Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15

King James AV1611


What God Says About:

Abortion Vs. Pro-Life©

by Glen A. Stocker


Chapter Two - Biological Facts

As we begin this chapter, we will look at the biological aspect of the blood, and how it is the life of the flesh, as the Bible states in Leviticus 17:11, and that according to medical doctors, it is transmitted by the male.

In the booklet, "The Gospel According to Hematology," Dr. Lubrett Hargrove states,

if... the life of all flesh is in the blood... then Adam's blood, at that moment, was changed from being incorruptible to corruptible (1 Cor. 15:53). Adam's life (or blood) was now sinful. Therefore, the Bible tells us that the sin principle became associated with Adam's blood. If this is true, then this same sin principle now resides in our blood, as well, since we are all Adam's sons (2 Cor. 15:22). If we die without a restored fellowship with God, then we, too, are "damned," "lost," and will wind up in the infernal regions. [4]

Also, in the same booklet we find,

Adam's sin, committed with full awareness of the consequence of what he was doing, was far greater than Eve's transgression under, Satanic deception (1 Timothy 2:14).

Therefore, it seems a biblical axiom that it is the male who is the carrier of the sin nature (1 Corinthians 15:22). [5]

This indicates that the time life starts is at the time of fertilization, when the seed of the man is joined with the egg of the woman,. A human life has begun at this time even though, you couldn't see it.

I will now quote from a work entitled, "When You Were Formed In Secret,"

As the nuclei of the ovum and sperm unite during the first hours of fertilization they bring together twenty-three chromosomes, from the mother and twenty-three chromosomes from the father. These chromosome sets carry some 15,000 genes from each parent cell.

In these first quiet hours of human conception, the genes, like letters of a divine alphabet, spell out the unique characteristic's of the new individual. The color of the eyes, hair and skin, facial features, body type and certain qualities of personality and intelligence are all determined by this genetic coding, Whether the baby just begun will be a boy or a girl is determined by an X (boy) or Y (girl) chromosome carried in the father's sperm cell.

This quiet, yet sacred, act of conception has produced not a "potential human being," but rather a human being with vast potential. A new human life has begun and, will continue until natural or violent death. [6]

As As we can see from the above description all the genetic factors are complete at the completion of conception. All that remains is growth.

Your heart began beating at three weeks and has set the "rhythm of life" for all your days. Your brain began to form and soon would send out impulses throughout your body. In a mere f our weeks you looked every bit like a tiny baby and even began to react and respond like one." [7]

This unborn child has been able to experience pain from the sixth week and can even be taught conditioned responses... The fetus now sleeps and wakes, "breathes" amnionic fluid regularly to exercise and develop the respiratory system, and also drinks, digests and excretes portions of the fluid. He will drink more fetal fluids if sweetened and less if they are made bitter or sour. [8]

In the same book at four months,

The Baby now begins to seek comfortable positions when preparing to sleep ... Bone marrow is now forming and is beginning to produce supplement the red blood cells which up till now have been made by the liver and spleen. The heart can now be plainly heard and is pumping up to 25 quarts of blood a day. [9]

We see that, again, it is commonly known that the baby has its own blood in its own system, completely apart from the mother. Therefore, he has his own life.

On the day of birth the child, already a living and active person as we have seen, makes a change in his place of residence, in his external life support system, and his eating habits. As he has already gone through many progressive, overlapping stages of growth and development, so will he, from birth, continue, the life begun nine months ago, moving through childhood, adolescence, maturity, old age and death. Once again, all that is needed is nourishment, loving card and time to grow." [10]

These statements are obvious to anyone who will take a clear look at these facts. The idea that a baby must-be able to sustain himself is preposterous, before or after birth. Put a one-year-old baby in a room, shut the door and come back in two weeks and see how he is doing!! The unborn and the one-year-old needs support.

Again, at birth something happens,

The jelly in the umbilical cord begins to swell immediately upon contact with air, restricting flow to the placenta and forcing the infant's blood to its own lungs for oxygen. As the baby gasps and air sweeps into the lungs and fills the thousands of tiny air sacs, a first cry is vocalized. [11]

From these statements we can see that oxygen is already in the blood, the life is in the blood, the unborn baby is alive BEFORE he is born! Abortion is murder!!!

Curtis Young quotes from a U.S. Subcommittee report to show they really are not concerned about when, life begins. Life begins at conception, this is taken for granted, they are interested in "intrinsic worth," what ever that is? I quote,

Not only must government answer the biological, factual question of when the life of each human being begins: it must also address the question of whether to accord intristic worth and equal value to all human. life, whether before or after birth.

Now did you get that? In English, you can be "terminated" even after birth if you don't have "intrinsic worth" or equal value!!! I wonder if us Bible believers will have "intristic worth" to the subcommittee?? They further state,

No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of conception, there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species. No witness challenged, the scientific consensus that unborn children are "human beings" insofar as the term is used to mean living beings of the human species. Instead, these witnesses invoked their value preferences to redefine the term "human being..." [12]

There you have it, like Dr. Ruckman puts it ... like a dead fish on the beach. They admit that science and biology agree that life has begun at conception, but want to REDEFINE what a human being is according, to THEIR VALUE PREFERENCES!!! The U.S. Government knows that an unborn baby is just as much alive as you and me, but they don't believe that is the major issue. They believe it is some screw-ball idea of "intristic worth" determined by their own "value preferences". So much for the facts I Never get FACTS in the way of what you want to do!

To continue further on the biological aspects we will look at what a Biologist Margaret Gilbert has to say. She writes,

Not until the nineteenth century did men finally realize that the union of the sperm with the egg creates a new human being. This modern belief states that each living creature is created anew at the moment when the sperm of the father fuses with the egg of the mother, in a process called fertilization. [13]

Again we can readily see that scientist after scientist and biologist after biologist confirms the biblical fact that the unborn baby is alive and a complete human being. She goes on to explain further,

Life begins for each of us at an unfelt, unknown, unhonored instant when a minute, wriggling sperm plunges headlong into a mature egg... It is at this moment of fusion of the sperm and egg in fertilization there has been determined not only but the existence of this human being, also his unique individuality. [14]

The consensus is staggering, every biologist,, pro or anti-abortion will say the same thing, "life begins at conception". The pro-abortionists just, say that it's ok though because the baby is not of "intrinsic worth in the mother's or her gynecologist's estimation. In other words, "I don't want to go through the trouble of having a baby, it's not worth it to ME!!!"

Dr. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., Head of the department of anatomy at the University of Manitoba states,

Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum of egg to form a zygote; the first cell of a new human being, The zygote undergoes cell division and many complex changes occur before the developing human is able to live independently. [15]

These statements point out Dr. Moore's attitude that an unborn child cannot live independently, but as we will see in the next paragraph, that is not a consideration, to be applied as to whether or not the baby is fully human or not.

Dr. Scott Gilbert in his text book on "Developmental Biology" states,

The study of animal development has traditionally been called embryology, referring to the fact that between the stages of the fertilized egg and birth, the developing organism is known as an embryo. However, development does not stop at birth or even adulthood. Most organisms never cease developing. [16]

Life does not begin when the baby is fully developed, or he would never be a human being because he never quits developing!! If one would state that the unborn baby is not human because he cannot support himself fully, then who "pray tell" could claim "true humanness"?? NOBODY, that's who!

To show the flip side I will quote from a supposed "Christian" gynecologist, R.F. Gardner. He Is quoting a psychiatrist to whom he gives his hearty agreement,

We must never forget that (the gynecologists) are the final arbiters and must have the last word. [17]

Well now, talk about dogmaticism and humility!!! The baby doctors are the final arbitrators are they?? It kind of sounds like someone is trying to play God, doesn't it? What about Mommy and Daddy? Are they not to be consulted? Is God's word not consulted? These same doctors will tell you that life begins at conception, but if "WE" decide that YOU need a abortion then WE should have the RIGHT to tell you what to do with your unborn child. This shows positively that these doctors and the pro-abortionists are not interested in the facts even though you pile the facts of beginning of life up to the moon the question with them is, "WHAT DO I WANT?" The facts are ALWAYS ignored in favor of "situation ethics." This should answer the question of what to do if a Mongolian sheepdog raped a gorilla. Answer: Kill the doctor!! This comical example seems absurd, but that is the way it sounds to us, when I hear of the situation ethics being applied to overthrow a rule. The question to determine if you are killing an unborn human being is not the situation but rather, the question is, is the baby alive or not? If the Bible says the baby is alive, if biology and embryology confess that the unborn baby is alive, then it is murder to willingly take the life of another human being, except to save the life of the mother because without her both will die. That being the only exception.

Finally I will close out this chapter on Biological Facts with undisputed evidence from two sources and the lame refutation by an atheist.

Dr. Landrum Shettles holds Ph.D. and M.D. degrees from Johns Hopkins University. For twenty-seven years he was attending Obstetrician-Gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical center in New York City. He specialized in research in fertility, sterility, and disease of new born infants... he continues to pioneer research in vitro fertilization. David Rorvick is a former science and medical reporter for the Time magazine. In their, viewpoint, the authors argue that there is one fact that no one can deny: the life of a biological human being begins at conception They say,

the genotype-the inherited characteristics tics of a unique human being-is established in the conception process and will remain in force for the .,entire life of that individual. No other event in bio-logical life is so decisive, as this one; [18]

From their book it is evident that this highly qualified gynecologist and embryonic research scientist, is absolutely certain that the unborn child is completely alive at conception. He goes on to say about the idea of the baby being apart of the mother by quoting from a pro abortionist,

Even some who oppose restrictions on abortion would readily agree. For example, Daniel Callahan, director of the Institute of Society, Ethics and Life Sciences, has stated, "Genetically, hormonally and in all organic respects save for the source of its nourishment, a fetus and even an embryo is separate from the woman..." [19]

As I read several arguments pro and con, one issue was brought up by pro-abortionists: An egg is "alive" and a sperm is "alive," so what's the difference in killing an egg a sperm or an embryo? Dr. Shettles answers this by stating,

there may be some arguing in this fashion who earnestly believed that they have perceived a chink in the anti-abortion position, but most, I am convinced, are being disingenuous... The individual sex cells, sperm and egg on the other hand contain only half that number: twenty three chromosomes each. it is only through combination, through merger, that the sex cells attain the full compliment of hereditary units that defines a human being... [20]

In other words, an egg may be alive but it isn't human life, a sperm cell may be alive but it, isn't human life, either; but when they come together, you have human life. One-not two lives!!

Frank Zindler is a member of the American Association for the advancement of Science, also co-chairperson of the committee of Correspondence, on Evolution Education and Director of the Central Ohio Chapter of American Atheists. Mr. Zindler argues,

That in order to be human, a fetus must have a personality, its rights should in no way supersede those of a pregnant woman. [21]

He goes on to say, concerning the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade,

Clearly, the question does not concern the beginning of "life." [22]

Their efforts as can be seen from his last asinine statement, is to keep at all cost the issue of "when does life begin" off the arguing table. It is obvious to us why, "they ain't got a leg to stand on," that's why!! His lack of biological data is even more obvious since he is affiliated with AAAS (good acronym). He is answered on his argument of "personhood" by a real Doctor who knows his stuff. Dr. Thomas Verny M.A. in his book on The Secret of the Unborn Child. Speaking of personhood of the unborn, he states,

...It is based on the discovery that the unborn child is a feeling, remembering, aware being, and because he is, what happens to him... This realization and the remarkable body of research it springs from take us well beyond what we know-or think we know about the emotional development of the unborn child. And while, scientifically, that is enormously exciting (among other things, it forever displaces the old Freudian notion that personality does not begin forming until the second or third year). [23]

He goes on to say,

He can sense and react not only to large, undifferentiated emotions such as love and hate, but also to more shaded complex feeling stateslike ambivalence and ambiguity. [24]

All of these together shows me one clear message: The pro-abortionist is not concerned with facts at all, he is just concerned with his or her own hedonistic desires even to the point of MURDER.

Their arguments are mute, because they don't care if they are killing another human being. And as we will see in the next chapter on Morals, the reason of saving the mother's life is so rare, as to not even constitute an argument. So, what do you do with the doctor who aborts a baby? Simple, charge him with murder!! What about the woman? She is either an accessory to murder or guilty of involuntary manslaughter, depending on her knowledge of what she was doing. In court, if she can be shown to know the baby is alive and that the abortion was intended to kill it, then she is guilty of murder, too. Those are the facts. Too bad if someone doesn't like it, they can just lump it. As with many of the murder cases today, the camera is always on the "poor criminal," what about the tortured and dismembered VICTIM?

Now for the next chapter on Morals, this is the "situation ethnics" chapter for the pro-abortionist, this is their favorite stomping ground. Having seen that the Bible condemns abortion, modern medicine and-science make it clear that the unborn baby is alive, they have no recourse but to make up horror stories of rape, retardation, incest, and a host of other "problems" to justify killing one and a half million healthy innocent babies PER YEAR!!!

Lubrett Hargrove, The Gospel According To Hematology, (Oklahoma City: Southwest Radio Church, 1984), p. 5. [4]
Hargrove, p. 6 [5]
Gary Burgell, When You were Formed In Secret, Elyria: Intercessors For America, 1982, p. 1-2. [6]
Burgell, p. 1-S. [7]
Burgell, p. 1-8. [8]
Burgell, P. 1-8. [9]
Burgell, p. 1-15. [10]
Ibid. [11]
Curtis Young, The Least Of These (Chicago: Moody, Press, 1983), p. 27. [12]
Margaret Shea Gilbert, Biography of the Unborn (NY: Harner Publishing, 1962), p. 8. [13]
Gilbert, p. 13. [14]
Keith L. Moore, Before We were Born (Philadelphias We B. Saunders Co., 1984), p. 20. [15]
Scott F. Gardner, Development Biology (Suderland: Sinauer Assoc. Inc., 1985), p. 4. [16]
R. F. Gardner, Abortion: The Personal Dilemma (Grand Rapids: W.B. Ferdmans Publ. Co.), p. 85. [17]
David Bender and Bruno Leone, Abortion: Apposing Viewpoints (St. Paul: Gereenhaven Press), pp. 6-17. [18]
Bender, p. 19. [19]
Bender, p. 17,19. [20]
Bender, p. 23. [21]
Bender, p. 24. [22]
Thomas Verny and John Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn (NY: Dell Publishing Co., 1981), p. 15. [23]
Verny and Kelly, p. 18. [24]

 -Page Navigation-

Webmaster Notes | Introduction/Biblical Facts | Biological Facts | Morals | Conclusion | Bibliography