At what point does a baby get human rights? Presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama was asked that question in a 2008 interview by Pastor Rick Warren held at Warren's church. The transcript to that interview can be accessed here.
Obama's answer?
Both men were asked about their faith and both men claimed to be Christians. When describing what his faith in Christ means, Obama said that part of what that means is to fulfill God's expectations that He has for us, saying, "And that means thinking about the least of these", a clear reference to Jesus' statement in Matt. 25:24:
We should obviously be disturbed by a man who attempts to harmonize "thinking about the least of these" with killing unborn babies, especially since he claimed that he couldn't specify whether those babies were human or not. But McCain also failed to successfully harmonize his statements.
While McCain unabashedly stated that babies get human rights "at the moment of conception", he also stated that he supports embryonic stem cell research, which destroys a conceived life. He tried to justify this statement by saying that, while he is pro-life, he recognizes that "there are other obligations we have as well." This seems to be his attempt to point to embryonic stem-cell research as a necessary evil that the pro-life community should tolerate because it hopefully will one day lead to cures for diseases. In McCain's thinking, even though he is pro-life, and believes that human rights begin at conception, those rights can be disregarded if scientific research demands it.
Of course that interview happened in 2008. We can now look back on the records of these two men and see if they have faithfully held to their convictions. Unfortunately, Obama seems to have become even more radical in his pro-abortion advocacy.
I only reference this interview because it brings up the following questions that I as a Christian need to try to answer for myself:
Does the Bible say life begins at conception?
Does science indicate when life begins?
I remember hearing McCain's strong statement that human rights belong to a baby at conception as I watched the interview in 2008. I was glad to hear a presidential candidate take such a clear stand on human life because I believe the same thing. But I have recently been impressed with the need to be able to defend my belief that life begins at conception. I believe it. Now I want to be able to prove it. Unlike Obama, can I look at theology (the Bible) and science and make an informed conclusion? Is the answer really so difficult to ascertain that it remains above my pay grade?
First, the theological perspective. I am indebted to an article entitled "When Does Life Begin?" by Dr. Tommy Mitchell. It can be accessed here. My thoughts are basically a summation of Dr. Mitchell's work. It seems that the Bible does teach that life begins at conception. One of the passages that would indicate this is Psalm 139:13-16.
Another passage in support of life beginning at conception is Jeremiah 1:4-5. Speaking to Jeremiah, the Lord says:
Dr. Mitchell gives us another verse to consider- Psalm 51:5. In this Psalm, David says:
The Bible consistently describes the unborn as living persons. The unborn John the Baptist moved for joy in the presence of the unborn Jesus while both were still in the womb (see Luke 1:39-44). There is every indication that the Bible ascribes personhood to the unborn child and that personhood seems to begin at conception and continue on throughout life.
In addition to the theological reasons for believing that life begins at conception, are there also scientific reasons? Again I am indebted to Dr. Mitchell's article as well as an article entitled "The Science of Abortion: When Does Life Begin" by James D. Agresti. Find it here.
We know from scientific observation that when the sperm and egg unite fertilization occurs, forming a zygote (the initial stage of a human embryo). At this point the zygote's genetic makeup is determined. He or she is a unique individual that has the potential to grow with his or her own set of genes.
In James D. Agresti's article, he makes the point that humans zygotes have all of the characteristics that define life according to scientific dictionaries: growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.
The theological and scientific data seem to indicate that life begins at conception. There is enough evidence there to convince me that this is the case. The next question is: What makes a person a human with rights? Certainly a baby in her mother's arms is human and has rights. Why would a baby in her mother's womb not have those same rights? And if late-term abortions should be restricted because the baby is obviously human, then why should a biologically younger baby not be considered human? Who dares to be brash enough to make that call? As Dr. Mitchell points out in his article, there is an unbroken continuity of life from its conception until its death.
Obama's answer?
Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.Senator John McCain, also aspiring to the presidency, answered the same question:
At the moment of conception.Obama's claim that he was not able to answer that question with "specificity" seemed to be an attempt to dodge the question. His lack of clarity on the issue also brings up other questions. If he cannot say when a baby gets human rights then what about infants? How can he be sure infants have human rights if he cannot specify when those rights are endowed? Could post-birth babies not have rights yet? McCain's answer, because of its decisiveness seemed to be more genuine. Unfortunately, neither candidate was asked to support their reasoning so we can't know how they came to their conclusions.
Both men were asked about their faith and both men claimed to be Christians. When describing what his faith in Christ means, Obama said that part of what that means is to fulfill God's expectations that He has for us, saying, "And that means thinking about the least of these", a clear reference to Jesus' statement in Matt. 25:24:
Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.- HCSBObama stated that he is pro-choice. One wonders how Obama reconciles supporting the murder of unborn babies with God's mandate to think "about the least of these". Surely the unborn are the least of these. Equally perplexing is the fact that he supports abortion but can't be sure when a baby gets human rights. Since he can't be sure when a baby becomes a human it would seem prudent to not take a chance and abort babies whom you can't say for sure aren't human yet, that is, unless you are comfortable with possibly committing murder.
We should obviously be disturbed by a man who attempts to harmonize "thinking about the least of these" with killing unborn babies, especially since he claimed that he couldn't specify whether those babies were human or not. But McCain also failed to successfully harmonize his statements.
While McCain unabashedly stated that babies get human rights "at the moment of conception", he also stated that he supports embryonic stem cell research, which destroys a conceived life. He tried to justify this statement by saying that, while he is pro-life, he recognizes that "there are other obligations we have as well." This seems to be his attempt to point to embryonic stem-cell research as a necessary evil that the pro-life community should tolerate because it hopefully will one day lead to cures for diseases. In McCain's thinking, even though he is pro-life, and believes that human rights begin at conception, those rights can be disregarded if scientific research demands it.
Of course that interview happened in 2008. We can now look back on the records of these two men and see if they have faithfully held to their convictions. Unfortunately, Obama seems to have become even more radical in his pro-abortion advocacy.
I only reference this interview because it brings up the following questions that I as a Christian need to try to answer for myself:
Does the Bible say life begins at conception?
Does science indicate when life begins?
I remember hearing McCain's strong statement that human rights belong to a baby at conception as I watched the interview in 2008. I was glad to hear a presidential candidate take such a clear stand on human life because I believe the same thing. But I have recently been impressed with the need to be able to defend my belief that life begins at conception. I believe it. Now I want to be able to prove it. Unlike Obama, can I look at theology (the Bible) and science and make an informed conclusion? Is the answer really so difficult to ascertain that it remains above my pay grade?
First, the theological perspective. I am indebted to an article entitled "When Does Life Begin?" by Dr. Tommy Mitchell. It can be accessed here. My thoughts are basically a summation of Dr. Mitchell's work. It seems that the Bible does teach that life begins at conception. One of the passages that would indicate this is Psalm 139:13-16.
For it was You who created my inward parts; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I will praise You because I have been remarkably and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, and I know this very well. My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret, when I was formed in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw me when I was formless; all my days were written in Your book and planned before a single one of them began. - HCSBThis passage informs us that God has a plan for us before we are even formed in the womb. He knows us before we take on any form. It tells us that God creates life inside the mother's womb and brings all the pieces together there. This indicates that life begins as a result of God creating it in the womb. While not explicitly teaching that life begins at conception, it does teach that God has a relationship with us before we are even conceived.
Another passage in support of life beginning at conception is Jeremiah 1:4-5. Speaking to Jeremiah, the Lord says:
I chose you before I formed you in the womb; I set you apart before you were born.- HCSBThis passage, like the one in Psalm 139, tells us that there is personhood before birth. God is the One who forms the life in the womb and knows the life that He has formed there. The life in the womb is a person just as much as the born child.
Dr. Mitchell gives us another verse to consider- Psalm 51:5. In this Psalm, David says:
Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.-HCSBIn this verse David indicates that he was sinful at conception. Moral accountability can only belong to the living, therefore David must have considered himself to have life at conception.
The Bible consistently describes the unborn as living persons. The unborn John the Baptist moved for joy in the presence of the unborn Jesus while both were still in the womb (see Luke 1:39-44). There is every indication that the Bible ascribes personhood to the unborn child and that personhood seems to begin at conception and continue on throughout life.
In addition to the theological reasons for believing that life begins at conception, are there also scientific reasons? Again I am indebted to Dr. Mitchell's article as well as an article entitled "The Science of Abortion: When Does Life Begin" by James D. Agresti. Find it here.
We know from scientific observation that when the sperm and egg unite fertilization occurs, forming a zygote (the initial stage of a human embryo). At this point the zygote's genetic makeup is determined. He or she is a unique individual that has the potential to grow with his or her own set of genes.
In James D. Agresti's article, he makes the point that humans zygotes have all of the characteristics that define life according to scientific dictionaries: growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.
The theological and scientific data seem to indicate that life begins at conception. There is enough evidence there to convince me that this is the case. The next question is: What makes a person a human with rights? Certainly a baby in her mother's arms is human and has rights. Why would a baby in her mother's womb not have those same rights? And if late-term abortions should be restricted because the baby is obviously human, then why should a biologically younger baby not be considered human? Who dares to be brash enough to make that call? As Dr. Mitchell points out in his article, there is an unbroken continuity of life from its conception until its death.