What is the difference between an abortion and infanticide? In one way, there is no difference. Both are the murder of an innocent human child. There is a legal definition, however, that makes a distinction. And the distinction is purely based on location. If the baby is still inside the mother’s womb, it is called abortion. If it is outside the mother’s womb, it is called infanticide – no matter the stage of development.
These days, though, in many places, it is a difference without a distinction. Many people try to make the argument that abortion and infanticide are two separate things by using different words (abortion vs. infanticide), but in practice they are absolutely the same. A baby is a distinct and unique human being from the moment of conception (it is not some other creature), no matter its location. Biologically, a baby is a person from the moment of conception, even though it is not yet born.
In our modern culture, though, there are people who want for there to be an actual, logical distinction. So they step away from the biological argument and move to a philosophical/moral one. Their contention is that a baby inside the womb is not actually a baby. Many of them claim that it is not an actual human being until after it is born. Some go even further and claim that it is not human until it is able to take care of itself – even making already born babies up to a certain point not human.
Those who make this argument do so based on a particular set of worldview beliefs – the most common being Naturalism. Naturalists believe that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. Based on that belief, there is no God, and without a god who can reveal some form of objectively real moral beliefs, there can be no such things as objective morality. In that case, individuals get to make up their own morality. And that is exactly what these people do. They make the argument either that pre-born babies are only globs of tissue, or that human beings are nothing more than natural animal creatures with no eternal spirit/soul (morally no different from a dog or a worm).
This mindset is now quite prominent among certain demographics. Recently, the governor of Massachusetts signed a bill into law making that state the tenth to allow abortion up to the point of birth. (You can read about this at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-gov-maura-healey-signs-sweeping-massachusetts-bill-allowing-abortions-up-birth) The other states that allow it are Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia. This in spite of the fact that the most widely accepted medical threshold for survival outside the womb is 24 weeks, with 22 weeks increasingly possible. In fact, the earliest recorded case of a premature baby surviving was born at exactly 21 weeks and 0 days.
The main argument people make who are pro abortion is that pregnant women have a right to bodily autonomy that allows them to end a pregnancy at any stage. The common cry is “my body my choice.”
And if that was actually a true statement, they might have a case. But the truth is, a baby, once conceived, is not the mother’s body. It might be located inside the mother’s body, but it is a completely autonomous person with its own unique DNA. It may be dependant on the mother for survival in those early stages, but it is a unique person. Thus, ending its life is murder.
We face a different issue, however, as it relates to the new law signed in Massachusetts. There, abortion is now permissible AT ANY TIME up until birth. Thus, even babies that would be fully viable outside the womb are now considered legally expendable for any reason. That scenario is morally equivalent to killing a newborn infant.
So what is really at issue here? What makes a person decide which viewpoint is morally right? Even though most people try to make it about biology or viability, those are not the deciding factors. It is a person’s worldview beliefs. If a person believes in a naturalistic worldview, then human life is not ultimately valuable and is, thus, expendable based on personal preference. If a person believes in a biblical worldview, human life is recognized as a creation of God, and is seen as ultimately valuable based on what He has revealed in the Bible.
But a person’s belief is still not the bottom line. The bottom line is, “What is true?” Biology and viability point to the answer, but the real question is, “Is God real or not?” Well, He is real and those who open their life to Him know – as an absolutely certainty.
Freddy Davis is the president of MarketFaith Ministries. He is the author of numerous books entitled The Truth Mirage, Rules for Christians Radicals, Liberalism vs. Conservatism, and his latest book Shattering the Truth Mirage and has a background as an international missionary, pastor, radio host, worldview trainer, and entrepreneur. Freddy is a graduate of Florida State University with a BS in Communication, and holds MDiv and DMin degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is a popular speaker, particularly on the topic of worldview and its practical implications for the Christian life. He lives in Tallahassee, FL, with his wife Deborah.
You may also contact Freddy at Leadership Speakers Bureau to schedule him for speaking or leadership engagements.
To set up an appointment to speak to a Literary Agent:
Email: Alfredo Baguio
Call: (702) 605-4354
0 comments