Abortion
ABORTION - IS IT A SIN?
Robert H. West
I. DEFINING ABORTION
A. Abortion is the practice of purposely causing the death and removal of unborn babies from their mothers’ wombs. Let us speak plainly: Abortion is killing! Whether or not it is murder remains to be considered. But the fact that killing is involved cannot be diminished even though some prefer the more delicate term: “retroactive fertility control.”
B. How Are Abortions Performed?
1. Suction Method -- The surgeon inserts a hollow plastic tube with a knife-like edge on the tip, into the uterus. The tube is connected to a vacuum machine almost 30 times more powerful than a home vacuum cleaner. The result is that the Baby is torn to pieces and sucked out into a jar.
2. D & C (Dilatation and Curettage) - The doctor inserts a curette (a loop-shaped knife) into the womb, with which he cuts to pieces the baby and the placenta and then scrapes them out into a basin. The little body is then re-assembled in jigsaw fashion to ascertain if any parts were left behind.
3. Prostaglandin -- A drug (developed recently by Upjohn Company) which induces labor and birth. If the baby survives the trauma of premature labor, it will then have to be “disposed of” by some other means.
4. Saline Method (Salt-Poisoning) -- This is done after the 16th week. A large needle is inserted through the abdominal wall into the baby’s amniotic sac. A concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic fluid. The baby swallows this fluid, struggles for some time and usually dies (although a small number survive to be killed some other way). Some doctors refer to these aborted babies as “candy-apple babies” because the salt often burns off the outer layer of skin, giving the resulting tissue a “candy apple” appearance.
5. Hysterotomy -- This is the same as a Caesarean Section with the exception that the object is to kill the baby rather than save it. The mother’s abdomen is surgically opened, as is her uterus, and the baby is lifted out and “discarded”. Almost all hysterotomy babies are born alive and left to die from lack of attention.
6. IUDs (Intrauterine Devices) -- These are small plastic or metal objects that are inserted in the womb and left there. IUDs are promoted as “contraceptive devices.” They are highly effective -- but not as contraceptives. They do not prevent the union of sperm and egg. Rather, the IUD irritates the lining of the womb that causes the cells to produce substances that either destroy the fertilized egg (zygote) when it arrives or prevent it from implanting. In other words, IUDs cause very early abortions!
II. WHY STUDY THIS ISSUE?
A. Because We Are To Be An Influence For Good In The World - See Matthew 5:13-16. We cannot remain silent or “neutral” on such an issue when that silence may well be identified as an endorsement of that which tends toward evil.
!! B. Because of Recent Supreme Court Decisions
§ 1973 - In Roe vs. Wade, ruled that prior to “viability,” the fetus is not meaningful human life and thus is not worthy of the protection of the Constitution; between “viability” and birth it may be worthy of that protection, but only under some circumstances and only if the states so decree.
§ 1976 - Ruled that neither husbands nor parents could interfere with their wives’ or daughters’ decisions to have abortions.
§ 1979 - Ruled more specifically that unmarried, minor females are permitted to have abortions without parental consent. (Cannot buy booze or cigarettes -- but can have an abortion!)
C. Because of the Consequences of Those Decisions
§ In 1966 there were only 8,000 legal abortions reported in this country. Since the 1973 Court decision, that number has risen to 1,600,000 annually This means that one unborn baby is killed every 20 seconds, day after day, year after year!
D. Because of the Dangerous Devaluation of Human Life in Our Society
§ This same Supreme Court whose decision precipitated the current destruction of over a million human lives annually, stopped construction on the $116,000,000 Tellico Dam in Tennessee - because it might endanger the life of the Snail Darter, a 3-inch fish! (“Save the Fish/Kill the Fetus”). Since then, citizens concerned about the safety of the Lousewort plant raised legal questions about building a power plant in Maine! Similar concern for the life of the Orange-Bellied Mouse has complicated site requirements for a power plant near San Francisco! And a $340,000,000 dam on the Stanislaus River in California ran into legal difficulties because of a 5/8 inch daddy-long-legs spider that lives there! We commend all efforts which show concern for the value of life. But does this not show that our society has confused values and priorities and has, legally, devalued human life?
E. Because of Some Dreadful Doors Which Have Already Been Opened
1. Infanticide (killing infants) - It is an ever-increasing practice to advocate more liberal laws and guidelines that would allow the “termination” of the lives of newborn infants. Sounds incredible? Read the following quotations:
James D. Watson, Nobel Prize laureate, who discovered the double helix of DNA, in an interview with Prism magazine in May, 1973, later quoted in Time: “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have.”
Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, as quoted in January, 1978 by the Pacific News Service: “...no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live.”
In the book, Ideals of Life, Millard S. Everett (professor of philosophy & humanities at Oklahoma State), wrote: “My personal feeling - and I don’t ask anyone to agree with me - is that eventually, when public opinion is prepared for it, no child should be admitted into the society of the living who would be certain to suffer any social handicap - for example, any physical or mental defect that would prevent marriage or would make others tolerate his company only from the sense of mercy.....This would imply not only eugenic sterilization but also euthanasia due to accidents of birth which cannot be foreseen.”
Even “religious experts” have had their say in advocacy of infanticide. A task force of the Anglican Church of Canada in a 1977 report concluded that it could be morally right to terminate the lives of newborn infants with severe brain damage. Their callousness is quoted in The New York Times, July 28, 1977: “Our sense and emotions lead us to the grave mistake of treating human-looking shapes as if they were human, although they lack the least vestige of human behavior and intellect. In fact the only way to treat such defective infants humanely is not to treat them as human.”
(The above quotations among many others can be found in the book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, by Francis A. Schaeffer & C. Everett Koop, M.D.)
2. Euthanasia (mercy-killing) - The forces of Humanism and “situation ethics” have long advocated the right of man to sit in judgement on which of the elderly, crippled, or retarded people have ceased to possess “meaningful life” and thus have the right to live. With the legal acceptability of abortion, new leverage has been granted to their arguments:
Joseph Fletcher, who popularized “situation ethics,” in his 1973 discussion of death with dignity in the American Journal of Nursing: “It is ridiculous to give ethical approval to the positive ending of sub-human life in utero as we do in therapeutic abortions for reasons of mercy and compassion but refuse to approve of positively ending a sub-human life in extremis. If we are morally obliged to put an end to a pregnancy when an amniocentesis reveals a terribly defective fetus, we are equally obliged to put an end to a patient’s hopeless misery when a brain scan reveals that a patient with cancer has advanced brain metastases.”
§ As bad as the theory and practice of euthanasia is, there are two notable distinctions between it and abortion that must be considered. Virtually all “mercy-killings” take place with the explicit or presumed consent of the victim. The consent of the fetus, on the other hand, is pre-empted by the mother, doctor, or the Supreme Court.
§ The vast majority of cases of euthanasia are in the presence of terminal and/or painful disease or injury. The overwhelming bulk of abortions, however, are performed on normal, healthy fetuses. Therefore, any moral evaluation of the two practices must view abortion with greater disapprobation.
F. Because of Frightening Historical Parallels
1. The Dred Scott Decision
In 1857, in the case of a black slave, Dred Scott, the Supreme Court ruled (contrary to all biological, logical, or scriptural evidence) that Negroes were legal nonpersons, and therefore could not be protected by the Constitution.
!!! 2. The Nazi Mentality
In Germany under National Socialist law, the Jew, regardless of all scientific and scriptural evidence to the contrary, was deprived of his legal personhood and treated as non-human. This led to what we know as the Holocaust.
Please read carefully the following statement from Dr. Leo Alexander, who worked with the Chief American Counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal. The statement originally appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine of July 4, 1949 and appears in the book, Abortion And The Conscience of the Nation by President Ronald Reagan: “Whatever proportion these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basis attitudes of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived [my emphasis- rhw]. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually, the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which the entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitable sick. [My emphasis - RHW]”
Alexander states further that Hitler exterminated 275,000 in his “killing centers”. The first to be eliminated were the aged, the infirm, the senile and mentally retarded, and “defective” children. As World War II approached, those deprived of the right to live included World War I amputees, children with badly modeled ears, and even bed wetters!
Malcolm Muggeridge, in his essay The Humane Holocaust appearing in the previously-mentioned book, comments as follows: “Surely some future Gibbon surveying our times will note sardonically that it took no more than three decades to transform a war crime into an act of compassion, thereby enabling the victors in the war against Nazi-ism to adopt the very practices for which the Nazis had been solemnly condemned at Nuremberg.”
G. Because This Is An Issue Which Confronted The Early Christians
Contrary to popular opinion, the early Christians also lived in a society in which abortion was commonly practiced: “Gynecology developed as a science. There were many woman physicians, some of whom wrote handbooks on abortion which were read by rich women and prostitutes.” - Abortion & the Early Church by Michael J. Gorman, p. 27.
This is a subject explicitly mentioned in writings of Christians dating to the late First or early Second century.
§ Didache or Teaching of Twelve Apostles: “Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide...” (2:2)
§ The Epistle of Barnabas: “...Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thy own life. Thou shalt not procure abortion, thou shalt not commit infanticide...” (19:5).
In this connection, it is interesting to note that when the Supreme Court made its infamous 1973 decision, Mr. Justice Blackmun argued in delivering the opinion of the court that, “Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father’s right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion.” As his very first point, Mr. Justice Blackmun based his opinion on the practice of pagan Greek and Roman law. The chilling aspect of this argument is the fact that it would also justify infanticide, slavery and a host of other moral evils which were not barred by “ancient religion!”
Note also that Blackmun admits that there was some protection for the unborn even in paganism. The reader is referred to Gorman’s book, mentioned above, for many references to pagan laws and writings in opposition to abortion.
III. SCIENCE TESTIFIES REGARDING THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
A. Conception - The Beginning of Individual Life
§ The Harvard Criteria was established in 1968 at Harvard Medical School and is now used widely to define death. It states that death is determined by four things: lack of response to external stimuli, lack of deep reflex action, lack of spontaneous movement and respiratory effort, and lack of brain activity. Schaeffer/Koop comment: “There are few, if any, scientists who would dispute the fact that the fetus exhibits none of these ‘lacks’ well before the conclusion of the first trimester and thus, by the Harvard Criteria, is sufficiently ‘alive- and-kicking’ that, were it an adult it would be treated to every effort available to keep it alive....EEG tracings have been detected as early as the fifth week.” (Op. Cit. p.56).
§ Dr. Thomas Verny, psychiatrist and fetologist, commenting on the Harvard Criteria said: “These physiological guidelines are the best we can devise, since ego, spirit, self, soul - whatever name one chooses to define human life - lie well beyond our measurement tools. The fact that the unborn test ‘alive’ by all four criteria raises significant questions about our current attitudes toward abortion.” - The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, by Verny & Kelly, 1981, pp. 1967-1970.
§ Jules Carles, one of the foremost geneticists of our time, director of research at France’s National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), wrote: “This first cell [formed by sperm-and- egg union] is already the embryo of an autonomous living being with individual heredity patrimony, such that if we knew the nature of the spermatozoid and the chromosomes involved, we could already at that point predict the characteristics of the child, the future color of his hair, and the illnesses to which he would be subject. In his mother’s womb, where he will grow, he will not accept everything she brings to him, but only that which is necessary to his existence: thereby he will realize his hereditary patrimony. In that first cell the profound dynamism and the precise direction of life appears....In spite of its fragility and its immense needs, an autonomous and genuinely living being has come into existence....It is rather surprising to see certain physicians speaking here of ‘potential life’ as if the fertilized egg began its real life when it nests in the uterus. Modern biology does not deny the importance of nidation, but it sees it only as a condition - indispensable, to be sure - for the development of the embryo and the continuation of a life already in existence.” - La fecondation, pp. 81-82, copied from Slaughter of the Innocents by John Warwick Montgomery.
§ The U. S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings in 1981 on the issue of when life begins. Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. The following are statements made at these hearings as cited in the Schaeffer/Koop book previously mentioned.
§ Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris testified: “When does life begin?...I’ll try to give the most precise answer to that question actually available to science...Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception...To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
§ Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., University of Colorado Medical School: “...the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter - the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”
§ Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania Medical School, after affirming that life begins at conception, added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”
§ Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
B. Pro-Abortionists Who Agree - Yet Continue Their Practice
In September, 1970, the editorial of California Medicine admitted that until a new “quality of life” ethic was firmly established, it would be necessary “to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing.....an avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”
§ The editorial for July 2, 1977 in the New Republic, belittled most of the arguments of the pro-abortionists, asserting that these arguments almost always avoid the real issue: “There clearly is no logical or moral distinction between a fetus and young baby; free availability of abortion cannot be reasonably distinguished from euthanasia.” But, the editorial concluded, “We are for it.”
§ Mary Anne Warren is a bioethicist at San Francisco State University. She wrote “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, ed. R. Hunt and J. Arras, 1977. According to Schaeffer/Koop (Op. Cit.), she holds that the fetus is clearly a human being. But, in her opinion, it is not a human being worthy of protection. She is willing to sanction the killing of an eight-or-nine-month-old fetus, stating that the unborn even at that age is “considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish.” Even at this stage the fetus, in her view, has no more right to life than “a newborn guppy.” Infanticide is all right, too, in her view, if the baby is defective or there is no one who wants it.
§ Warren’s is not a unique view. Schaeffer/Koop refer to Michael Tooley of Stanford University who expressed a similar idea in “Abortion and Infanticide,” in The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, ed. Marshall Cohen et al., 1974. He maintains that “personhood” should be withheld for a week after birth, during which time the baby could legally be killed if it fails to measure up to society’s standards!
§ The simple scientific facts are these: When the 23 chromosomes from the sperm are united with the 23 chromosomes from the ovum - a new person is created. Never, before or after, will another identical being exist. It is genetically different from both father and mother. Each of us existed in toto from that moment of conception. All we have done since then is to mature! Did you “come from” a baby? No, you once were a baby who grew and matured into the adult you are today. Just so: you did not “come from” a fertilized ovum. You were a fertilized ovum who grew into the adult you are now!
C. What The Issue Really Is - Perhaps you are beginning to see the true issue is only superficially related to when human life begins. Rather, the basic issue is what value society chooses to place on life at different stages and under various circumstances. Once the true nature of the issue is understood, then the heart-rending emotional situations of rape, incest, and other unwanted pregnancies can be considered from a proper perspective. The issue is whether - for whatever reason - whim, or traumatic circumstances, an innocent human life may not only be devalued but destroyed.
IV. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?
There is not a clearly recognized, explicit reference to abortion in the Bible — Although the same thing could be said for euthanasia and infanticide. Some scholars hold the opinion that the word PHARMAKIA in Galatians 5:20 has reference to the 1st Century practice of using drugs as abortifacients. A reference to both abortion and infanticide may be intended in ASTORGOS (without natural affection) in Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3. However, we shall center our attention on the numerous references to the fetus in the womb and see if the Bible makes any distinction between its condition or identity before and after birth.
A. Human Beings Reproduce “Their Own Kind”
In Genesis 1:11, 21, 24,-28; 5:3, we learn that plants, animals and man reproduce “after their kind.” In the case of man, he is made in the image of God; therefore, what he reproduces is also “in the image of God.” A Bible reference to a “son”, “daughter”, or “child” is always a reference to a distinct human being, made in the image of God.
B. What Is It That Is “Conceived” In The Mother’s Womb?
1. In the Case of John (Luke 1:36)
a. Elizabeth conceived (Greek = SULLAMBANO - to take together).
b. What she conceived was a son -
"Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren.
c. The babe leaped in her womb - Luke 1:41, 44
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
44 "For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
- (Greek = BREPHOS - child; see following -- )
Luke 1:16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger.
1 Peter 2:2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,
2. In the Case of Jesus - Luke 1:42-43
“Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
§ Notice that Mary is referred to as His “Mother” while He was still in the womb!
3. In the Case of Job - Job 3:3
"May the day perish on which I was born, and the night in which it was said, `A male child is conceived.'
§ Notice a “male-child” was conceived.
4. In the Case of Rebekah - Genesis 25:21, 22
Now Isaac pleaded with the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived. But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If all is well, why am I like this?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
§ There were “Children” within her.
5. In the Case of Naomi - Ruth 1:11
But Naomi said, "Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?
§ How could she refer to “Sons” in her womb if a fetus is not a person?
C. Other References To The Unborn In The Womb
1. Job 10:8-12
Your hands have made me and fashioned me, an intricate unity; yet You would destroy me. Remember, I pray, that You have made me like clay. And will You turn me into dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese, Clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and favor, and Your care has preserved my spirit.
2. Job 31:15
Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?
3. Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
4. Psalms 139:13-16
For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.
5. Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."
D. Exodus 21:22-25 Considered
1. The “Pro-Abortion” Argument
It is often assumed that this passage is speaking of a premature delivery of a stillborn child or a miscarriage. This view is supported by the translators of the New American Standard Bible and the uncertainty of King James Version (See below).
KJV --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, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
NASB -- 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.
We are told that since God authorized no more severe punishment than a fine imposed, this shows that God does not consider the death of the fetus the same as murder or manslaughter.
2. The Argument Considered
a. Even if the assumption concerning this passage were correct, it must be noted that this is the result of an accident and not therefore parallel or applicable to intentional abortions.
b. It must also be noted that punishment was required for this act. That this passage describes sinful conduct must not be overlooked.
c. But the assumption that the “fruit” (KJV) refers to a dead fetus is erroneous. The Hebrew word here is yeled translated “child” 72 times in the KJV and only here is it rendered “fruit.”
d. There is a Hebrew word for miscarriage, shakol (see Exodus.23:26); but it does not appear here. The word, yatsa, merely means “come out” and is used of ordinary birth in Genesis 25:25,26.
e. The mistranslation of the this passage in the KJV and NASB has been corrected in the New International Version and the New King James Version:
NIV -- "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
NKJ -- "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, "burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
f. The Testimony of Hebrew Scholars:
Keil & Delitzsch, pp. 134, 135: “If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him...A fine is imposed, because even if no injury had been done to the woman and the fruit of her womb, such a blow might have endangered life....’But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye,...wound for wound:’ thus perfect retribution was to be made.”
Contemporary Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, p. 275: “When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with a child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens - that is, the woman and the children do not die - the one who hurt her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life.”
CONCLUSION: The evidence from science and (most-importantly) from the Bible is clear and conclusive. A unique human individual exists from the point of conception until that life is terminated by natural causes (or by the abortionist’s instruments). It is wrong to willfully terminate innocent human life. It should, therefore be clear that the Christian’s attitude toward this increasing holocaust should be one of abhorrence and unalterable opposition.
PROVERBS 24:11, 12
Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, O hold {them} back. If you say, "See, we did not know this," does He not consider {it} who weighs the hearts? And does He not know {it} who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?