Why Do Apostolics Oppose Abortion?
by David K. Bernard
Podcast recording (no venue stated in the delivered transcript)
Kind: teaching
Scripture: Psalm 139

Source: https://acts238.life/repository/sermons/david-k-bernard--why-do-apostolics-oppose-abortion
Published by Acts 2:38 Life from the sermon transcript on that page.
Free to copy and share with attribution.

------------------------------------------------------------
well first and foremost we go to the bible for our answers and the bible teaches us that the child in the womb is a human being is a child has life from god and so our pro-life position is that once a child has been conceived in the womb that child has an existence of its own is a living soul and therefore it would be a sin to take that life even from a scientific perspective is that a child alive yes is that child human yes it's not anything else so even scientifically that what that woman is carrying in her womb is a human child and therefore it would be a violation of ethics and of course moral law to to take that life now where do we get that position aside from that basic common sense scientific based argument psalm 139 is quite specific it says god formed us when we were in our mother's womb that he already knew us he already knew the life we would live and he actually created us or formed us so from god's perspective that child in the womb is in fact a child a human being and we see this also the book of jeremiah god told that jeremiah that from your mother's womb i knew you i called you i sanctified you i had a plan for your life the same with john the baptist in the accounts in luke's gospel for instance the baby was filled with the holy spirit from his mother's womb that's not a new testament experience but that's about god working in his life to to cause him to be a prophet and in fact when uh mary the mother of jesus was carrying jesus and came to elizabeth the mother of john who when she was carrying him in the womb the babe leaped in the womb so there's a sense that even though obviously the unborn child is not conscious in the same way we are there was a spiritual connection of recognizing his lord and messiah and so these and other indications show us from the bible's perspective that child is indeed a human being and we should preserve his or her life now uh to the argument that well that's the mother's body i've already explained that's a human being so we do believe of course that the sexual relationship should be confined to marriage but we live in a pluralistic society he doesn't agree with that even so what we would say yes the woman has a choice when to have sex and yes the woman has a choice to use contraceptives and even though we would not want to do anything that would interfere once the the egg has been fertilized we would say there shouldn't be any interference but as a practical matter even after a woman has sex there are immediate measures that can be taken that no one would know about to prevent conception or end the conception so the point is as a practical matter the woman has several points of choice but once that child has been conceived she has already made her choice and now another human being's rights take or should be equal to hers now the argument is just the same what if a child is born one minute after birth can we kill that baby well the law says no well but all the reasons why you would have abortion what if that child was born of rape what if that child was born of incest what if that child has a mental or physical defect that maybe he's not even known until birth what if the mother can't afford that child what if it would it's a single mom who's living in poverty and so that child is doomed to a miserable existence and the woman truly doesn't want that child and the child is likely to be mistreated and abused et cetera et cetera all those arguments for abortion still apply one minute after birth right so if those are going to take precedence well then infanticide would be okay as it was in the ancient roman empire at the time of christ now if all those reasons are not okay why not and we say because the child has its own existence but really one minute after it's born versus one minute before it's born is there really a difference in its existence that's that's quite arbitrary but the proponents of roe v wade and by the way roe v wade actually did say the state could regulate abortion um after the first trimester but the current proponents of abortion are actually arguing up till the very moment of birth abortion should be legal and so they believe in what's called partial birth abortion which not to be too graphic but what it means is a baby can be partially delivered so the head can be delivered and the doctor can insert scissors in the base of the skull create a hole extract the brain kill the baby so before the baby comes out of the womb 100 percent it's dead that's considered an abortion that's considered legal in some jurisdictions but logically whether you kill the baby you know one minute before birth or during birth like i just described are one minute after birth is there really any scientific or biblical distinction no in fact peter singer who's a well-known ethicist at harvard university a professor argues that we should create a law that says for several days after birth the child should not be considered human to give us time to see if that child has some kind of defect that that we don't think it's life is worthwhile that's where we're headed to that so if you're going to look at a scientific basis or a biblical basis you have to draw the line at conception and so my counter argument to the woman's right i do believe it's a woman's right to choose whether to have sex or not to choose whether to have birth control or not and perhaps even uh in certain cases she can take some immediate action like in the case of rape to try to prevent the conception so there are choice points but once that baby is alive is conceived and has a soul and is a soul then that baby has a right to life just like you and i have a right to life or just like the baby that's one minute old has a right to life and so that becomes equal to the mother's right now there are other cases like that siamese twins are are conjoined with the same body could one kill the other um and you could think of other cases where even a small child is totally dependent upon its mother and uh say a child that's breastfeeding um in in a place where there there is another no other alternative uh for feeding well that child is physically attached to the mother but yet still that child has a life so the argument well this is my body um that is never an absolute argument when you have another human being involved in the picture as you do here and so i do believe uh and i'll make a further comment you know i went to law school became a lawyer and i was in law school uh 78 to 81 so roe v wade was still fairly new and although most of my professors and classmates probably would be have been liberal and in favor of abortion there was a consensus from a legal perspective it was a very poor decision because it found a right to abortion in the u.s constitution which doesn't even mention it and at the time of the u.s constitution uh states generally forbade abortion it was well known that that the government could regulate or forbid abortion so just as a legal matter strictly on the basis of the law it was a very poor decision and i think that's what the u.s supreme court is saying now that this is a judgment that has to be left to the political system um as a matter of law we can't say the uni the the u.s constitution uh requires abortion up to the moment of birth uh of course for us the bible supersedes all other considerations and we believe the bible establishes the life of the unborn child in the womb