Why Do Apostolics Oppose Abortion?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The biblical premise — the child in the womb is a human being

• The question posed (in the host's frame): the big news story, this year, has been the leaked initial draft majority opinion, that was written by justice sam alito, that appears to show that the supreme court is about ready to overturn roe versus wade. Now, as we record this: the official announcement has not yet been made. The final decision has not yet been rendered. But that does appear that's what's going to happen. Of course, pro-life christians are rejoicing at that. Because they've seen roe versus wade as an unconstitutional ruling. Why does the issue of abortion — which, of course, is the focal point of roe vs wade — why does it matter so much, to christians? particularly oneness pentecostals (as the frame asks it)? And what, in that answer, could you share: how do you feel christians should respond, to the basic premise of the pro-choice argument ('the pro-chorus argument', as heard in the frame)? Which is: abortion's a private matter. And nobody, other than the woman who's seeking the abortion, should have a say. The answer: 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 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 take that life. Now, where do we get that position — aside from that basic, common-sense, scientific-based argument? Psalm (the psalm as he gives it) 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 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 (as the phrase stands). But that's about god working in his life, to cause him to be a prophet. And in fact, when 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.

Scriptures: Psalm 139; Jeremiah (book-only); Luke (book-only)

Choice points — and the one-minute argument

• Now, 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 ('he doesn't agree', as heard — the society). 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 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 (as spoken). 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 ('take or should be equal to hers', as heard). 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'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 quite arbitrary. But the proponents of roe v wade — and, by the way, roe v wade actually did say: the state could regulate abortion, 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. Or 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 (as spoken) — 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 we don't think its life is worthwhile ('that that we don't think it's life is worthwhile', as heard). 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.

Equal rights, dependence, and the legal coda

• 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, 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 conjoined, with the same body ('siamese twins are are conjoined', as heard). Could one kill the other? And you could think of other cases, where even a small child is totally dependent, upon its mother. And, say, a child that's breastfeeding — in a place where there is no other alternative, for feeding ('where there there is another no other alternative', as the letters run) — 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 — 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 — and I'll make a further comment. You know, I went to law school. Became a lawyer. And I was in law school, 78 to 81 (the years as he gives them). So roe v wade was still fairly new. And although most of my professors and classmates probably would have been liberal, and in favor of abortion ('probably would be have been liberal', as heard), 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, states generally forbade abortion. It was well known 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. As a matter of law, we can't say the u.s. constitution requires abortion, up to the moment of birth ('the uni the u.s. constitution', as the letters stumble). 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.

Scripture index: Psalm 139; Jeremiah (book-only); Luke (book-only).