I Am A Grandpa

I Am A Grandpa

Reading Time: 5 minutes

I am a grandpa now! To be clear, I am a grandpa of the little life bouncing around in my lovely daughter-in-law Annie. 

I don’t become a grandpa from the first heartbeat; I don’t become a grandpa when the age of viability is reached; I don’t become a grandpa at birth; I don’t become a grandpa when this life takes its first breath after birth; I am a grandpa now, and became a grandpa at the moment of conception. 

The pro-life argument is not strictly biblical, but many passages certainly support the pro-life view. For example, Genesis 1:27Job 33:4Psalm 127:3-5, and Psalm 139:13-16, to name a few, but it is also philosophical and scientific. 

SLED

A philosophical example would be the simple SLED test. Human value is not based on Size, Level of development, Environment, or Degree of dependency.

Considering the size, some might say the unborn is just a clump of cells; consequently, Annie is not a mother, and you are not a grandpa, yet. Well, we are all just a clump of cells; what does that have to do with the clump of cells being a distinct human entity? This clump of cells is alive, growing, and human. Am I worth more than a 2-year-old little girl? Obviously not, and especially not to the parents of that little girl. That clump of cells from the first germinal stage is a distinct and separate human life. This life has their own DNA and is defined as ‘life’ by any biology textbook.

After size, if you look at the level of development, you will see that criteria can’t determine value. For example, a three-year-old girl does not have a fully developed reproductive system, so she can’t bear children. Does that somehow make her less valuable? Obviously, the unborn is less developed than the 3-year-old girl, so does she have an even lesser value? Equating a human’s value to their development level is clearly abhorrent to the clear thinking. 

How does location change the value of a human? Does traveling down a 7-inch birth canal suddenly bestow personhood, value, and human rights to that individual? 

Finally, does dependency alter value? Yes, the unborn is dependent on the mother, but newborns are also dependent on their mother/parents for love, security, and a safe environment. Should mothers be allowed to kill their newborns because they need them for nutrition or safety? 

DISCRIMINATION

The SLED method points out what abortion really is, discrimination based on size, development, location, and dependency. The strong, those in complete control, are allowed to disqualify the weak and defenseless. Recall in history, another class of human beings considered to be less valuable because of another arbitrary characteristic. African Americans because of their skin color. 

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. – Abraham Lincoln

SCIENCE

How do I know I am a grandpa now? Science. If you are already rolling your eyes, you will not like anything else I have to say. Nevertheless, if you have got this far, I encourage you to keep reading and thoughtfully consider my points. 

Why do I say science? One example is the technology we use today; women can take a pregnancy test at home, which measures the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). About two weeks after conception, HCG can be detected in the blood or urine.1

Another example is how biologists define life? I had this discussion with my friend Dennis, a biology professor, when I went backpacking for two weeks with him in Wyoming. He explained that biologists define life with several criteria: organization, homeostasis, metabolism, growth, response, reproduction, and adaptation.2

Some terms might change depending on your source, but they all help us determine the characteristics necessary for something to be defined as life. 

BIOLOGY DEFINES LIFE

From conception, there is organization. Cells too tiny to see with the human eye carry out the activities necessary for life, forming complex structures. Homeostasis involves feedback controls and the life seeking to maintain a stable internal environment as it deals with external changes. Metabolism is simply converting energy from chemicals into various and specific cellular structures. Growth is cell division, and it grows in size or number. The response trait is the ability of life to react to its environment. Reproduction is the ability to multiply or procreate, which for most life does not come till later stages of development. Finally, adaptation is the ability to adjust to a change in an environment.3

There is no question that the unborn are alive from the moment of conception. There is no question that the unborn are human from the moment of conception. 

Of course, you will not hear this from the pro-choice advocates. Not long ago Chris Cuomo tweeted, “…the pro-life position is more about faith and feeling than fact.”4 It is a typical claim that Christians and pro-life advocates base their arguments on the Bible, blind faith, and feelings, none of which have anything remotely to do with facts and science. 

LIFE AFTER FIRST BREATH

Last month a woman named Ann on Facebook defended the claim that life does not begin till the first breath. I have heard others make the same claim and then quote Genesis 2:7 to support their view. “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (NIV) Technically, God’s breath began life, not when a human first takes a breath after birth, but let’s dig a little deeper. 

Pro-choice supporters say the Bible says life begins at first breath. Of course, clumps of cells don’t breathe air in the womb. Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.” Let me be clear; this is a descriptive statement, not prescriptive. It describes how and when Adam came to life, not when all human beings come to life. Scripture does not teach that everyone comes to life at their first intake of oxygen into their lungs, and to make that claim is complete rubbish.

Again scientific because I can quote a textbook for medical students, “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”5

The pro-life argument is founded on the principle that intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong, which is precisely what abortion does.

The unborn are alive, the unborn are human, the unborn are innocent, and the unborn are helpless, so tell me what justification do you have for abortion? And before you toss out the rape and incest card which is less than 1% let’s settle the other 99%. 

  1. Smith, Lori. “Pregnancy tests: All you need to know.” Medical News Today, medicalnewstoday.com, 24 May 2017, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/295001. []
  2. Mason, Kenneth; Losos, Jonathan; Singer, Susan. “The Science of Biology.” Biology, New York, McGraw Hill, 2017, pgs. 2-3. []
  3. “Life.” Biology Online, biologyonline.com, 16 June 2022, https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/life []
  4. Cuomo, Chris. [ChrisCuomo]. Twitter, 7 May 2019, https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/1125740694977548288 []
  5. Keith Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th Edition, Philadelphia: Saunders, 2015), pg 11. []
NPR finally gets it Right

NPR finally gets it Right

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Photo by EVGENIY MALOLETKA /AP PHOTO

National Public Radio (NPR) is a left-leaning news source covering news stories that interest liberals. White, college-educated, and upper-middle-class listeners make up the bulk of their audience.((Clark, Harry. “By The Numbers: Who Is Actually Listening to Public Radio.” Market Enginunity. blog.marketenginuity.com. N.D. https://blog.marketenginuity.com/by-the-numbers-who-is-actually-listening-to-public-radio))

Right-of-center figures have periodically called to eliminate government funding for NPR almost since its founding. Proponents of the cuts argue that the government should not be funding a media outlet and that NPR tends to have a political bias towards the left.((National Public Radio (NPR), www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/.)) In recent years NPR has greatly reduced its dependence on federal and state funds (under 10% now), but they have other supporters that donate to NPR; for example, in 2010, NPR received $1.2 million from George Soros’.

I will admit I listen to NPR on occasion. I like to know what the enemy is thinking, but aside from that, they have reporting that interests me in content and quality. 

Another example of NPR’s left-leaning reporting is the continual bias against the nation of Israel. NPR has been repeatedly accused of demonstrating bias against Israel but reports favorably toward Palestine. “The pro-Israel Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) considers NPR to be the most anti-Israel mainstream news outlet in the United States.”((National Public Radio (NPR), www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/national-public-radio-npr/.))

So what did NPR get right? In the AP photo that has come to symbolize the attack in Mariupol, a wounded pregnant woman lies on a stretcher, holding her lower belly and splattered with blood, being rushed out of the hospital by emergency workers seeking care for her elsewhere. Neither she nor her baby survived.((Treisman, Rachel. “The pregnant woman from the iconic Mariupol photo has died. Many more are at risk.” NPR, npr.org, 14 March 2022 https://www.npr.org/2022/03/14/1086424049/pregnant-woman-photo-mariupol-maternity-hospital))

I am sure most who read the NPR article did not even notice their reference to the unborn being a baby. I myself had not read the story until Albert Mohler’s The Briefing mentioned how the media is reporting on the death of a pregnant woman and her baby. I can promise you NPR almost never refers to the unborn as a baby. Let us take a brief look at any articles or news reports by NPR that mention abortion in March.  

  • Out-of-state abortions. (March 17)
  • Out of state abortions and gender-affirming treatments. (March 15)
  • Abortions after 15 weeks in Florida (March 4)
  • New Texas abortion law (March 2)

If you read or listen to these stories by NPR, not one will refer to the fetus as a baby. As I pointed out, these are just the stories in March 2022 as of the 17th. Not that many since Russia and Ukraine have been headline news in March. Prior to the Ukraine invasion, the abortion issue was headline news because of the new Texas law and Mississippi abortion case the Supreme Court looked at. 

If we back up to February, NPR had 12 reports, most before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24. Here are some brief observations from the stories in March. 

  • An abortion clinic is always referred to as a clinic.
  • Reporters always point out the difficulties women have when seeking an abortion. 
  • Proposed laws that make it illegal to perform an abortion and apply financial penalties are referred to as bounty hunter bills.
  • Gender surgery or procedures are called gender-confirming care.
  • Quoting liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court’s three liberals in dissent, called the case “a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women in Texas, who have a right to control their own bodies.”
  • Doctors in Texas have been warning that the state’s abortion law known as S.B. 8 would make it harder for them to treat medical crises and endanger their patients. 
  • Examples of rape and incest are offered for reasons to have an abortion.
  • Abortions are to be legal, safe, and accessible for all women, but if they are not, they can place women in dangerous circumstances.  

It is pathetically obvious that NPR has a substantial left-leaning view of abortion, but they got it right this time. Because of the Russian attacks, a woman and her unborn baby were killed.

What is your view on abortion? Should it be legal, accessible to all women regardless of age or reason for the termination of a human life? If that is what you believe, you can continue to listen to NPR, CNN, USA Today, and other biased media that will confirm your beliefs. Or, you can consider other sources and rethink the abortion issue, a human life and death issue. 

Creative Commons License
NPR finally gets it Right by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Vested Interests

Vested Interests

Reading Time: 6 minutes

As of December 22nd, 74% of the U.S. has been vaccinated.

Finding reasons to be vaccinated is easy, especially if you watch CNN or other mainstream media sources. Finding reasons not to be vaccinated requires a little more effort, but that does not mean the reasons are any less valid. I have several reasons I want to briefly outline below. 

We are finding, and this should not be a surprise to anyone, natural immunity (those who have had COVID and recovered) is superior to the protection offered by the vaccines. Since I have had Covid this is something I have looked at. 

One study out of Israel in December detailed those who have recovered within six months had a 10.5% infection rate compared to 69.2% of those who had been vaccinated.1

Natural immunity after infection is critical, and some would say it is necessary for human evolution. Adaptation for viruses, bacteria, and other pathogens is essential, or extinction occurs. Covid is changing and adapting hence the Delta and Omicron variants. 

Another even more recent study out of Denmark (thanks for pointing this one out Stephanie) shows the superior protection of natural immunity vs. vaccinations. 

Denmark’s population is 77.7% fully vaccinated, and if you include the partially vaccinated, it is 82%. Their numbers published December 21st show that the unvaccinated have an infection rate of 8.5%, but the fully vaccinated have an infection rate of 89.7%. In other words, everyone who has contracted Omicron 89.7% of them are among the vaccinated, and 8.5% are unvaccinated. 

This is not what our media reports. According to President Biden, “It’s [Omicron] here now and it’s spreading and it’s going to increase. For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for unvaccinated, for themselves, their families and the hospital they’ll soon overwhelm.”2 I would suggest watching the whole news brief on Fox News (December 20th) which is less than 12 minutes long.

Another reason I have decided not to get vaccinated is pharmaceutical companies’ track record, and I will just look at one. 

Johnson & Johnson has been around since the 1880s and has grown into one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. They operate in over 60 countries and have more than 130,000 workers, and in 2020 they had revenues topping 82 billion. 

  • In 1995 they were fined 7.5 million for shredding documents because of a federal investigation.
  • In 1996 they had to pay an undisclosed amount due to false claims about the failure rate of their condoms.
  • In 2001 they were fined 860 million for misleading customers about the longevity of disposable contact lenses.
  • In 2004 they were fined 90 million for a drug that was linked to heart problems that resulted in roughly 300 deaths.
  • In 2010 their subsidiaries were fined 81 million for illegal promotion of the epilepsy drug Topamax for psychiatric use.
  • In 2013 they were fined over 2.2 billion for uses of the drug Risperdal that was not FDA approved. The Department of Justice called it one of the largest health care frauds in U.S. History.
  • In 2016 J&J had to pay 2.1 billion o several women that developed ovarian cancer from Johnson’s Baby Powder which contained asbestos.3

As of 2021, they have over 27,000 lawsuits for talcum powder, but they continue to sell it in many European and third-world countries.3

The track record of these large pharmaceutical companies is not pretty. The dollar is almighty, even over the lives that could be lost. 

Finally, on this point, pharmaceutical companies have a get-out-of-jail-free card. U.S. code 300aa-22 states pharmaceutical companies are not liable in any civil action for vaccine-related injury or deaths. “…companies that manufacture vaccines are not liable if someone has an allergic reaction or injury after being vaccinated.”4

Fifty years ago, our country viewed vaccines as a national security issue. Biological warfare was a threat back then and is even more so now. The problem was vaccines produced in the U.S. were liable to the companies that manufactured them. Lawsuits were jeopardizing the hope of any profit by the pharmaceutical companies, and they threatened to stop any research for vaccines. Research takes time, human resources, and lots of money; without the hope of any significant profit there was little reason to continue the research. So our government created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The inherent problem with this program is it is run by the government who has conflicting interests. They want to protect the pharmaceuticals doing the research, but they also want to provide compensation for those seriously injured. And it is our government who provides the attornies and who decides the legitimacy of any claim of injury. 

Top of the list of vaccines not covered by the NVICP? You guessed it, COVID-19 Vaccines.5 Pharmaceuticals exert huge influence over the FDA, WHO, and CDC. In fact roughly 42% of the CDC budget is used to purchase vaccines. If that is not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. The vaccine approval process is fraught with conflicts that raise multiple red flags.6 

I never imagined I would agree with Bernie Sanders, but a few days ago he expressed concerns about Biden’s pick for heading the FDA. Dr. Robert Califf has millions invested in pharmaceutical corporations. Sanders wrote concerning Dr. Robert Califf, “One of the major reasons the pharmaceutical industry, among many others, is so powerful is its close relationship with the FDA and other regulators in Washington”.7 Sanders announced he would oppose Califf, citing his multimillion-dollar ties to Big Pharma.

Cardinal Raymond Burke wrote, “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses.”8 

From what I have researched, all the vaccines are connected to abortion. If you are on the fence concerning the abortion issue, consider some of my past blog posts that shed some light on the subject. Sotomayor’s Sacred Words, Do You Really Believe Abortion Is Wrong, A Parasitic Relationship, You too can gather and bless a late-term abortion clinic, and What about rape and incest?.

Some may argue the abortions happened so long ago it is irrelevant. For example, Johnson and Johnson use PER.C6, a fetal cell line from an aborted boy in 1985. And the Pfizer vaccine is tested using HEK 293 from an aborted boy in the 1970s. They may reason we might as well profit from what took place, especially if that one life helps save countless others. The problem with that reasoning is abortion is still taking place, and pharmaceuticals are still profiting. Where would we draw that line? From an abortion fifty years ago? Twenty years ago? One year ago? Last week? Should there be a statute of limitation on taking innocent life and then profiting from her? Profiting from aborted children was the game changer for me. 

Opting out of the vaccine is not “anti-science,” as the media claims. Many in the medical field have expressed concerns with the fast track of the COVID vaccines for various reasons. This despite getting smeared by news outlets and mainstream media. Shaming those who have chosen not to be vaccinated has become the norm. The unvaccinated people are placed in the anti-vax, unscientific, and conspiracy theorists camp. They are ostracized by peers, co-workers, and are losing their jobs. In some countries (Australia and Singapore come to mind), the unvaccinated have to depend on others for their basic needs because they are under lockdown. In Australia, they have internment camps the New York Times was reporting on months ago. Damien Cave wrote about his incident, “My experience exposed more than I expected, about human nature but also about the ways that the pandemic keeps pushing countries back into their own peculiar currents of national identity. In the United States, it’s individualism. In Australia, it’s the collectivist urge to protect the many by treating the few as a potential threat, sometimes at the expense of personal liberty.”9

Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship…to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others…” Benjamin Rush, Founding Father and signer of the Constitution.10

Above Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay


Vested Interests by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

  1. Ohio Star Staff, “New Study Suggest Natural Immunity Is More Protective over Time Than COVID-19 Vaccine” The Ohio Star, theohiostar.com, https://theohiostar.com/2021/12/13/new-study-suggests-natural-immunity-is-more-protective-over-time-than-covid-19-vaccine/ []
  2. Fox News Staff. “Biden’s COVID policies are a measurable failure.” Fox News, Foxnews.com, December 22nd, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-carlson-tonight-bidens-covid-policies-are-a-measurable-failure []
  3. Li, Steven. “Johnson & Johnson’s Long History of Lawsuits: Product Defects, Misleading Advertising, and Fatal Outcomes” Vision Times, visiontimes.com, June 10th 2021, https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/06/10/johnson-and-johnson-lawsuits-us.html [] []
  4. Greene, Shayna. “Fact Check: Are Pharmaceutical Companies Immune From COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuits?” News Week, Newsweek.com, January 1st 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-companies-immune-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuits-1562793 []
  5. Toale, Anne. “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”. mct law, mctlaw.com N.D. https://www.mctlaw.com/vaccine-injury/national-vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ []
  6. Anonymous, “How Will We Know that a Covid-19 vaccine is safe?”, Children’s Health Defence, childrenshealthdefence.org, N.D. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/how-will-we-know-that-a-covid-19-vaccine-is-safe-ppt.pdf []
  7. Wilkins, Brett. Biden Pick for FDA Chief Holds Millions in Big Pharma Investments.” The Defender, childrenshealthdefence.org, December 22nd 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/biden-robert-califf-fda-big-pharma-investments/ []
  8. Haynes, Michael. “Which Covid-19 vaccines are connected to abortion?” Life Site News, lifesitenews.com, January 5th, 2021, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/which-covid-19-vaccines-are-connected-to-abortion/ []
  9. Cave, Damien. “Australia Is Betting on Remote Quarantine.” New York Times, August 20th 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/australia/howard-springs-quarantine.html Accessed December 26th 2021. []
  10. “Benjamin Rush.” New World Encyclopedia, June 2nd 2016, 16:02 UTC. December 26th 2021, 17:44 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Benjamin_Rush&oldid=996338 []
Sotomayor’s Sacred Words

Sotomayor’s Sacred Words

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Above Image by Tawny Nina Botha from Pixabay

Just a few days ago Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law anti-abortion regulations that has slapped the hornet’s nest in the left front yard. In one protest photo I saw a sign held up by a woman that said, “Abortion saves lives!” A statement so blatantly counterfactual it would be hilarious if not so tragic. 

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion of the new Texas law, “The Court should not be so content to ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only the rights of women, but also the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law. I dissent.”1 The “sanctity of its precedents”? I have no doubt Sotomayor used the word ‘sanctity’ for a very specific purpose. Look up the word sanctity and you will see it means, ‘the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.’ Does it bother you that Sotomayor has equated the prior rulings of the Supreme Court with being sacred, holy, or saintly? It should.

The term sanctity is grounded in creation; man is not a random accident but designed by an eternal God. He has given us value, purpose, and dignity. Genesis 1:26-27

Sotomayor also wrote, “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.”1 I can’t help but wonder where does the Constitution address the right to have an abortion? Ya, it doesn’t. 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “The Supreme Court’s cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering.”2 It should be pointed out that when Pelosi and others on the left talk about abortion, they always couch it with phrases of women’s health, women’s rights, and toss in the word Constitutional as if the Constitution has something to say about the right to an abortion, all the while ignoring the health of the unborn.

The left would have everyone believe the unborn has no value, no weight in terms of ethical consideration or purpose, and in fact, having an abortion is of no moral significance whatsoever. The left tells us abortion has to do with a woman’s choice, financial hardship, incidents of rape and incest, but they all skirt the real issue, what is being aborted? Does that matter? Is the unborn human?

A couple of weeks ago the abortion issue came up in our Sunday morning men’s group and I taught on the various arguments pro-choice advocates would use.

If the unborn is human, then we should rightfully admire those who choose to do the actions of placing others, (the unborn) before themselves. If the unborn is human, then we should feel obligated to protect persons so helpless. Throughout history, we have admired and aspired to be like those who protect the innocent, the helpless, the weak, or the powerless. Proverbs 31:8-9

Some may say the unborn is not alive before brain activity, (about 25 weeks) or before the heart begins to beat, (roughly 3 to 4 weeks after conception). But then we can ask if the fetus is not alive, why do we need to abort it? It is amusing, those who work professionally in the field of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) have no question about when life begins. Their success is based on the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, and at that moment, cell division begins. So at that instant and not a moment later, the professionals claim success.

The word fetus does not tell us what something is but rather the age of life. We have words like embryo, infant, toddler, teen, and adult, which all describe stages of human life, not if something is human. The value of a baby is determined by what it IS, not its age.

Peter Singer, a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, says to be a person you must be rational, conscious, and self-aware. Singer, who also supports infanticide (murdering of infants after they are born), said, “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person…”3 So we should ask the question why is the unborn not rational, conscious, and self-aware? It has nothing to do with their lack of humanity, but rather having insufficient time to develop. Why is an amoeba not rational, conscious, and self-aware? Because it is not human. Even given time, the amoeba will never become rational, conscious, or self-aware.

Our inherent value as humans has nothing to do with our size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. You can use the acronym SLED to help you remember.

 Equating the value of a person on how large or small they are is silly. Would anyone dispute this? Are football players more valuable due to their size? Are parents more valuable than their children? Height or size has nothing to do with the value of a person. Picture a 600-pound sumo, and tell me the sumo wrestler has greater value than a child he may be holding.

L Does the value of a human being lessen because of their level of development? Is a 13-year-old 8th-grade boy more valuable than a 5-year-old kindergarten girl? If the level of development matters, then anyone prior to puberty would have less value than someone past puberty. The same would be true from an infant to a toddler, or a newborn to an infant. Does a fetus in the first trimester have less value than one in the 2nd trimester? Some might argue that point, but if that is true, then we should be able to apply that to everyone. Obviously, we can’t, so the level of development cannot determine the value of a human being.

E Does your value increase or decrease depending on your environment or location? Do you have more value because you are at work rather than at home? Does your value change from one room to another? Do those in another county have a different worth? Do astronauts have greater or lesser value when they orbit the earth or walk on the moon? Does a newborn’s value change when they have traveled from the mother’s uterus, through the birth canal, to the hands of a waiting physician or parent? One’s environment or location cannot determine value. 

 Finally, as a child grows and matures, do they have greater value as the months pass and they become less and less dependent? Do those that collect welfare have less value than those contributing to our tax base and have full-time work? Do those working full-time have more value than those working part-time? Does someone in a coma have less value than their family member at their bedside? If a toddler falls into a swimming pool, and they are dependent on us to save them, are they less valuable? How about those who need dialysis or heart medication on a weekly basis; is their significance lessened due to the medication they need? The degree of dependency does not alter the value of human life.

That is what we are talking about, human life. Not a lump of tissue, but a life with inherent value and sanctity. A life that, if left unchecked, would grow into an adult that may fall in love, be loved, and love those around them. There is nothing intrinsically sacred or holy about laws passed by Sotomayor or any other court. 

The Bible is consistently active in its support for the poor, widows, orphans, oppressed, handicapped, and the helpless. Any law passed must wrestle with the impact it may have on human life. Laws passed to end human life will ultimately cheapen human life, value, and dignity. A journey down that road will lead to those in positions of power to determine their life being more valuable than your own. Segregation like the world has never seen will begin, and I believe already has. Their decisions, words, and self-proclaimed wisdom will be what is holy and sacred, not you.


Sotomayor’s Sacred Words by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  1. United States, Sotomayor, J., Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21A24, “WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. AUSTIN REEVE JACKSON, JUDGE, ET AL. 1 Sept. 2021 [] []
  2. Speaker.gov, Newsroom, “Pelosi Statement on Supreme Court Shadow Ruling on Texas Reproductive Rights Case,” Press Release, 2 Sept. 2021 []
  3. Chasmar, Jessica. “Princeton bioethics professor faces calls for resignation over infanticide support.” The Washington Times. washingtontimes.com 16 June 2015. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/ []
Do You Really Believe Abortion Is Wrong?

Do You Really Believe Abortion Is Wrong?

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Do you really believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being? Then why shouldn’t women receive the death penalty or be put in prison?

I read this question for the first time when I viewed the Steve Chapman article that was mentioned on a podcast I listen to.

Concerning the pro-life voices claiming abortion is the killing of innocent human beings Steve Chapman a Chicago Tribune columnist says, “…this is a rhetorical device or a moral conceit, not a well-thought-out conviction. The vast majority of people who endorse it really don’t mean it. Even they exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.”((Chapman, Steve. “I don’t think abortion is murder, and neither do you.” Chicago Tribune, chicagotribune.com, 27 April 2018. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-abortion-murder-williamson-homicide-0429-20180427-story.html))

His point is well taken. How many Christians do you know that are vocal about abortion, claiming it is the taking of an innocent life? Then those same Christians turn around endorsing, and even supporting healing and counseling for women who have had abortions, never punishment. How many of us would say the same for a woman who killed her innocent two-year-old?

Jeanne Mancini, president of the pro-life organization March for life said, “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.”((Peck, Bethany. “No Pro-Life American Advocates Punishment For Abortion.” March For Life, marchforlife.org, 30 March 2016. http://marchforlife.org/no-pro-life-american/))

What is up with that? How can Christians claim abortion is the killing of innocent human beings, but then do an about face and huddle around women who have had abortions and suggest counseling for healing vs a concrete cell.

What would you say to someone who pointed that out to you as Steve Chapman did in his column? Chapmen went on to argue that if you really consider abortion murder then you should agree that women who have abortions should be punished. If not, then your not being consistent in your Christian convictions. If it is murder then punish them, if not then get out of the way, give women the choice to do what they want with their own body and quit calling it murder. Chapman wrote, “About 1 of every 4 American women will have an abortion by age 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute. If you regard abortion as murder and think your sister, daughter, aunt, niece, cousin or friend should go to prison for decades — or be executed — if she ever terminated a pregnancy, you’re being consistent. If you regard abortion as murder and think they deserve a gentle path to healing, you’re not.”((Chapman, Steve. “I don’t think abortion is murder, and neither do you.” Chicago Tribune, chicagotribune.com, 27 April 2018. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-abortion-murder-williamson-homicide-0429-20180427-story.html))

I personally believe abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, but like virtually every other Christian I know I don’t believe women should be punished for having an abortion. Why is that? If you feel the same way can your reasoning to someone who is pro-choice?

Science is clear on when life begins. Science is also clear that at the moment of conception life begins and if left alone this new life will develop and grow into an adult human.

Should women get the death penalty for killing an innocent human being? Absolutely not, but that does not mean I don’t think abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

Imagine if a woman is about to roll forward in her truck knowing full well that an infant is just in front of one of her tires. This woman knows the child is there. She saw the child, touched the child, heard the child. Has no doubt about the child being just in front of her tire, but goes ahead and rolls forward. None of us would consider this accidental, and everyone would agree that this woman is guilty of murdering an innocent child.

Now imagine another woman also has a child in front of one of her truck tires. We know the child is there, we see the child, touched the child, heard the child, but the woman does not believe the child is there. She is convinced, has no doubt in her mind, completely self-assured, there is nothing but dirt and gravel in front of all four tires. Rolling forward would mean rolling over dirt, gravel and other inanimate objects. Then she pulls forward killing the child.

Would we punish both women the same? Of course not, one knew full well what she was doing, the other did not.

Steve Chapman article makes us look at two questions to be considered over the abortion issue. First, is abortion morally right or morally wrong? The second question is a policy question, not an ethical question. The second question begs for guidelines once the moral question is answered. If it is decided that abortion is wrong then what should be the consequences or public policy for women and men who are guilty of committing abortion?((Shlemon, Alan. “Do Pro-Lifers Really Think Abortion Is Murder?” Audio blog post. STR Weekly Audio. STR.org, 7 June 2018. Web. 14 July 2018))

Alan Shlemon in an STR.org podcast points out that we may be able to decide on the first question, (many of us have) if abortion right or wrong, but may not be able to easily solve the second question. What to do with those who are guilty of committing abortion.((Shlemon, Alan. “Do Pro-Lifers Really Think Abortion Is Murder?” Audio blog post. STR Weekly Audio. STR.org, 7 June 2018. Web. 14 July 2018))

Keep in mind our society has already dealt with the issue of killing the unborn. Currently, we have 38 states that recognize the unborn and its status as a victim of crime and consequently punish those who have caused the death or injury of the unborn. In 2004 the ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act‘ was passed and the U.S. recognized over 60 federal crimes of violence against the unborn. One example can be found in the Scott Peterson case where he was found guilty of double homicide 2004 of the murder of his wife Laci and his unborn son Connor. 

Shlemon points out that even if we can’t decide on a punishment for those who break the law, (if abortion was illegal) that does not mean it is ethically acceptable to have abortions. There are many considerations, motives, intent, and understanding of the actions taken. I personally believe that many women are duped into believing the unborn is nothing more than a clump of cells with little or no consideration to the growing life within them. If not coerced they are certainly encouraged in Planned Parenthood clinics throughout our nation to have the abortions.

Steve Chapman ends his article with, “If abortion is not murder, it is impossible to justify banning it, early in pregnancy or later. Women have the right to control their own bodies — have knee surgery or not, donate blood or not, go sky diving or not. The freedom to end a pregnancy is part of that physical autonomy.”((Chapman, Steve. “I don’t think abortion is murder, and neither do you.” Chicago Tribune, chicagotribune.com, 27 April 2018. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-abortion-murder-williamson-homicide-0429-20180427-story.html))

This is, of course, the argument pro-choice advocates have been waving for decades. Women have the right to choose, they can do what they want with their own bodies. Nonsense! Women can’t strap bombs to their body and walk in public places, women can’t consume drugs and alcohol when they choose, women can’t sell their own bodies whenever and wherever they want. We all have restrictions on our bodies and we don’t have the right to choose.

Yes, women can have knee surgery, donate blood, skydive or not, and it is pathetic Chapman would even compare abortions to that list of preferences, as if having an abortion was nothing more consequential than deciding on your flavor of ice cream for that evening. The question of what they are aborting remains. If the unborn is life, human life, growing, developing human life, and science is clear that it is, then that life has weight on the justice scale of inherent human value.

Sources:

Pin It on Pinterest