Life is precious, both before and after the birth. Medical science tries to offer many reasons why the baby is not a person or human or even alive. They use terms such as viability, fetus, and embryo to make the baby not a baby. However, when one looks at the evidence, one sees that the baby is more an individual human person than a collection of cells called an embryo.

The baby has its own DNA. It’s heart beats within the first half of the pregnancy. I’ve heard that females have the eggs they’ll carry for all their life by time they are a few months past conception. I also know that the baby has its own brain wave patterns, personalities, and habits, likes, and dislikes months before birth. Besides some physical growth, the baby is more person than not by the second trimester, if not before. Yet we’re told that the finger-sized growth that has a head, fingers, toes, brainwaves, heartbeat, eggs (if a girl), and personality, that looks and acts like a person isn’t a person, but is biological tissue (or a fetus).

Baby in the womb

Before birth, that baby is a baby. That baby is a human baby. That baby is a human baby person. That baby is precious. Yet we still say it’s okay to end his or her life for a variety of reasons (e.g., viability, quality of life, etc.). That life is valuable, and taking that life is just as wrong as taking a life after birth.

Every state in the nation, as well as the federal government, have laws prohibiting the wanton ending of another person’s life. We call it murder. To end the life by accident we call manslaughter. Why? Because it’s morally reprehensible to kill someone. The laws don’t say it’s okay to take the life of another precious person if they are physically disabled, exhibit abnormal physical traits, or suffer mental deficiencies. To kill a special needs child or adult is a crime — and rightly so! Still many argue that if an unborn person is disabled, exhibits abnormal physical traits, or suffers mental deficiencies, then it’s okay to abort them (i.e., wantonly take their life). In many cases the only difference is geography: is the person inside or outside the womb.

We pass laws ending the electric chair, hanging, and other forms of inhumane and cruel means of executing those sentenced to death. Yet we use chemicals that cause pain and suffering to end the life of a person inside the womb, pain that would be far more excruciating, I’m sure, than the execution methods we’ve banned.

Life is precious, both inside and outside the womb. That little baby is a baby — a baby I look forward to seeing one day, for I know that all those who died in the womb are with my savior, Jesus! If life is precious enough to make it illegal to end it outside the womb, then it is precious enough to make it illegal to end it inside the womb. If life is precious, then we must protect it. If we fail to protect life, we cannot say we value life. If we claim all life is sacred, so we pass laws criminalizing the ending of that sacred life outside the womb, then we should do the same for that sacred life inside the womb. If we fail to protect life, we cannot say it is sacred.

A friend of mine told me recently that he himself would never endorse abortions, but he doesn’t want the government telling someone else how to live their life or impose the morality of one person on another. Again I say, if life is sacred, then we should protect it, regardless of where it may exist regarding the womb. If murder of a 2 month old infant is morally wrong enough to make it illegal, then murder of a 7 month term baby is also morally wrong enough to make it illegal. The question isn’t about imposing morals, but about the sanctity of life, and the universal truth that murder is unethical, immoral, and should be illegal.

Life is precious, both before and after birth.

This Post Has One Comment

Comments are closed.