Biblical Gender Identity
Section: Intro ⋅ Single ⋅ Marriage ⋅ Adultery ⋅ Living Together Not Married ⋅ Prostitution ⋅ Cross Dressing ⋅ Homosexuality ⋅ Animals ⋅ Incest ⋅ Self ⋅ Cycle ⋅ Polygamy ⋅ Divorce ⋅
Disclaimers:
1. This is a mature topic only intended for people who've at least begun puberty. If you are less than 13 years old then I pray you don't have any reason to concern yourself with this yet, and you should ask a trustworthy adult before reading this. (My Family in the Bible page (here) is meant for all ages.)
2. This summary is not intended for general counseling, it is for those who want to know what the Bible says on this topic, and for those who claim the Bible is silent or says the opposite, plus a little commentary to get us started on what it means and how all this fits in a Biblical worldview.- Conception is a word found in the Bible and was synonymous with fertilization, which describes the joining of a sperm and an egg, which is the initiation of pregnancy. (Conception was more of a concept, whereas fertilization was more of a technical term in biology. However, in the early 2000's, the word "conception" was rebranded by progressives to specifically refer to embryo implantation, to allow morning after bills, which prevent implantation, to avoid the label of abortifacient.)
- Contraception is the prevention of fertilization (pregnancy) from happening in the first place.
- Birth control is a poorly worded synonym to contraception. Birth control is more of a concept, whereas contraception involves more things/devices with which we attempt to control when pregnancy occurs. Therefore, "pregnancy control" or "fertilization control" would be more fitting terms than "birth control."
- Abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy, typically when contraception failed or was skipped.
- Infanticide is intentionally killing a baby anywhere between the moment they exit the womb and their first birthday.
- the prohibition of shedding innocent blood,
- the almost 3 dozen references to conception as if it's an important event (even before they knew what conception scientifically was),
- the numerous references to Bible characters before they were born,
- the prohibition of murder,
- the condemnation of child sacrifice (infanticide),
- the command to defend the fatherless and orphans,
- Jesus's emphatic favor toward babies, and
- the absolute zero references that could be interpreted as supporting abortion.
-
There are 17 verses that frown upon the shedding of innocent blood (link). The most interesting examples were:
Human blood is never more innocent than while in the mother's womb. (Note, scientific observation has proven beyond dispute that baby's and mother's bloods never mix, and baby never, ever has the same DNA as the mother, both points reinforce the distinctness that the baby is not "part of the mother's body" to do with however mom chooses.) Paul may have been aware of this distinction two millennia ago when he wrote Galatians 1:15 (hub, int). Fetuses bleed just the same as you and me, therefore we've been commanded not to hurt them.
-
If we read the 32 references to conceive (link), conceived (link), and conception (link), we see strong indications that human life (in this case let's define life as the assignment of a spiritual soul to a biological body) begins at conception (meaning fertilization) not birth, first breath, first heartbeat, first pain, third trimester, separation of the umbilical cord, nor some other arbitrary time before or after that. In addition to the almost 3 dozen references to conception, here are more verses that emphasize the point that life begins before birth:
Clearly Isaiah and Jeremiah (two of the major prophets) were specifically chosen by God before they were born. David was confident he was a person and had a relationship with God since he was a zygote. Isaac and his sons, Samson, John the Baptizer, and Jesus were all chosen before they were even conceived. And then there's the judge/prophet Samuel, who was also chosen before conception and conceived under unusual circumstances (1 Samuel 1:11, 20).
Science has a lot of laws. Physics has gravity, motion, and thermodynamics. Chemistry has conservation of matter and behavior of gases. The only law in Biology is that "life only comes from life." Science, or more specifically genetics, confirms this. The unique genetic information that makes you you when you're 21 years old is the same when you're 81, 1, when you're 21 weeks in the womb, and when you only have one cell (you're just a zygote). This is scientific confirmation "life" begins at conception (fertilization) and further, there is no other scientifically debatable time when life might begin.1
-
God's opinion on murder is crystal clear. It's the 6th of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20:13 (hub int) with parallel in Deuteronomy 5:17 (hub int). God's opinion is so clear that capital punishment for murder is actually the only command repeated in all first five books of the Bible.
Does this mean we must lobby for the death penalty for parents or practitioners who've gone through with abortion? No, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. But Jesus's sacrifice doesn't change the nature of murder and doesn't open the door for us to willfully sin. Even Jesus said (repeatedly) we must repent of our sins, which means stop doing it ourselves and tell others not to either. Because life begins at conception, abortion and infanticide are murder and therefore sin, and aren't legitimate choices to consider and certainly not to protect nor promote.
-
God is pro-babies. Remember the first thing He was recorded as saying directly to us was "be fruitful" (Genesis 1:28) which meant, make babies.2 Notice every verse in the Bible that mentions child sacrifice either criticizes or condemns it:
Child sacrifice is a specific form of infanticide. Infanticide is terminating our offspring. Since life begins at conception, abortion is terminating our offspring, too. Therefore, infanticide and abortion are morally equivalent, therefore while the verses condemning infanticide don't say abortion, they're still equally applicable. And yes, the two commands in Leviticus specifically mention the false god, Molek, but the two commands in Deuteronomy don't. It's not reasonable to believe that sacrificing babies to Molek was detestable while sacrificing babies to anything else was either acceptable or good, as evidenced by the other half dozen verses that criticize the practice without naming specific idols. And why would sacrificing your own children in the fire be detestable but ripping them limb from limb (or otherwise killing them) be approved? For those who think there's a difference, they need to name the exact time when God thinks the baby/fetus becomes a child. There were no specific commands literally against infanticide, but in addition to the child sacrifice condemnations there were two Bible stories that involved it, and both were critical: Exodus 1:15-22 and Matthew 2:16-18. And don't forget those pesky commands not to shed innocent blood and not to murder. We get a feel for how mad we make God with this topic in Ezekiel 16:36-42, when He described the giving up of (shedding) their children's blood as one of three reasons it took Him eight sentences to explain how He was going to punish the people He was talking to.
Notice in Ezekiel 16:20-21 and 23:37 that God calls all babies in the entire nation His when He said "you bore [them] to Me," and He called them "My children." God does not see the baby in the mother as the mother's body, to do with as she chooses. They are His children, whom He created (Psalm 139:13, Isaiah 44:2) and we are merely parents of (stewards entrusted with the care of) these babies. We're supposed to think of children as a blessing (Psalm 127:3) and only when we've been duped and warped by the world (Satan) do we think otherwise.
-
Consider these verses about defending the fatherless, and notice how common a theme it is for God throughout the entire Bible. Since abortion didn't exist until a couple thousand years after all this was written, referencing the fatherless or orphan was right in line.
- Exodus 22:22-24 hub
- Deuteronomy 27:19 hub
- Psalm 82:3-4 hub
- Isaiah 1:16-17 hub
- Jeremiah 7:5-7 hub
- Jeremiah 22:3 hub
- Zechariah 7:8-10 hub
- Malachi 3:5 hub
- James 1:27 hub
-
There's an interesting command in Exodus 21:22-25 (hub, int) that is on topic but must be read carefully. The first verse, if taken in isolation, has a phrase "she gives birth" which could be read to include if she miscarries and the baby dies. An NIV footnote even says this explicitly, and NASB specifically says "miscarriage," not "birth." Yet the verse then says "[if] no harm follows." If we use a pro-choice paradigm to interpret the "she gives birth" to include miscarriage, then we will interpret the "no harm follows" to validate that forced miscarriage is not a "harm" and therefore what is miscarried must not be worthy of protection, must not be alive, and so abortion is Biblically (divinely) endorsed. However, there are three problems with this interpretation:
- How often do we refer to a miscarriage as a "birth"? There are no examples of miscarriage in the Bible, but the concept is referred to at least 11 times when we text search NIV for miscarr (here) and stillborn (here) and a related concept is described in Jeremiah 20:17. When we read these, they don't give good credence to exchanging the terms miscarriage and birth.
- More importantly, it's no coincidence what the next verse (the next sentence) is, in Exodus 21:23. In this and the next two verses (Exodus 21:23-25) the tit-for-tat description goes through a linear spectrum from highest offense to lowest offense. When God, His angel, and Moses, started the sentence with "life for life," they were describing capital punishment as a consequence of murder. Clearly they were aware that one possibility after a pregnant lady is subjected to violence and prematurely delivers is that the baby dies. By putting the "life for life" in the very next sentence, as a sentence describing a premature delivery, Exodus 21:22-23 tells us God considers a baby who was not ready to be born yet to already be fully alive. This supports that abortion is murder. A pro-life paradigm interprets the passage as "she gives birth prematurely... but there is serious injury [then] you are to [repay tit for tat, up to and including] life for life."
- If we claim the "life for life" would refer only to the mother and not the baby, then we would be dishonoring the text. It doesn't say (NIV) "if people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she is inured or dies," nor does it refer to death caused by complications due to premature delivery, nor does it say "...she gives birth prematurely and the mother wanted the baby...", it says "...a pregnant woman and she gives birth..." The sentence subject clearly shifted from just the mother to both the mother and the child, which can be proven by taking the phrase out of context. Consider: "When planning to visit a pregnant woman and she gives birth then be ready to take photos." In this sentence, would anyone alive seriously think the photos are going to be just of the postpartum mother?
-
A very sad connect the dots comes from 1 Kings 3:16-28. This is the first story recorded after Solomon asked for and received exceptional wisdom from God. Verse 26 was supposed to be obvious, especially when compared to Isaiah 49:15. Too many women today have been tricked by our fallen, corrupted world into thinking their children are nothing more than a tumor until they (the mother) arbitrarily decide otherwise. But what we think about our children makes no difference to their humanity. They are human from conception (fertilization) on, regardless of our opinion, or our nation's laws.
-
The closest time Jesus came to directly addressing the topic of abortion is found in Luke 18:15-17 (parallel in Mark 10:13-16). Pay attention to what Jesus is quoted as saying explicitly, plus the body language and emotion the biographer captured. The same word for "baby" in Luke 18:15 (int) is also used in Luke 1:41, 1:44, 2:12, and 2:16. In those first two, the baby happened to technically (scientifically speaking) be what we today would call a fetus, not a baby. It's the exact same stinking Greek word in all five verses, as evidenced here. This tells us the Greeks didn't differentiate between fetuses, babies, and children, which is further supported that in Luke 18:16 Jesus called those same "babies" "children." Jesus (God) said "do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." This is God's attitude toward our offspring. Why would our size, age, maturity, location, or level of dependency change that?3 And remember how Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Samson, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John the Baptizer (not to mention Samuel) were all recognized Bible characters before they were born. While Luke 18:15-17 was the most direct time Jesus deals with abortion, He indirectly gave us His opinion on many occasions when He talked about love, peace, kindness, selflessness, self sacrifice, etc. Then there's what I call the most strategic verse in the Bible, John 10:10, which says Satan's goal is death and destruction while Jesus's goal is the fullness of life. Satan is the original misanthrope (hater of humanity) and so it makes sense that he would encourage us to murder our own. Never forget Satan is jealous, vengeful, and cannot be reasoned with, conquered, nor appeased. But also never forget Satan is no match for God. The apostle John, who walked and talked with Jesus, had interesting perspective in 1 John 3:8. Connect these dots and we see how ludicrous it is to claim Jesus was pro-choice.
Related, but probably not exactly on topic, was Jesus's attitude as stated in Matthew 18:14, and the context was Matthew 18:1-14. I say not related because He really seems to be talking about children here, specifically, and not babies. But verse 14 would make a nice quote. For a comparison of how the original Greek word for "little ones" is used everywhere in the Bible, here's a link.
-
Even the hypocrite jerk priests in John 9:34 believed unborn babies were full people, otherwise how could they claim the man (who was born blind but healed by Jesus) had been instantly "steeped" in sin at his birth unless he was already a person who was sinning before birth? I'm not claiming to agree with their theological reasoning, I'm just pointing out the evidence for people in Bible times believing life began before birth.
-
When we read 1 Timothy 5:8, we can get a feel for whether Paul would have been pro-choice or pro-life.
- In the same vein as (but subtly different from) #1 above (do not shed innocent blood) were Genesis 9:5 and Jeremiah 2:34-35, which describe God's attitude towards human lifeblood, and more importantly, His attitude towards us deciding for ourselves whether we've disobeyed Him. Remember, there is no point in human existence when we are more innocent nor more poor than when we're in the womb. (We are especially poorest in the womb when our own government doesn't recognize our humanity nor our life, especially a government founded on the inalienable rights endowed by our Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)
-
Last but not least, Moses, the greatest leader in the history of the Jews, in the second to last verse of the most famous sermon of his entire life, was explicitly pro-life in Deuteronomy 30:19. The Biblical worldview demands that we educate and advocate for our offspring, not eradicate them (Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Psalm 78:5-6, Joel 1:3, etc.)
When the main reason people support abortion legislation is because they want people to be free to have sex without the obligations of pregnancy, it's not a stretch to think abortion is pretty counterproductive to God's original intention for us (Genesis 1:28). If our lifestyle is so important to us then a better choice than abortion would be abstinence (1 Kings 1:4, Matthew 1:25). Sadly, for some of us, a life of sex is simply all we know. But for some of us, our preferred lifestyle is more important than God's will. That would make it basically an idol (albeit intangible and invisible) to the god of self. Most of the idols of the Bible were wood and stone, but there was at least one example of an intangible idol in Habakkuk 1:11, and it was of course in a very negative context. We should not repeat the foolishness, especially when we remember the explicit command in Exodus 20:3.
Please don't appeal to twisted logic that any baby (planned or otherwise) would be better off dead than raised by a single mom or adopted. It's horrid to think a person is better off murdered by their biological family than these alternatives. In the USA, the demand for adoptable babies is much higher than the supply. By the way, there is zero Biblical precedent for society being allowed to decide what's good for itself (namely, to reduce its welfare burden) at the expense of individual members (namely the poor/helpless). (How often does God admonish us to protect the weak? Often. Is anyone more weak or defenseless than a fetus? No.) Similarly, overpopulation is not an excuse for murder. Perhaps it is for abstinence, but not immorality. From a Biblical perspective, if we're concerned about the wellbeing of our neighbors, we should know and obey God (Deuteronomy 15:4-8). In the same vein as overpopulation is eugenics (also known as genetic cleansing or genetic engineering). We are not permitted to eliminate babies (nor anyone) because of detectable genetic preferences, like avoiding Down Syndrome or favoring one gender over the other. God declares in Exodus 4:11 that He makes every human, both those who we consider perfect and those we consider imperfect, and they are His before they are ours to do with as we please (Ezekiel 16:20-21, Malachi 2:15).4
The method/style/condition of impregnation is not a factor worthy of consideration. If you have an "oops" in your dating relationship, that doesn't change the nature of life, nor abortion. It means you messed up. There are many ways we can (and will) mess up, this is nothing especially evil. But abortion is sin. Rape is also sin. Whether a girl is impregnated from a rape or an oops, either way it's likely the man's fault. God prefers the new mother should not commit more sin against her own baby because of the father's sin, as described in Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20. Whether the father was her husband, a consensual one night stand, or a rapist, it's the mother's baby just the same, and that person was given life by God at conception.5 Being pregnant, no matter how conception happened, is not a curse, and the solution to unintended pregnancies must keep this in mind. The solution here is not abortion, it's honoring God, and teaching others to honor Him. God prefers us to be good examples, but if our choices force us to be less-than-ideal examples (such as with the oops pregnancy) we can still be God's ambassadors just the same, we just represent another angle (which should include repent and don't repeat). If you have a thing about rape, then help stop rape, help prepare girls for awareness and self-defense, and teach boys to protect girls rather than prey on them. Don't promote/increase tolerance for murder. Rape brings pain and suffering no matter what. Don't add to it with death. By the way, it's very shallow to expect fathers to teach their sons not to rape women. This is setting the bar waayy too low. Fathers (and others) should be teaching sons about the character of God, God's expectations for their character, and male chivalry (treating women with honor). Male chivalry as a term and specific concept is fairly modern and isn't in the Bible per se, but 1 Timothy 5:1-2 is aligned. Some feminists resent male chivalry but then it's funny that they also resent the cultural consequences of us abandoning it.
When we sin, it's not just about us. It's bigger than us. When a child arouses a parent's anger, the whole family suffers. When someone arouses God's anger and the community does nothing, He will get angry with all of us (Joshua 22:18). This makes Satan pleased, and is surely why he wants us to believe abortion is exclusively and emphatically a personal choice. But Satan doesn't want us to realize three details:
- The baby's choice is ignored.6
- Everyone always asks a pregnant lady "how's the baby" and not "how's your body?" The mother does not consciously decide if the tissue inside her is a cancer or a human. It's human, and her opinion does not change the intrinsic value of the distinct human being growing within her. If this issue was really about the woman controlling her own body, then she's the one who would be dying, not the baby. So this is logically about new mothers, new fathers, and their respective parents controlling their reputation and their lifestyle more than their body. Controlling your body is called abstinence (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 ESV).
- If women have a "choice," then nurses, doctors, and health care workers should too. If women are given legal cover to choose to opt out of delivering their baby then everyone else should have the legal cover to choose to opt out of assisting them.
- the person who wants to have sex without children and has access to abortion services and chooses to use them, and
- the person who wants to have sex without children but doesn't have access to abortion services, so must rely on infanticide?
And here's a fun one. When does life begin? Just as important is 'when did life begin?' because life has only in human history been observed to come from other life. Life began in Genesis 1. Human life was specifically described in more detail in Genesis 2:7, when God directly caused our common ancestor, Adam, to live.
Social Clarifications
Birth control (including the morning after pill, RU487, and any other abortifacient drug) deserves the same scorn as abortion because it is the same thing, but just can be done privately rather than requiring a doctor/professional/outside help. Abortion is completely different from miscarriages, surgically extracting ectopic pregnancies, and contraception. None of these three are sin:
- Miscarriages are essentially accidents and outside our control, except in the rare case it's induced by our choices, like controlled substance abuse. When caused intentionally, it's sin, when it happens despite our best efforts to avoid, then it's not sin.
- An ectopic pregnancy is when an embryo implants in the fallopian tube rather than traveling all the way to the uterus, and it's chances of survival are (for all practical purposes) zero. If the medical technology is available then there's no reason to allow the mother to suffer and die with the embryo. Similarly, if a baby is going to die in utero anyway due to unfixable complications, having a cesarean section to extract the baby before it dies naturally so the parents may spend a few hours/days holding the baby before it dies anyway is not morally equivalent to abortion, even if state law has a loophole that treats it that way. In that rare case, fixing the law is the solution not expanding protections for abortion.
- Contraception (including but not limited to tubal ligation, vasectomy, condoms, and hormone control pills) is neither good nor bad, because it's preventative. Though remember, only married couples should engage in the activity for which contraception is intended. Besides the moral reasons described in God's word, this limited use makes it easiest to deal with the consequences if/when it happens to fail, and conception happens. Some people believe contraception is wrong because they believe married couples should have as many kids as possible because they believe there is a "pool" of souls who get born arbitrarily to whoever gets pregnant first (and therefore contraception is bad). Besides Genesis 1:28 and 9:1 (which do tell us to have kids, but don't get into that level of prescription nor theology) there is no scriptural basis for this belief, and Acts 17:26 may even contradict that "pool" idea.7 Notice there are over 30 references to conception in the Bible, none to contraception, and the verses that talk about being called by God since conception, but never once since they were an unfertilized egg nor sperm.
Abortion advocates claim the moral high ground because they claim to be defending legalization of abortions in order to save mothers from more dangerous illegal abortions. The only way God, in His word, differentiates between state-sanctioned killing and murder, is capital punishment. But by definition capital punishment is punishment for a capital crime. Babies are guaranteed (as much as death and taxes) not to have personally committed a capital crime. (Unless the state declares being alive a capital crime.) The legality and legitimacy of abortion is a matter of God-declared right and wrong, not a critique of how, where, who, or how well the procedure is performed.
Wouldn't it be so noble-sounding of that person who didn't want their child anyway (who wanted to maintain their lifestyle) but didn't have access to abortion services to simply get rid of the child by "sacrificing" them to a so-called god? (The fictional deity Aphrodite is still around and fat by the sacrifices of our abortions.) Clearly this scenario is a bastardization of the word "sacrifice," because the act frees from responsibility & liability the one who offers the sacrifice, rather than causes them an intended burden/hardship as evidence of their submissive devotion.
Abortion, like all sin, is about choice. As Abraham Lincoln said, "no one has the right to choose to do what is wrong." Accidents happen all the time, and that isn't the point here. The point is exercising the choice to do what God has told us not to (Genesis 4:7). Especially when we set an example for others, teach others to copy us, and/or are unrepentant. Some people want to believe that embryonic stem cells hold the key to medicine. Christopher Reeve (the actor who in 1978 played Superman then later was paralyzed) was arguably the most famous. The reason embryonic stem cells are wrong for us to use is where they come from. They come from embryos, and the only way to get them is to end a life. Choosing to use (disassemble) an embryo (a defenseless baby) for medical research is no less wrong than abortion for all the same reasons above. There's nothing wrong with using adult stem cells, they've got enough to spare. An adult is fully human, so is a child, an infant, a baby, a fetus, an embryo, and a zygote. Unjoined sperm and eggs are only half human and don't deserve full respect. (Though I'm not saying they can be disrespected, I'm just saying there's a distinction between a sperm or egg and an adult that can't be made between a zygote and an adult.) Contraception, birth control pills, or any other medication for any woman simply for hormone control is not really a Biblically defined moral issue (it's neither right nor wrong) as long as it doesn't result in baby death/deformation, and it's not used as an excuse for sex outside of marriage.
Thanks to the legal endorsement afforded by the US Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the US Center for Disease Control has reported that every year between 1972 and 2014 between 15 and 26 percent of our children were legally murdered by their parent(s), with a total of over 45 million abortions in those 42 years. Sadly, this is not just a USA issue, with an estimated 1.5 billion abortions occurring worldwide in the 38 years between 1980 and 2018. There were 7.5 billion people living on this planet at the end of 2018, and during that year for every 33 live births, 10 were aborted (23%). The safest place in the world is supposed to be the womb, but with 41 million abortions worldwide in 2018, more people died due to nothing other than their parents choice than died from cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS, smoking, alcohol, and traffic accidents combined. Sadly, many of those parents were encouraged for or talked into doing it, usually with lies, and countless of them (a high number) experiencing unrecorded feelings of remorse and even trauma afterward.
It's so tempting to want to believe we all have legitimate reasons behind our opinions and noble intentions, but do we? Here are some direct quotes from Margret Sanger, the lady who started Planned Parenthood back in 1916 (the organization that has a large market share of the abortions in the USA). Don't be misled, people may have bought into the marketing line that they stand for women's choice, but these are some of their real reasons for existence (no matter how many other reasons they serve up):
“ The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. ”After more than a century, Planned Parenthood has no other purpose than to conduct abortions. Anything else is cover (a lie). If you don't believe me then take their own word for it as recorded in this video (link). If you think they've changed since then, then you're humoring wishful thinking. (Have you ever watched an abortion? Here's a 4-minute well made illustrative video from a doctor who has performed over a thousand of them.) Yes, Planned Parenthood claims a ridiculously small percent of their business is abortion, but that's misleading. To come up with that number they count how many interactions their staff have with their customers and they treat "handing them paperwork" or "giving a condom" the same as "conducting an abortion." So that number is skewed way low. If you look at their source of revenue, abortion is their business. By the way, since abortion is by definition murder, abortion is not health care.
“ The most serious charge that can be brought against modern 'benevolence' is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. ”
“ It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit. ”
“ We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. ”
There are basically three types of abortions, not counting the abortion pill (RU-486). In case you're not crystal clear what pro-choice people are actually defending, let's review. (The following bullets are a blend of information from abortionprocedures.com and webmd.com.) But caution, these bullet points are graphic.
- In the first trimester they murder babies by sucking them out with a tube, called vacuum/suction aspiration. The result is not pretty.
- In the second trimester they'll dilate the cervix and evacuate, or D&E. "Evacuate" is code for literally tear the baby apart inside the womb, and take it out piece by piece.
- By the third trimester the baby has a good chance of surviving outside the womb. If the mother has carried the baby this long, but is now overburdened, then a hospital could simply induce labor or go through a Caesarian section to get it out peacefully. But because by definition abortion is designed to murder, a third trimester abortion must first do its job. The technique this time is to inject the baby (through the cervix) with poison to kill it, then induce delivery anyway, expecting the baby to be stillborn.
- In all cases the mother should be prepared for medical, reproductive complications, as well as psychological trauma, for life. Because even when we're prepared to defend women's "choice" to the (our own) death and put our money where our mouth is, we still know in the back of our mind what it means to choose to do this. This choice will haunt you (sooner or later) for the rest of your life. The only way to avoid it haunting you is to kill off a part of your own mind (part of your conscience). Now who's the misogynist? (Hint, it's not the people preaching abstinence and adoption.)
“ The abortion debate in the United States and around the world has virtually nothing to do with life. It has to do with feminism. Here's what I want you to get. As the feminist movement grows and we move toward egalitarianism we're erasing the distinctions between men and women. Remember that's what we're talking about here. The reason we're having a problem with Biblical manhood [Ephesians 5:23, 1 Peter 3:7] is we don't understand the lines of distinction between men and women. But as you erase the lines of distinction between men and women there's one little pesky issue that's always there. That's this little thing called pregnancy. So on the one hand we keep saying "There's no difference between men and women. There's just not a difference. We're the same, we can have the same pursuits, the same goals, the same everything. And that one little pesky thing keeps popping up. It's pregnancy. So if you want complete egalitarianism and for a woman to be able to define herself in a way that is completely the same as that of a man there's one thing you have to be able to do. And that is control and eliminate pregnancy and childbearing. That's what abortion is about, it's about feminism.Even if we ignore the direct effects on our offspring, the belief that abortion is acceptable has farther reaching implications. The unfortunate reality is this: abortion advocates don't respect life before birth. Why would we expect them to respect it after?
By the way, the abortion debate, not a hard debate. It's really not. But have you noticed this? Even when so-called conservatives are debating on abortion here's what they don't do. (It's platitudes.) One person has this statement over here, here's his platitude: "Well I believe in a woman's right to choose." And then there's another person on the other side. What's the other person on the other side say? "Well I believe in the sanctity of human life." That's it, debate over. That's what we call the debate. I'm going wait a minute, hold on, no, debate the issue. Cause the guy over here is supposed to look at that guy and say "Wait a minute, you believe in a woman's right to choose, please finish the sentence. Cause I believe in a woman's right to choose also... so you need to finish your sentence. You believe in a woman's right to choose to hire someone to murder her unborn child while still in the womb." Finish the sentence. And then as you finish the sentence here's a question I want you to answer. Do you know when life begins? If the answer to that question is yes and you know when life begins then you knowingly condone murder. If the answer to that question is no, and you don't know when life begins, then you knowingly condone a process that is likely to be murder. So in either instance you're condoning murder.
How come nobody does that in these debates?... Nobody's going to origin of life. Why? Because the debate is not about life. Abortion is about feminism. Pure and simple, that's what it is. And even those people who call themselves "pro-life" are [die hard] feminists and that's why they will not debate this issue aggressively. Cause they know that even if they win the debate on its merits they've lost because they did not bow to feminism. ”
Despite all the criticism of abortion, this page is not meant to condemn or even criticize a person who's already made the choice to have one or use birth control. This page is meant to make it crystal clear for the people who are in the process of deciding, for those who may someday find themselves able to relate to this issue closer than they ever expected they'd have to, for those who care about what God cares about but haven't researched this topic thoroughly yet, and for voters, so you can know what God's Word says ahead of time, and your choice can be very clear. And if you have had an abortion, this page is trying to expose the lies you've surely been fed, and be sure you're aware of your Heavenly Father's stated perspective. As with homosexuality, the only reason for rebuking this topic so harshly is people have excused and defended it so strongly. Our culture is toxic and has lied to us that abortion is not only not-evil but fully-good. Bold lies must be countered with bold truth, though how we go about it matters. I have only sympathy for someone reading this and realizing for the first time they have committed or condoned murder. As is the case with all sin, if it has already been done then it cannot be undone. But we can repent (reverse our opinion), encourage others of this truth so they don't make the same mistake, and vote for laws and lawmakers that are aligned with this perspective.
Last Modified: Friday, March 01, 2024
