very fabric of their culture. They believed that
it was completely justifiable. They believed that it was just, good, and right.
But they were wrong. Dreadfully wrong.
Life is God’s gift. It is His gracious endowment upon the created order. It flows
forth in generative fruitfulness. The earth is literally teeming with life (Gen 1:20;
Lev 11:10; 22:5; Deu 14:9). And the crowning glory of this sacred teeming is man
himself (Gen 1:26-30; Psa 8:1-9). To violate the sanctity of this magnificent en-
dowment is to fly in the face of all that is holy, just, and true (Jer 8:1-17; Rom 8:6).
To violate the sanctity of life is to invite judgment, retribution, and anathema
(Deu 30:19-20). It is to solicit devastation, imprecation,14 and destruction (Jer
21:8-10). The Apostle Paul tells us, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal 6:7).
But the Lord God, Who is the giver of life (Act 17:25), the fountain of life (Psa
36:9), the defender of life (Psa 27:1), the prince of life (Act 3:15), and the restorer
of life (Ruth 4:15), did not leave men to languish hopelessly in the clutches of sin
and death. He not only sent us the message of life (Act 5:20) and the words of life
(Joh 6:68), He sent us the light of life as well (Joh 8:12). He sent us His only begot-
ten Son, the life of the world (Joh 6:51), to break the bonds of death (1Co 15:54-
56)…“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso-
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Joh 3:16)…In
Christ, God has afforded us the opportunity…to choose between fruitful and
teeming life on the one hand, and barren and impoverished death on the other
(Deu 30:19).
Apart from Christ it is not possible to escape the snares of sin and death (Col
2:13). On the other hand, “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things
are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2Co 5:17). All those who
hate Christ “love death” (Pro 8:36), while all those who receive Christ are made
the sweet savor of life (2Co 2:16).

12
mired – sunk down in swampy mud; held fast.
13
minions – servants.
14
imprecation – curses.
Mankind and the Death Factor 21

The implication is clear: The pro-life movement and the Christian faith are
synonymous.15 Where there is one, there will be the other: for one cannot be had
without the other. Further, the primary conflict in temporal history always has
been and always will be the struggle for life by the Church against the natural in-
clinations of all men everywhere.
Conclusion: Death has cast its dark shadow across the whole of human rela-
tions. Because of sin, all men flirt and flaunt shamelessly in the face of its specter.
Sadly, such impudence has led to the most grotesque concupiscence 16 imaginable:
the slaughter of innocent children. Blinded by the glare from the nefarious17 and
insidious angel of light (2Co 11:14), we stand by, paralyzed and mesmerized.
Thanks be to God, there is a way of escape from these bonds of destruction. In
Christ, there is hope. In Him, there is life, both temporal and eternal. In Him,
there is liberty and justice. In Him, there is an antidote to the Thanatos factor. In
Him, and in Him alone, there is an answer to the age-long dilemma of the domin-
ion of death.
From Third Time Around: The History of the Pro-Life Movement from the
First Century to the Present, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.
_______________________
George Grant: Pastor of Parish Presbyterian Church, church planter, author, president of
King’s Meadow Study Center, founder of Franklin Classical School, and chancellor of New
College Franklin.

15
This does not mean, however, that everyone who is pro-life is in fact a Christian.
16
concupiscence – eager desire; lust.
17
nefarious – extremely wicked.
W
HAT is the justification for legal abortion? Let us examine the argu-
ments used by those who promote abortion to determine on how strong
of a foundation this practice is based.
Argument 1: The fetus is not a human life, therefore it may be killed. While the
fetus will eventually become a human child, this argument says it is not yet so.
But science indicates otherwise. First, the words embryo and fetus are Greek and
Latin words that simply mean “young one.” When scientists speak of a human
embryo or fetus, they are not putting it in the category of another species, but are
simply using technical terminology for a stage of development, like the words in-
fant, child, adolescent, and adult. A human fetus is a young human person in the
womb. It is natural and correct for mothers to speak of the fetus as “my baby” or
for pregnancy books to say “your child.”
Second, from conception, the child has its own genetic code that clearly identi-
fies it as homo sapiens—part of the human race. The child’s DNA also has a dis-
tinct code from the mother, showing that he or she is not a part of her body, but a
distinct individual living temporarily within her.
Third, ultrasound1 imaging shows that very early in the process of development
the embryo grows into a recognizable human form. The child is not a blob of tis-
sue, but a highly complex, though tiny, baby. At three weeks after conception, a
baby’s heart begins beating and pumping blood through the body. At six weeks, a
baby’s brain waves are traceable. Virtually all surgical abortions silence a beating
heart and a functioning brain. At eight weeks, the arms, hands, legs, and feet are
well developed and the child’s fingerprints are starting to form. At eleven weeks
after conception, all of the baby’s internal organs are present and functioning. By
the end of the first trimester, the baby kicks, spins, somersaults, opens and closes
hands, and makes facial expressions.
By any reasonable standard, a human fetus is a young human being. To kill an
innocent baby is murder. That is why the products of abortion are so ugly: severed
hands, feet, and heads, wrapped up in bags and discarded. On an intuitive level,
we know this. People can shrug off the image of a side of beef or a chicken drum-
stick, but images of abortion horrify and grieve us because they are images of a
dismembered human body. Unborn children are precious human beings and must
be protected.
1
ultrasound – using the reflections of high-frequency sound waves to construct an image of a body
organ, commonly used to observe fetal growth.
Answers to Abortion Arguments 23

Argument 2: The fetus is not fully human because it is dependent on another. Is

a baby kangaroo not a kangaroo because it lives in its mother’s pouch? Of course
not. The location and situation of a human being does not make him or her any
less human. Arguments for abortion based on dependence tread on dangerous
ground. If dependency makes a person less human, then on that ground we would
have the right to kill infants outside the womb, people on dialysis, handicapped
people, and the elderly. May we kill all dependent people?
Consider two mothers several months into their pregnancies. One child is born
prematurely, and the other remains in the womb. The first is utterly dependent on
medical intervention to survive, and the other on her mother’s body. Is it right to
kill the prematurely born baby? How would the hospital staff react if the mother
entered the neonatal2 ward with a knife to attack her child? If it is not right to kill
the premature child, then why is it right to kill the child in the womb? Both are
dependent. Both are children. Both must have legal protection.
Argument 3: A woman has a right to do with her body as she desires. We affirm
a woman’s authority over her body. But there are limits to what we can rightfully
do with our bodies, including causing harm to another human being. Abortion
involves the death of her child. To argue that the living fetus is part of the moth-
er’s body defies reason: which organ of her body is it? When the unborn child’s
heart beats, whose heart is it? When the fetus’s brain waves can be traced, whose
brain is it? Every pregnancy involves two people: a mother and a child; the rights
of both must be considered.
Whenever we speak of the rights of two human beings, we must guard against
the more powerful person taking advantage of the weaker person. It is the respon-
sibility of the powerful to protect the weak. It is especially the responsibility of a
mother to protect her child. Does any mother have the right to do whatever she
pleases with her children? On the contrary, she has the responsibility of caring for
them or seeing that someone else cares for them. Certainly, motherhood calls for
sacrifice. We should expect adults to make sacrifices of their resources and free-
doms when necessary to preserve the lives of children.
Argument 4: Sex and reproduction are private matters into which we must not
intrude. We believe that human sexuality is a very private matter: it expresses the
deep intimacy that a husband and wife share. But sex has very public consequenc-
es. How we exercise our sexuality contributes to the restraint or spread of disease,
the treatment of women with honor or rape, the nurture or sexual abuse of chil-
dren, and the strengthening or dissolution of families that are the foundation of
society. Society therefore has a compelling interest to guard the dignity of mar-
riage, women, and children with respect to sex and reproduction.

2
neonatal – relating to newborn children.
24 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

People sometimes argue that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to pri-
vacy in sexual and reproductive matters. Read the Constitution, and you will not
find any such right there. In reality, the Fourth Amendment acknowledges the
right of security against “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a “war-
rant,” but says nothing about sexuality, children, or abortion.
Someone might sarcastically say, “I thought what I did in my bedroom was my
own business.” But if there is reasonable cause to believe that you are murdering a
child in your bedroom, then it becomes a matter of public intervention by the au-
thorities. Privacy is not an absolute moral right. But killing a child is an absolute
moral wrong.
Argument 5: Making abortion illegal would force women into dangerous, back-
alley abortions. The idea of the crudely done abortion resulting in a bleeding, dy-
ing mother (and a dead child) has been widely used by abortion advocates. But in
reality, 90 percent of abortions performed before they became legal were done by
physicians in their offices. The idea of thousands of women dying yearly until
abortion was legalized is a myth. In 1972, thirty-nine mothers died in the United
States from abortions. The American Journal of Obstetrics3 and Gynecology4 (March
26, 2010) admits that the legalization of abortion has had “no major impact on the
number of women dying from abortion in the U.S....legal abortion is now the lead-
ing cause of abortion-related maternal deaths in the U.S.”
Every woman who dies from a botched abortion is a tragic loss. But so is every
child who dies from a successful abortion. We should not make it legal to kill ba-
bies in order to make the killing safer for the adults involved. Furthermore, abor-
tion has medical and psychological risks; making it illegal would actually protect
the lives and health of millions of women.
Argument 6: Better to die before birth than to live as an unwanted child. First,
to give a human being the power to determine the future life of another individual
based on whether he is “wanted” or “unwanted” is most dangerous. Do we have
the right to kill people based on whether or not we want them? Such a viewpoint
leads highly cultured societies to commit genocide5 against the mentally chal-
lenged and “inferior” races.
Second, is the child never wanted by anyone? Many mothers did not want the
pregnancy but cherish the child, especially after birth. There are also many par-
ents who want to adopt a child. To say that the child is not wanted now by its
mother does not mean it will never be loved.

3
obstetrics – the branch of medicine dealing with childbirth and care of the mother.
4
gynecology – the branch of medicine that deals with the diseases and hygiene of women.
5
genocide – the systematic killing of people based on ethnicity, religion, etc.
Answers to Abortion Arguments 25

Third, this argument has horrifying implications for “unwanted” children al-
ready born. If it is better to kill the baby than to let it be unwanted, then what
does that imply about homeless children? Children with abusive parents? Would
it be loving to kill these children? Of course not; love calls us to teach their par-
ents to care for them or to find parents for them. In the same way, if unborn chil-
dren are truly “unwanted,” we should try to help their mothers to see them differ-
ently or help the children to find adoptive parents. Did you know that Steve Jobs6
was unwanted by his birth mother and the adoptive parents the government ini-
tially chose?
Fourth, what gives us the right to decide whether it is better for a person to live
or to die? Are we the owner of that person’s life? Do we know with certainty the
child’s future? Do not many “unwanted” children overcome severe physical or
emotional handicaps in their youth and function as useful adult citizens? Do not
many people in painful situations nevertheless wisely choose to live rather than to
kill themselves?
In the end, the seemingly compassionate argument for the “wanted” child
makes no sense at all. At best, it is an emotional, illogical appeal; at worst, it is a
mask for deadly selfishness.
Argument 7: Pro-life advocates are trying to force their beliefs on other people.
In reality, all who participate in an abortion force their views on another, namely
on the unborn child—so strongly, in fact, that it results in his or her death. If the
unborn child is a human being, then how can one be accused of trying to force his
own belief on another when trying to protect the life of the child from his or her
killer? If the unborn child is a human being, then abortion is murder. If abortion is
murder, we must do all in our power to stop it.
The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-
ness—that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Currently the rights of some
people are more “equal” than others are because their “liberty and the pursuit of
happiness” apparently justifies taking the “life” of others. This seriously under-
mines the political foundation of our nation. But if people exercise their popular
power of voting to direct the government to protect all people’s right to life, they
simply do what the Declaration of Independence says they should.
After critically examining seven basic arguments for abortion upon demand,
can we honestly conclude on a rational and ethical basis that abortion should be

6
Steven Paul Jobs (1955-2011) – American inventor, computer entrepreneur, and founder of Apple,
Inc.
26 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

legal? These arguments are flimsy reasons for murdering more than a million ba-
bies each year. This is especially evident when we consider that less than 5% of all
abortions are for reason of rape, incest, or a danger to the mother’s life. More than
95% of abortions take place for the sake of finances, career, personal convenience,
or other selfish reasons. Are these compelling reasons for killing human beings?
From Is Abortion Really So Bad?, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY.
_______________________
Joel R. Beeke: Pastor of Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, MI;
theologian, author, and president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, where he is
Professor of Systematic Theology and Homiletics.
T
question of when life begins is tightly linked to the secret of life it-
HE
self…Concepts such as human, living, and person have been the subject of
much discussion and analysis. Plato sought desperately for a description
that would clearly distinguish humans from all other species of animals. He final-
ly chose “featherless biped1” as his working definition. This lasted only until one
of Plato’s students threw a plucked chicken over the academy wall with an at-
tached note that read, “Plato’s man.”
When we turn to the Bible, we discover that it offers no explicit statement that
life begins at a certain point or that there is human life before birth. However,
Scripture assumes a continuity of life from before the time of birth to after the
time of birth. The same language and the same personal pronouns are used indis-
criminately for both stages. Further, God’s involvement in the life of the person
extends back to conception (and even before conception). This passage supports
the point: “For thou hast possessed my reins:2 thou hast covered me in my moth-
er’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous
are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid
from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of
the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book
all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet
there was none of them” (Psa 139:13-16).
The psalmist credits God for fashioning him in the womb. He also uses the term
me to refer to himself before he was born. It is noteworthy that the Hebrew word
translated as “unformed substance” is the Hebrew word for “embryo,” and this is
the only instance of that word in the Bible.
Another passage relevant to God’s involvement in life within the womb occurs
in Isaiah: “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD
hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made men-
tion of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow
of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he
hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glori-
fied. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought,
and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to

1
biped – an animal that uses two legs for walking.
2
reins – the seat of human feelings or affections; representative of the heart.
28 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in
the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength” (Isa 49:1-5).
This passage indicates not only that the unborn baby was distinct from the
mother and was treated with a unique personal identity, but that his formation in
the womb was the activity of God.
A similar treatment concerns the Prophet Jeremiah: “Then the word of the
LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and
before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a
prophet unto the nations” (Jer 1:4-5). Jeremiah is told that God knew him before
he was born. God had personal knowledge of the person of Jeremiah before the
person Jeremiah was born. This indicates that God treated Jeremiah in a personal
manner and as a personal being before birth. It is also significant that God “set
apart” or sanctified Jeremiah before birth. Clearly, God extends the sanctity prin-
ciple to life in the womb. Even those who do not agree that life begins before birth
grant that there is continuity between a child that is conceived and a child that is
born.
Every child has a past before birth. The issue is this: Was that past personal or
impersonal, with personhood beginning only at birth? It is clear that Scripture
regards personhood as beginning prior to birth. As David says, “Behold, I was
shapen3 in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psa 51:5). Professor
John Frame, in Medical Ethics, made the following observation on Psalm 51:5:
“Personal continuity extends back in time to the point of conception. Psalm 51:5
clearly and strikingly presses this continuity back to the point of conception. In
this passage, David is reflecting on the sin in his heart that had recently taken the
form of adultery and murder. He recognizes that the sin of his heart is not itself a
recent phenomenon but goes back to the point of his conception in the womb of
his mother…The personal continuity between David’s fetal life and his adult life
goes back as far as conception and extends even to this ethical relation to God.”4
In Psalm 51, David recounts his personal moral history to the point of concep-
tion. An impersonal being, a “blob of protoplasm,” cannot be a moral agent. If
David’s moral history extends back to conception, then his personal history also
must extend to the same point. Not merely David’s biological substance dates
back to conception, but his moral disposition as well.
The New Testament provides a fascinating text that has bearing on the question
of life before birth: “[Mary] entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elis-
abeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the
babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she

3
shapen – fashioned.
4
John M. Frame, Medical Ethics (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988), 94.
When Does Life Begin? 29

spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed
is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine
ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy” (Luk 1:40-44).
This passage describes the meeting between Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ,
and her cousin Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist. Upon their
meeting, John, while still in the womb of his mother, leaped for joy. This behavior
was consistent with the designated prophetic role of John, who was commissioned
by God to “announce” the Messiah. In this instance, John performed his prophet-
ic duty before either he or Jesus was born. These verses show that before John was
born, he exhibited cognition5 and emotion. He leaped because he was in a state of
joy. The joy was prompted by his recognition of the presence of the Messiah.
Some people may dismiss the relevance of this passage because (1) the writer is
speaking poetically or hyperbolically;6 (2) the passage says nothing about life from
conception, only about life prior to birth; or (3) the occasion represents a special
miracle and does not prove that other babies could have such prenatal 7 ability. To
answer the first objection, it is erroneous to dismiss the passage because it is poet-
ic or hyperbolic. The literary form of this portion of Luke’s Gospel is unambigu-
ously8 historical narrative, not poetry. Also, hyperbole is an exaggerated statement
of reality. If this incident is presented with hyperbole, that simply means John did
not leap as high or recognize as much as the text implies. The second objection,
that the passage says nothing of conception as the beginning point of life, is cor-
rect. The passage clearly indicates, however, that John had human powers of cog-
nition and emotion (signs of personality) prior to birth. The third objection, that
this incident was a special miracle, is more weighty. Unless we claim that a nor-
mal fetus has the ability to recognize the near presence of another fetus in another
woman’s womb, we must concede that there is something extraordinary or mirac-
ulous about this occurrence. It is possible that God miraculously enabled the pre-
natal John to have extraordinary cognitive powers that do not belong to average
unborn children.
However, if we grant the miracle, we are still left with a difficult question: Was
the miracle an act of extending normal powers beyond the normal limits or an act
of creating the powers? Did the unborn John the Baptist have the natural abilities
of cognition and emotion, abilities that were extended by a miracle, or were the
very powers of cognition and emotion created by God? There is no way to answer

5
cognition – the mental action of acquiring knowledge and understanding by thought, ex-perience,
and the senses.
6
hyperbolically – exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally.
7
prenatal – before birth.
8
unambiguously – clearly defined with only one meaning.
30 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

that question absolutely. However, before we dismiss the passage in Luke, two ob-
servations must be made. In many other biblical miracles, we see God extending
powers or abilities that already exist. For example, in 2 Kings 6:15-17, God
opened the eyes of the servant of Elisha so that he could see an angelic host. God
did not first miraculously have to give the servant the power to see. Rather, the
limit of his natural ability to see was extended. Likewise, for John to recognize
Jesus Christ while each was still in his mother’s womb, God did not necessarily
have to create the powers of cognition and emotion. The second observation is
that, however we evaluate this incident, one thing is certain: John the Baptist was
an unborn child who manifested cognition and joy…The Bible clearly indicates
that unborn babies are considered living human beings before they are born. The
weight of the biblical evidence is that life begins at conception.
The development of a human being is a process that begins at conception and
continues until death. No one would argue that human development begins at
birth. The moment of conception combines forty-six genes—twenty-three from
the mother and twenty-three from the father—so that a unique individual begins
the process of personal human development. After two weeks, there is a discerni-
ble heartbeat. The heart circulates blood within the embryo that is not the moth-
er’s blood, but blood the unborn baby has produced. After about six weeks, the
embryo is still less than an inch long but has undergone considerable develop-
ment. Fingers have formed on the hands. At forty-three days, the unborn baby has
detectable brain waves. After six and a half weeks, the embryo is moving; however,
because of the tiny size of the unborn baby and the thickness of the mother’s ab-
dominal wall, she does not sense “quickening” or movement until several weeks
later. By the end of nine weeks, the fetus has developed a unique set of finger-
prints. By this time, the [reproductive] organs of the male have already appeared
so that the gender of the unborn baby can be distinguished. The kidneys also have
formed and are functioning. By the end of the tenth week, the gallbladder is func-
tioning. All the organs of the body are functional by the end of the twelfth week,
and the baby can cry. All of this is accomplished during the first three months of
pregnancy.
In adults, heartbeat and brain waves are commonly referred to as “vital” signs.
When both brain waves and the heartbeat cease for a period of time, a patient may
be declared legally dead. Vital signs are a demonstration of life. When such signs
are clearly present in the developing embryo, why are people so reluctant to speak
of prenatal life? The embryo or fetus is not yet an independent living human per-
son, but that does not mean he or she is not a living human person. If independ-
ence is the critical criterion for distinguishing living people from living non-
people, then we must admit (as some readily do) that even birth does not yield a
living person. At birth, the baby is disconnected physically from the mother—and
When Does Life Begin? 31

in that sense is independent—but a newborn is still desperately dependent on

outside help for survival. The newborn can breathe by himself in most cases, but
he cannot feed himself.
In our quest to understand the presence of life, it is helpful to have an under-
standing of death. Since death is the cessation of life, it gives clues into the essen-
tial elements of life itself. One problem with our definitions of life and death is
seen in the case of stillborn babies. Are stillborn babies “dead babies” or “never-
have-been-alive babies”? It is commonplace for physicians to speak of stillborn
babies as babies who have died…
The fetus looks like a living human person. It acts like a human person. The em-
bryo has the genetic structure of a human person. It has the vital signs of a living
human person. The fetus has sexuality and movement. Often, it sucks its thumb,
reacts to music, and kicks its legs. With this cumulative9 evidence, it would seem-
ingly require powerful evidence to the contrary to conclude that a prenatal baby is
not a living human person.
Why do people resist this conclusion? The answer is prejudice. Indeed, preju-
dice is a powerful force in the debate concerning abortion. If we regard the em-
bryo or fetus as a living human person, then the moral implications of destroying
that person prior to birth are enormous! As long as we can convince ourselves that
a fetus is not human until birth, we are relieved of those difficulties. Even if we
conclude that an embryo is a living human person prior to birth, we have still not
established that life begins at conception. All we have established is that life be-
gins before birth. The clearest lines of demarcation10 in the continuum11 between
conception and birth are the conception and birth themselves. If we grant that a
fetus is a living human person merely five minutes—even five seconds—before
birth, then birth cannot be the point when life begins. In my judgment, the evi-
dence from science is as weighty as that inferred from the Bible that a fetus is a
living human person prior to birth. If that is so, then we must locate the begin-
ning of that life either at the point of conception or at some point between concep-
tion and birth.
From Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue.

Paul tells us of the old Gentiles that they were “without natural affection” (Rom 1:31). That which he
aims at is that barbarous custom among the Romans, who ofttimes, to spare the trouble in the educa-
tion of their children and to be at liberty to satisfy their lusts, destroyed their own children from the
womb, so far did the strength of sin prevail to obliterate the law of nature and to repel the force and

9
cumulative – created by gradual additions.
10
demarcation – the action of marking the boundary or limits of something.
11
continuum – a continuous series of things that blend into each other so gradually and seamlessly that
it is impossible to say where one becomes the next.
32 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

power of it. Examples of this nature are common in all nations—amongst ourselves—of women murder-
ing their own children through the deceitful reasoning of sin. And herein sin turns the strong current of
nature, darkens all the light of God in the soul, controls all natural principles [that are] influenced
with the power of the command and will of God. Yet this evil hath, through the efficacy of sin, received
a fearful aggravation. Men have not only slain but cruelly sacrificed their children to satisfy their
lusts.—John Owen
Although unhesitatingly and uncompromisingly committed to the cause of child killing, [Lawrence]
Tribe, a well-known professor of constitutional law at Harvard, is forced to admit that abortion can
only be advocated by those who have jettisoned the last remaining remnants of biblical orthodoxy. He
essentially—and accurately—defines the titanic struggle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers as the
struggle between Christian absolutes and pagan absolutes.—George Grant
Zeal [for Christ] will make a man hate everything that God hates, such as
drunkenness, slavery, or infanticide, and long to sweep it from
the face of the earth.—J. C. Ryle
P
ROCLAMATION 1: God created mankind in His own image. Most people in-
tuitively know that human beings are on a different level than animals.
Even the theory of evolution cannot completely erase the sense most people
have of how sacred human life is. Animals are beautiful and valuable, but we
would kill a grizzly bear to save a child without any qualms of conscience. We
know that people are special.
The Bible explains this sense of the sanctity of human life when it says in Gene-
sis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.” Men and women, whatever their age,
have a special value far above the birds and beasts (Mat 10:31) because they are
God’s most special creation on earth. We should cherish and protect human be-
ings, not just for their usefulness, but because they represent God’s glory in a
unique manner.
Proclamation 2: God rules life and death, ability and disability as the sovereign
King. We also have a sense that it is not right to “play God” with other people’s
lives. We realize that we do not have the right to treat people as if we owned them
and could dispose of them as we see fit. The Bible explains this by telling us that
God is the King Who owns and rules all of His creation (Psa 95:3-5). He alone has
the sovereign right to do what He pleases with people (Dan 4:35).
When God created the world, there was no death or pain; all was “very good”
(Gen 1:31). Death came through Adam’s disobedience to God’s Law (Gen 2:17;
Rom 5:12). But even so, God retained His sovereignty over human life and death.
“The LORD killeth, and maketh alive” (1Sa 2:6). He rules over human ability and
disability. “And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who
maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?” (Exo
4:11). So the Bible teaches us to receive each human life from God’s hand, even if
it is a child born with a handicap or into a difficult family situation. God has a
wondrous way of bringing good out of evil (Gen 50:20). We are to bow before His
authority as the King of the universe and not try to play God with other people’s
lives.
Abortion trespasses into divine territory by taking into the hands of man what
belongs to the Lord alone. It insults His sovereignty and foolishly grasps the au-
thority to make decisions for which we do not have the necessary wisdom. Con-
34 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

sider the following historical case: The father has syphilis, the mother has tuber-
culosis. They have already had four children—the first is blind, the second died,
the third is deaf and dumb, and the fourth has tuberculosis. The mother is preg-
nant with her fifth child. Will you perform an abortion for them? If so, then you
just killed Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827), a famous German composer and
pianist! Playing God with human lives produces tragic results.
Proclamation 3: God forbids the killing of innocent human life. Even after the
Fall, though man’s heart was totally corrupted by sin (Gen 6:5), God told us that
remnants of the image of God remain (Jam 3:9); and therefore we must treat hu-
man life with great respect. God says in Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s
blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” The
sixth of the Ten Commandments says, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exo 20:13), which in
context means we must not take innocent human life. To kill innocent people is to
attack God, for they bear His sacred image.
Proclamation 4: God reveals the human personhood of the unborn child. God
personally forms each child in the womb. Job said, “The Spirit of God hath made
me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job 33:4). David exulted,
“Thou hast…covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fear-
fully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth
right well” (Psa 139:13-14). What God makes in the womb is a “me”—a person
who has a “soul.”
David also confessed, “Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my
mother conceive me” (Psa 51:5). From his conception in the womb, David was “in
sin.” Objects and animals cannot be sinners; they have no moral accountability.
Only a person can be a sinner. So the sad reality that we are in a state of sin from
conception proves that conception creates a human person. Abortion is an attack
upon a human person with the intent to kill. It is premeditated murder.
Proclamation 5: God declares His judgment against the killers of the unborn.
The Lord has a special compassion for the weak when they are oppressed by those
more powerful than they are, whether it is the foreigner, the widow, or the orphan.
He threatens deadly wrath against oppressors (Exo 22:21-27). No one is more vul-
nerable than an unborn child is.
For this reason, God included this law in His legislation for Israel: “If men
strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no
mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband
will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief
follow, then thou shalt give life for life” (Exo 21:22-23). “Her fruit depart” is liter-
ally “her offspring come out.” The law envisions the accidental injury of a preg-
Proclamations of God’s Word and Abortion 35

nant woman with the result of a miscarriage,1 when two men are fighting. If God
decreed the punishment of an accidentally induced abortion, how much more will
He punish an intentional abortion? God abhors all crimes against women, but vio-
lence against pregnant women especially provokes Him to punish the offending
nation (Amo 1:13).
This does not justify taking personal vengeance or acts of violence against abor-
tion providers. But it does warn us that if our nation will not protect the innocent,
then God will deal severely with our nation. Senator Jesse Helms2 wrote, “The
highest level of moral culture is that at which the people of a nation recognize and
protect the sanctity of innocent human life...Great nations die when they cease to
live by the great principles which gave them vision and strength to rise above tyr-
anny and human degradation...No nation can remain free or exercise moral lead-
ership when it has embraced the doctrine of death.”
Proclamation 6: God calls sinners to repentance for forgiveness of sins. When
we declare God’s proclamations against abortion, we do so being painfully con-
scious that we all have sinned in many ways (Rom 3:23). We speak as sinners who
have found mercy with God, inviting other sinners to find the same mercy. For
this purpose, God sent Christ to die for sinners and to rise again: “Him hath God
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to
Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Act 5:31).
In Christ Jesus, there is a promise of forgiveness to all who come to Him. But
that promise is coupled with the command to repent (Luk 24:47). Repentance is
God’s gift for the salvation of a sinner by which a sinner, out of a sense of the evil
of his sin and the goodness of God’s mercy in Christ, turns from sin to God with
grief for and hatred of his sin, and with full intent to obey God by His gracious
help.
Perhaps you have been a party to abortion: a father who encouraged the death of
your child, a mother who submitted herself to the deadly instruments, a doctor or
nurse who performed the procedure, a vocal supporter of abortion in public poli-
cy, or just a silent citizen who has allowed millions of children to die without voic-
ing your protest. If this is the case, then you are guilty of bloodshed against the
image of God.
But the Lord Jesus Christ [calls] you, “Come now, let us reason together, saith
the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa 1:18). He stretches out His

1
For the discussion of an alternate view of this interpretation, see article 2, “The Silent Holocaust,” pp.
7-10.
2
Jesse Helms (1921-2008) – five-term Republican United States Senator from North Carolina and a
leading conservative. He served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995
to 2001. The quotation is from a speech in the U.S. Senate on January 11, 1977.
36 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

nail-pierced hands to you, calling you to “come” to Him, and promising, “Let the
wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return
unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon” (Isa 55:1, 7).
From Is Abortion Really So Bad?, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY.

An even more chilling development comes in the form of an article just published in the Journal
of Medical Ethics. Professors Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva
of the University of Melbourne and Oxford University, now argue for the morality and legaliza-
tion of “after-birth abortion.”
These authors do not hide their agenda. They are calling for the legal killing of newborn children.
Giubilini and Minerva now argue that newborn human infants lack the ability to anticipate the
future, and thus that after-birth abortions should be permitted. The authors explain that they
prefer the term “after-birth abortion” to “infanticide” because their term makes clear the fact that
the argument comes down to the fact that the birth of the child is not morally significant.
They propose two justifying arguments: First: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that
of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.” Second: “It is
not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to be a per-
son in the morally relevant sense.” Thus: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a
fetus in the sense that both lack the properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an
individual.”
Those assertions are as chilling as anything yet to appear in the academic literature of medical
ethics. This is a straightforward argument for the permissibility of murdering newborn human
infants. The authors make their argument with the full intention of seeing this transformed into
public policy. Further, they go on to demonstrate the undiluted evil of their proposal by refusing
even to set an upper limit on the permissible age of a child to be killed by “after-birth abor-
tion.”—Al Mohler
We have laws against homicide, and if the unborn child is recognized
legally and morally as a human being, abortion would be
rightly seen as murder.—Al Mohler
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel,
Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth
any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone
him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among
his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to pro-
fane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man,
when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that
man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to
commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.”—Leviticus 20:1-5

M
OLECH was a god of the Ammonites to whom children were “passed
through the fire.” That is, they were sacrificed. Sacrifices are made to
gods to obtain their favor and to gain prosperity, pleasure, and power.
Is abortion any different? More to the point: is abortion not child sacrifice? The
reasons for abortion are clear. People want sexual pleasure (often as fornication
and adultery) without the biological consequences. People want prosperity, but
children cost a lot of money; and they interfere with activities that give power and
prestige. Children cause many inconveniences to parents. Children require that
women be homebound “slaves” (according to liberals). Thus, Molech is alive and
well today. People do not believe that some deity will reward them for their child
sacrifice, but they believe that they will gain rewards by the destruction of their
children.
Let us be sure about God’s position in this passage. Not only was the one who
gave the child to be sacrificed to be stoned to death, but anyone who knew of the act
and allowed it to go unpunished (“hid their eyes”). God’s judgment rested not only
upon the person, but also upon his family. Today, the large majority of our society
“hides its eyes,” while the government and the medical profession officially com-
mits child sacrifice. Far worse, most who call themselves “Christians” condone
the practice…And, physicians are the priests who commit this sacrifice.
The people of the United States ought to be frightened! God has not changed.
He is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8). He will bring His
judgments upon us…
Abortion Is a Symptom: A primary principle for medical practice is the distinc-
tion between symptoms and diseases. For example, a cough may indicate pneu-
monia, sinusitis, lung cancer, tuberculosis, or any number of other diseases. The
same principle applies here. Abortion is not the disease: it is a symptom. The dis-
38 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

ease is secular humanism,1 as it is commonly referred to. More specifically, it is an

anti-God mentality that has no standard of right and wrong. The cure is not only
to pass laws that prohibit abortion. The cure is regeneration or being “born
again.”2 When that happens, [God changes] a person from being a secular human-
ist to a Bible believer.
Being anti-abortion is a non-negotiable ethic for true Christians. The practice is
totally against the character of God and His design for the human race. Every-
where God is described as the God of life, not of death…The true definition of life
is communion with God. Nowhere is the death of innocent people a biblical solu-
tion to any problem.
Further, He describes Himself as the God of the fatherless and calls for the spe-
cial care of the fatherless (Deu 14:29; Isa 1:l7; Jam 1:27). Certainly, today’s unborn
children are fatherless. The Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision of 1973
disallowed the father [from] having any right to say what is or is not done with the
unborn baby.3 Not only does this law apply to babies conceived out of wedlock,
but those conceived within marriage as well. Thus, the heart of marriage can be
ripped out along with the unborn baby. This destruction of marriage was the rea-
son that God’s judgment was applied to families as well as individuals (Lev 20:5).
The unborn are among the most defenseless of people. They cannot voice pro-
test. They cannot run away from danger 4…By contrast, God designed the unborn
to be the most protected. Their nourishment is constant and dependable. Their
environment is quite comfortable and unchanging. They do not have to interact
with people and be hurt by them. They are well protected physically, often so well
that the mother can be seriously injured, and they are not…
Abortion and the Family: We should understand that abortion represents as
much, if not more so, a destruction of the family as destruction of human life. The
most intimate human relationship is the “one flesh” nature of husband and wife
(Gen 2:24b; Mat 19:1-10). The highest call for one human to care for another is
that the husband should love his wife “even as Christ also loved the church, and
gave himself for it” (Eph 5:25) and to “nourish and cherish” her as he does his
own body (Eph 5:28-29). The negative statement of this oneness is, of course, the
Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exo 20:14).

1
secular humanism – the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without be-
lief in God.
2
See FGB 202, The New Birth, available from CHAPEL LIBRARY.
3
Curt Young, formerly Executive Director of the National Christian Action Council, first made the
author aware that Roe v. Wade had the effect of making all children legally fatherless while in the
womb.
4
As is clearly and violently portrayed in the video, The Silent Scream.
Molech Is Alive and Well 39

Most abortions are the “cure” for pregnancies that are a result of sexual promiscuity.
The extent of this promiscuity is directly correlated to the value placed upon
God’s design of sexuality for marriage. Certainly, the most “Christian” society
will have some sexual immorality, but not openly and as prevalent as the one in
which the family has been devalued. Both the man and the woman who are pro-
miscuous make the statement that the limitation of sexuality to marriage is un-
important. Abortion, the destruction of the life created by that union, is a further
denial of the value of the family into which the child would have been brought.
The pregnancy that results from promiscuity does not have to end in abortion.
The baby could be placed for adoption. Thus, abortion is not a consequence of
promiscuity but an additional statement that the raising of a child in a family is
unimportant. In reality, the mother acts in a way that considers her unborn child
to be better off dead than being raised in a family!
Abortion causes further decline in the family. At times, the stressed mother may
think toward her children, “I could have aborted you and avoided this trouble.”
Heaven forbid, but some even voice this thought! Husbands and wives are less
fearful of adultery, knowing that abortion is an efficient and hidden “backup” to a
consequent pregnancy. Further, as the number of children increases in a family,
the temptation increases to prevent further stress on the family budget by the
abortion of the next child.
Abortion assists the state in its control of the family. The biblical pattern is for
grown children to take care of their parents when they are no longer able to take
care of themselves (Mar 7:6-l3). With no children, the elderly must depend upon
the state to care for them, if they have not made sufficient provision for them-
selves (and most have not). Even with one or two children, the burden upon so few
might be more than they are able to handle along with their own financial respon-
sibilities…
The Social Consequences of Abortion: Babies, children, and the adults that they
become are a source of knowledge and wealth for a society. Unfortunately, some
think that the larger the population, the fewer the resources that are available on
a per capita5 basis. What is not considered are the resources of the growing popu-
lation, especially in an industrial society. First, the goods and services necessary
to raise these children to adulthood are considerable. Pregnant women have to
have special clothes and medical care. Babies and children need clothes, food, and
bigger houses. When they enter school, they need supplies and teachers. All these
items create industries and jobs for large numbers of people.
By the time the children start school, they become buyers themselves. Their
early impact may not be great, but the spendable income of today’s teenagers is

5
per capita – for each person.
40 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

staggering. Then, when they marry and have their own children, they compound
the goods and services necessary. As they enter the work force, they become pro-
ducers. Their talents and knowledge increase efficiency and production. And,
they become taxpayers!...It is ironic that babies are being aborted because of their
financial liability to families and to the nation. These are short-term savings, if
they are savings at all. In the long run, abortions are a considerable loss of human
resources and productivity to a nation. As Christians, we should adopt the axiom 6
that any violation of God’s laws has a severe economic consequence in the long
run. Abortion in itself is heinous,7 but its consequences extend far beyond the act
alone. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23)—both directly to the unborn child
and indirectly to the economic and social health of a nation.
From “Abortion: The Killing Fields” in Biblical Healing for Modern Medicine.
_______________________
Franklin E. (Ed) Payne, M.D.: American physician; taught Family Medicine at the Medical
College of Georgia for 25 years; has written helpfully and extensively on the subjects of bibli-
cal-medical ethics with Hilton Terrell, PH.D, M.D. (www.bmei.org), worldview
(www.biblicalworldview21.org), and biblical-Christian philosophy
(www.biblicalphilosophy.org).

6
axiom – an established or generally accepted principle.
7
heinous – outrageously wicked.
 “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace.”—Ephesians 1:7

S
INNER,
if you trust in Christ, He will forgive you the blackest sin into which
you have ever fallen. If—God grant that it may not be true!—the crime of
murder should be on your conscience, if adultery and fornication should
have blackened your very soul, if all the sins that men have ever committed,
enormous and stupendous in their aggravation, should be rightly charged to your
account, yet, remember that “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from
all sin” (1Jo 1:7); and “all that believe are justified from all things” (Act 13:39),
however black they may be.
I like the way Luther1 talks upon this subject, though he is sometimes rather too
bold. He says, “Jesus Christ is not a sham savior for sham sinners, but He is a real
Savior Who offers a real atonement for real sin, for gross crimes, for shameless of-
fenses, for transgressions of every sort and every size.” And a far greater One than
Luther has said, “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isa 1:18). I have set the
door of mercy open widely, have I not? There is no one here who will dare to say,
“Mr. Spurgeon said that I was too guilty to be forgiven!” I have said nothing of the
kind. However great your guilt, though your sins, like the great mountains, tower
above the clouds, the floods of divine mercy can roll over the tops of the highest
mountains of iniquity and drown them all. God give you grace to believe this and
to prove it true this very hour!
The greatness of God’s forgiveness may be judged by the freeness of it. When a
poor sinner comes to Christ for pardon, Christ does not ask him to pay anything
for it, to do anything, to be anything, or to feel anything, but He freely forgives
him. I know what you think: “I shall have to go through a certain penance of
heart, at any rate, if not of body. I shall have to weep so much, or pray so much, or
do so much, or feel so much.” That is not what the gospel says. That is only your
fancy. The gospel [says], “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved” (Act 16:31). Trust Jesus Christ, and the free pardon of sin is at once given
without money and without price (Isa 55:1).
Another thing that indicates its greatness is its immediateness. God will forgive
you at once, as soon as you trust Christ. There was a daughter, well beloved by her

1
Martin Luther (1483-1546) – German leader of the Protestant Reformation.
42 Free Grace Broadcaster • Issue 220

father, who, in an evil hour, left her home and came to London. Here, having no
friends, she soon fell a prey to wicked men and became an utter wreck. A city mis-
sionary met with her, spoke faithfully to her about her sin, and the Holy Spirit
brought her to the Savior’s feet. The missionary asked for her father’s name and
address; and at last, she told him. But she said, “It is no use for you to write to
him. I have brought such dishonor on my family that I am quite certain he would
not reply to any letter.” They wrote to the father and stated the case; and the letter
that came back bore on the envelope, in large text hand, the word Immediate. In-
side, he wrote, “I have prayed every day that I might find my child and am re-
joiced to hear of her. Let her come home at once. I have freely forgiven her, and I
long to clasp her to my bosom.” Now, soul, if thou seekest mercy, this is just what
the Lord will do with thee. He will send thee mercy marked Immediate, and thou
shalt have it at once. I recollect how I found mercy in a moment, as I was told to
look to Jesus, and I should be forgiven. I did look; and, swift as a lightning flash, I
received the pardon of sin in which I have rejoiced to this very hour. Why should
it not be the same with you, the blackest and worst sinner here, the most unfeeling
and the least likely to repent? Lord, grant it; and Thou shalt have the praise!
Again, the greatness of God’s forgiveness may be measured by the completeness
of it. When a man trusts Christ and is forgiven, his sin is so entirely gone that it is
as though it had never been. Your children bring home their copybooks without
any blots in them; but if you look carefully, you can see where blots have been
erased. But when the Lord Jesus Christ blots out the sins of His people, He leaves
no marks of erasure: forgiven sinners are as much accepted before God as if they
had never sinned.
Perhaps someone says, “You are putting the matter very strongly.” I know I am,
but not more strongly than the Word of God does! The Prophet Micah, speaking
to the Lord under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, “Thou wilt cast all their
sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic 7:19). Not into the shallows, where they
might be dredged up again; but into the great deeps, as in the middle of the Atlan-
tic… “What! All my sins gone?” Yes, they are all gone if thou believest in Jesus,
for He cast them into His tomb where they are buried forever!...If I am in Christ
Jesus, the verdict of “No condemnation” (Rom 8:1) must always be mine, for who
can condemn the one for whom Christ has died? No one, for “whom he justified,
them he also glorified” (Rom 8:30). If you have trusted your soul upon the atone-
ment made by the blood of Christ, you are [forgiven]; you may go your way in
peace, knowing that neither death nor hell shall ever divide you from Christ. You
are His, and you shall be His forever and ever…
Now I close by showing you how really God forgives sin. I am sure He does; for I
have proved it in my own case, and I have heard of many more like myself. I have
known the Lord to take a man full of sin, renew him, and in a moment to make
Great Forgiveness for Great Sin 43

him feel—and feel it truly too—“God loves me!” He has cried, “Abba, Father.”
And he has begun to pray and has had answers to prayer. God has manifested His
infinite grace to him in a thousand ways. By-and-by, that man has been trusted by
God with some service for Him, as Paul and others were put in trust with the gos-
pel, and as some of us also are. With some of us, the Lord has been very familiar
and very kind and has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus.
Now I have done when I have just said that, as these things are true, then no-
body ought to despair. Come, sister, smooth those wrinkles out of your forehead.
You have been saying, “I shall never be saved”; but you must not talk like that, for
Christ’s forgiveness of sin is “according to the riches of his grace.” And, brother,
are you in trouble because you have sinned against God? As He is so ready to for-
give, you ought to be sorry that you have grieved such a gracious God. As He is so
ready to forgive, let us be ready to be forgiven. Let us not leave this [subject],
though the midnight hour is about to strike, until we have received this great re-
demption, this great forgiveness for great sin.
Thus have I preached the gospel to you! If you reject it, it is at your peril...I can
say no more than this. There is pardon to be obtained by believing. Jesus Christ is
fully worthy of your confidence. Trust Him now, and you shall receive full and
free forgiveness. The Lord help you to do so, for Jesus Christ’s sake! Amen.
From a sermon delivered on Lord’s Day evening, December 31, 1876,
at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington.
_______________________
Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892): Influential English Baptist preacher; born at Kelvedon,
Essex, England.