argument that legalized abortions saves lives. Legalized abortions prevent child abuse of unwanted children. First, we need to respond that murder is the worst form of abuse. So, it's like, why do you want to abuse the kid? Because you didn't want the kid, and I would have been angry, and I would have probably abused the kid. Oh, okay, so you murdered the kid. Okay, that makes it better then. No, murder is the worst form of abuse. Statistics show that the nine years right after abortion was legalized, child abuse increased 500%, and that's based on the research of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Now, people, pro-abortionists will say there, well, that's just because more people are encouraged to report that kind of thing. In reality, it sounds to me more like when you live in a culture that knows it's killing babies before they're born, you have less respect for human life and you you know, if the baby cries too much, you just smack it around. I mean, so, we're just, we're just being programmed. You know, abortion cheapens human life. So, and then, 91% of abused children were wanted children. The parents never thought about aborting a child. By the way, at a time when we were aborting 1.5 million babies a year. That number's going down. Abortion is not as popular as it used to be, which is... When you watch the media, you'd think it was. The pro-abortion movement now is a heavy-handed, they have the power. But this is not the multitudes crying, we need abortion. But... But when it was 1.6, 1.5 million abortions each year, there was also 1.6 babies up for adoption that didn't get adopted. So the idea that there are unwanted babies, I don't think that's exactly the case. Also, by the way, the surveys that they take Surveys that they take, you know, sometimes they'll ask questions like, Are you opposed to abortion for any reason? Well, most pro-lifers are probably going to say no. because maybe to save the life of a mother, you might have to. There might be that one out of a million case where you might have to perform an abortion. So just the way you word it, you can get the results that you want. Now, when they get more specific, like rape and incest, in the 1990s, over 70% of Americans were opposed to all abortions except Save the Life of the Mother or for cases of rape and incest. So there you're talking less than 1-2% out of all the abortions being performed, these people would only be for those. So 75% of Americans are opposed to 98-99% of the abortions that occur. But we've been so dumbed down that we're not splitting hairs where they need to be split. And they're certainly not going to split a horse when they ask questions like that. By the way, it's kind of like the question that was asked of Jesus. Is it alright for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? I mean, it's just like, what, just burning the toast? So they were really trying to trip him up on that. But whatever the case, OK, deformed unborn babies should be aborted. Response, this is Adolf Hitler's master race mentality. Charles Darwin in his work The Descent of Man kind of talked along the same lines, or at least hinted along the same lines. There's no handicapped person, even to this day, no handicapped person's organization that favors abortion as a solution for defeating birth defects. That's why Peter Singer, I don't know, it was about a decade where he was not allowed to speak in Germany. And here he is, one of our Princeton scholars. And it's not a coincidence that he's the father of the modern animal rights movement, and he's also the leading intellectual pro-abortion, pro-abortionist, pro-euthanasia guy out there. Every few pages he has to remind us that his views are not the same as what the Nazis taught. If I'm teaching a course on ethics, and I have to remind you that every few minutes, all kinds of buzzers are going to be going off. All human beings have the right to life. By the way, if you want to read some guys that are really good, on these issues, where things are going with bioethical issues. Richard Weikart. He's one of my friends, but not in the real world. Read several of his books on Facebook. We're friends. So I'm going to call him one of my friends. But Richard Weikart. And then the other guy for the Discovery Institute. I think it's something like J. Wesley Smith. If I got this guy's name right, he wrote a book, Consumers Guide to a Brave New World, where he's talking about things that we'll talk about in this, like animal-human hybrids. You know, people are thinking, well, we'll never have them, but we have them already. We just, they just keep, as far as we know, they keep freezing in the embryonic stage. I think because the doctors are afraid that if the thing comes out human enough, it's got a pretty good lawsuit against the doctor. But now there could be some secret government program either here or somewhere else, where for all we know, they could have adult animal-human hybrids. But these guys can really keep you up. Richard Weikart, what was his latest book? like the death of humanity or something like that. So he's talking on the same themes that I'm talking about when I give my Death of Western Civilization lecture. Okay, the right to privacy demands the right to have an abortion. First off, it assumes the unborn is not human. What about the privacy of the human baby? Also, right to privacy doesn't cover a person's right to privately kill another person. At least the way the government is right now, it's illegal to privately shoot heroin. You can debate whether the government should have any say when it comes to drugs, but whatever the case, there's lots of things. If you conduct a drug deal in private, Well, that's not protected. So in fact, I would argue that most crimes are committed at least with some semblance of privacy, because you don't want to get caught. But the idea that this is just a private decision of the woman, and it's like, no, there's the guy that joined her in procreating that child, and there's also the child. So this is not a private issue at all. Abortion must be allowed in cases of rape and incest. In response to that, we should not punish the unborn child for the sin of his or her father. Most abortions are for mere convenience. The notes say under 3% are due to rape and incest. It's probably less than that. It's probably between 1% and 2%. And so adoption, if necessary, is a far better option. There's, I don't remember, I don't want to mention who I think it is, but there was a great evangelical theologian, probably died about 10 years ago, who was the product of rape. His mother just knew it was just wrong to kill a little baby even if she had been raped, was a victim of rape. And she raised him on her own, I believe. I don't think she gave him up for adoption. And we already talked about abortion, strictly a woman's rights issue. What about the unborn baby's rights? What about the father's rights? and it does free, you know, if there's guys that just want to go around having sex with as many women as possible, it does free that man to exploit the woman without facing responsibility for his actions. So, it always amazes me how the left embraces the, what is the guy's name, Hugh Hefner, Playboy magazine, they always embrace these guys that make millions if not billions of dollars exploiting women. There's a lady running for president, I'm not going to mention any names. I'll leave it to your imagination. There's a lady running for president that receives millions of dollars from governments that exploit women. And she claims to be a champion for women's rights. Let me tell you, As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to be pro-abortion and a defender of women's rights. They're antithetical. Now, argument against abortion, there is the biblical arguments medical arguments, constitutional and historical arguments. I think that's a misspelling, I don't think it's blephos, I think it's brephos. The Greek word for an unborn baby, for a babe or an infant, I believe it's brephos. And Luke chapter 1 verse 41 It's the baby in the womb. It's Luke 1.41. And it happened when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary that the babe leaped in her womb. and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. So the babe in the womb, that's brephos. Luke chapter 2 and verse 12, same Greek word is used, and this will be the sign to you, you will find a babe, brephos, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Okay, and even further, verse 16, and they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger. So the same Greek word is used by biblical authors whether the infant is in the womb or outside the womb. So the unborn baby is exactly that, an unborn baby. This is where we got the traditional expression, woman with child. We didn't say, oh look at that lady, she's pregnant. There's a woman with tissue. No, it's a woman with child. Everybody knew it was an unborn baby in there. Also, There is a death penalty given for killing an unborn baby, even if it was done accidentally, in Exodus 21. Now, I will say this, most of our translations do not translate well. I'm not a big fan of the NIV. because they're not quite as literal as most translations, but when you do some research in the Hebrew, I have to read Hebrew scholars because I'm not trained in Hebrew, and What you'll find is that the NID did the best job on that. But abortion, a rational look at an emotional issue. R.C. Sproul does an outstanding job on that particular passage. But in Exodus 21, 22 to 25, It says, if men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, He shall surely be punished according as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judge has determined. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, strike for strike. Now earlier it was already dealt with about eye for eye, tooth for tooth, dealing with a human. Thou shalt not murder. This makes no sense unless they're talking about the status of the baby. I believe it's the new American standard that translate this as, men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet no harm follows. That's not what it's saying. Probably the most literal translation of this is the King James Version. It says, if men fight and hurt a woman with child, so that, by the way, the woman is with child there, I'm not sure the other translations read, but men fight to hurt a woman with child so that her fruit departs. That's what it literally says, okay? We used to say the Hail Mary, which I would no longer say as a Protestant and not a Roman Catholic, but we used to refer to Jesus at when talking to Mary, or at least we thought we were talking to Mary, the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. And so when the fruit departs, that just means the baby comes out. It's not talking about whether the baby's dead or not, so that's a very good translation when it says that men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, so it's talking about the status of the child. But if you want to see that exegeted in the original Hebrew, R.C. Sproul's abortion, a rational look at an emotional issue. And of course R.C. Sproul, one of the world's leading living theologians, And he's way up there in years right now. Okay, another key verse I think is Psalm 51-5. Psalm 51-5. By the way, the verses I use are not standard verses used. by most lay people who are pro-lifers. I'll give you an example of the kind of verses they use and I'll tell you why I don't use them. Psalm 51.5, King David says, Behold I was brought forth in iniquity. Well, his parents were not sinning, so he's not talking about their sin, and then he explains it, in sin my mother conceived me. Well, was his mother sinning? No. Again, the NIV does the best job there on this, which I don't know why, but I guess they just try to say, We know what David's saying, let's not confuse the Christian lay person, but David says that he was brought forth in iniquity and I was sinful from the time my mother conceived me. So from the moment of conception, King David was sinful. Tissue isn't sinful. My appendix isn't sinful. My arm isn't sinful. Human beings are sinful. And so, this is tantamount to saying that he was human from the moment he was conceived. Now, in Psalm 139, this is the more typical type passages that are used to argue against abortion. Psalm 139, starting at verse 13. For you formed my inward parts, you covered me in my talking to God, you covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are your works. and that my soul knows very well my frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret and skillfully brought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance being yet unformed and in your book they were all written the day's fashion for me when as yet there were none of them." What could this passage be talking about? Now it could be talking about that God had a personal, personally knew us, even while we were in our mother's womb, and then we wouldn't be tissue. What also could it be talking about? It could be talking about God's foreknowledge. Okay? It could be talking about the fact that, look, even It could be possible to interpret this, is this the only passage on it in the Bible? It could be possible to understand it as being interpreted as saying, look, you knew me even before I was me. You knew me when I was just a glob of tissue in my mother's womb. But because of your ability to foreknow the future, it was like you knew me before, you know, because I could say God knew me before He even created me. So, I think the passages like this are a little bit too vague. There's also other ones in Jeremiah, I think. Yeah, Jeremiah 1. In verse 4, And the word of the Lord came to me saying, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I sanctified you. I ordained you as a prophet to the nations. Then said I, ah, Lord God, behold, I cannot speak, for I am a youth. But the Lord said to me, do not say, I am a youth. And it goes on from there. But I think, again, since God is who He is, this could be just as easily explained by God's foreknowledge, God's knowledge of the future, as it could be that, oh yeah, this is teaching that Jeremiah was human in his mother's womb. to allow for interpretations like that. What I'm saying is the work of God in the womb would necessitate that an abortion is a direct opposition to what God is doing. Well, you could argue, you could make a case, look, God foreknew us and foreknew the plan that he had for us and what kind of life we would live that it would be wrong to stop that. either before it started or while in the womb. All I'm saying is, I don't see in these passages, because God is a God who knew us even before we were created, knowing us in the womb could be either interpreted or misinterpreted as just God's ability to foreknow what was going to come later. So basically what I'm saying is I don't see in those passages the knockdown case for yes, he's talking about unborn babies as if they're humans. Well, it's just the language of, I formed you in the womb. This direct creationist perspective that Jeremiah and David are pulling out. to kill the baby is to say to God, you are not allowed to form this baby. That's one of the most direct rebellions against God that you can have. Yeah, and the thing is too, I myself, are you a creationist or a tradutionist? I'm a tradutionist. Creationist. Yeah, I'm a tradutionist. But what that means, a creationist believes that Would you have it at the moment of conception that God creates a spirit within the body of the child, so we just inherit kind of our physical attributes from our parents, but God creates a new soul. Whereas a Traditionist, I believe that we inherit both, not just our physical attributes, but our soul slash spirit or whatever, from our promises. I take it further than that. I don't think the physical act of a child growing a womb wouldn't happen without God forming them, both soul and body. that the parents are the donators of the substance, but if God was not the one actively sewing the baby together, say figuratively... So then you would see it as like each birth that's literally a miracle? Yeah, pretty much. Okay, so we differ on that point. That would be in a course on anthropology which is the branch of theology that deals with what the Bible teaches about human beings. But as you can see, Blake has just got to get through his undergraduate stuff because he's ready for graduate level discussions and stuff and that's a good thing. I think we ought to be having these discussions. Do you think Jesus is peccable or impeccable? Well, because I'm a voluntarist, I believe God is always capable of doing whatever, but the Good luck getting him to do it. It's not going to happen. But you do think Jesus is better. I hold to impeccability. We both agree Jesus didn't sin. The question is, was Jesus capable of sinning? I don't believe he was capable of sinning. And then, he's a voluntarist. So God can will whatever he wants to be good and whatever he wants to be evil. I defer from John Bethesda on my paper. I believe that we cannot divorce God's attributes from his personhood, but we believe that his his person, his will, has to be superior to his attributes in deciding any factor. Or else we would have seen David crushed and taken down just like Saul a long time ago, because David did worse than Saul. I would still see God's, and I'm an essentialist, so I would see God's will as subject only to his nature, and his nature is good nature. But these are all kinds of discussions that ought to be going on in churches, not just in Bible colleges and seminaries. But whatever the case, what I'm saying is that there are passages which most pro-lifers turn to, which I don't think makes the case as well as the passages that I just gave. Now, what would be good is to look up in Hebrew, where it says that in two guys fighting, there's a woman with child. In fact, R.C. Sproul might talk with that. Is that what literally is being said in the Hebrew? If a pregnant woman is a woman with child, then you've got the Old Testament equivalent to what we saw was said in Luke. Okay, now the medical evidence from the moment of conception, all genetic information is present, And so you have a new human being. So a new human life begins when a male cell and a female cell encounter to produce the next generation so that the sperm fertilizes the egg. And so conception is the initial stage of human life. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the original pro-abortion leaders, performed thousands of abortions. He now recognizes that life begins at conception. He's now pro-life. You know, babies who survive lots of abortions. And it's against the law to kill them, by the way. Were they not human beings when the abortion was attempted? There are some people who tour the country either as singers or speakers that were aborted. They were there, failed abortions. By the way, in the 1980s, In the 1980s, whenever a baby survived an abortion, there's different ways you can abort the child. Like a partial birth abortion, you're allowed, the doctor's allowed to pull the feet of the baby outside the womb, as long as the head is still in the womb. And then he can insert something that punctures and kind of crushes the skull. So there's sometimes that it crushes the skull of the baby. There are other times that there's a saline solution which scorches the baby. There's a kind of vacuum cleaner type thing that sucks out the different parts. When they do that form of abortion, it's the nurse's job after the abortion, doctor leaves the room, she has to put together the parts and make sure there's a head, a neck, torso, two legs, two arms. She has to do a good job on that too because when part of the baby is left in the mother, that's a really quick way to get all kinds of infections and possibly cancer and things of that sort. But if the abortion fails as a human being, if it succeeds it was just tissue, that makes no sense at all. Let me read some quotes here. Let me go first to The Christian Ethics book, now in the older edition, it's on page 149, and this is at a United States Congressional hearing in 1981. Scientific experts, Geisler says, from around the world testified about the beginning of an individual life. Here's a quote from Dr. Michelin M. Matthews Roth. In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception or fertilization. So, if it's sexual reproduction, the moment of conception marks a new life. If the parents are human, then the new life is human. Dr. Jerome Lejeune, real interesting, this guy had discovered the chromosomal imbalance that we call Down syndrome. So this guy was like one of the world's leading geneticists. And when you read his obituary, By the secular media all they talked about was the smoking problem. He was a chain smoker and they did not like him. Jerome Lejeune stated, to accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, It is plain experimental evidence. So he's saying it's not a philosophical or religious view about when life starts. It's just a medical fact. that human life starts at the moment of conception. Dr. I.D. Gordon at the US Congressional hearings in 1981 stated, but now we can say unequivocally that the question of when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or the purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception. And by the way, it's not just pro-lifers who say this. I'm not even sure these doctors are pro-lifers. I think Jerome Lejeune was pro-life. But you get Watson and Crick, God won the Nobel Prize for cracking the genetic code. They stated in 1970, they said, wow, it's great, you know, we don't believe in God, and it's great that we're arbitrarily playing God and saying that human beings aren't human beings until they're born, so why don't we just continue this till three days after birth? And then if the baby is deformed, and the parents don't want it, and the doctors don't want it, the parents and the doctors can talk, and they can just terminate these, and at least say, well, you're not a human until three days after birth. What they were saying was, to say that you're a human is not human at the moment of birth. Once you move from conception, and you say it's at the moment of birth, you just drew an arbitrary line. And they say, we're cool with that, we don't believe in God, so why don't we just move that arbitrary line further? We're going to see Peter Singer move it much further than three days. And this is where abortion actually leads to infanticide and euthanasia. Let's take a 10 minute break and at 8.10 we'll do the final segment.