Life still begins at fertilization

This is a great example of “sibling rivalry”* in action.  Just because some people question whether the unborn are living human beings doesn’t mean they have any facts on their side.  Pro-lifers have all the embryology textbooks to support their view, not to mention concessions from leading pro-abortion people (see this link for a lot of examples of both).

Dream all you like about finding life elsewhere in the universe, but don’t be anti-science and ignore the logical and scientific fact of human life in the womb.

“Sibling rivalry” is a phrase used by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason to describe the situation where people hold opposing ideas at the same time.

Sometimes objections come in pairs that are logically inconsistent and therefore oppose each other. I call this “sibling rivalry” because they are like children fighting.

9 thoughts on “Life still begins at fertilization”

  1. you make a point here I’d not considered. Generally during “sibling rivalry” disagreements both sides can tout those who have migrated FROM the opposing view to their view. My question is: are there very many/any cases of someone being staunchly anti-abortion changing their view. We know there are lots of doctors and providers of abortion who have rejected the idea and now fight it. But are there any staunch pro-aborts, excluding politicians of course who must toe the party line and who will say the believe what they are told they have to say that they believe to get re-elected, who have changed sides?


  2. That’s funny! I call it cognitive dissonance.

    Dan, I’ve become convinced that the staunch anti-lifers (sorry — just returning the favor they give) are not pro-abortion because they are convinced. It’s because they are pro-abortion without reasons based on human value, life, or anything but “what I want” — mostly “against God”.


    1. I read this right after reading your post today. It made me wonder if you guys didn’t plan your posts.

      Second,I realize my question asks does any one ever move from a reasonable position to an unreasonable one. We know positions change from unreasonable to reasonable, but what about the other way around. It IS, though, a rhetorical question.


  3. The reality is that the unbeliever loves blood shed. They love death. They love people who die in massive disasters. This is what Romans 3:15-16 tells us. “Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways.”

    So it is in their nature to be destructive and murderous. It’s an uphill battle to reason with those who are by nature, murderous and lovers of death. It can be done, but it is difficult.


  4. I used to be pro-choice, but let me define that: I thought (and still think) that abortion is evil. I ordered my life so as to never “need” one. But I wasn’t keen on the idea of women dying in back alleys, resulting in both a dead baby and a dead mother. It was also when I hadn’t moved much out of the Northeast, and sort of assumed that all men are unchaste, it’s just that pro-choice men would actually give you a choice if the semi-inevitable pregnancy came about.

    I became pro-life when I started hearing things from men like, “Why wouldn’t you just get an abortion?” (That made me understand that the rhetoric about women’s rights, women’s choices, women’s advancement is a bunch of hooey.) I met good pro-life men who walk the walk – who wait until marriage, put their wives first, support their children, and help out scared, pregnant strangers, because they believe that all human life is precious.

    I also began to understand the way abortion operates in our society – how “unplanned” pregnancies are totally avoidable, how Planned Parenthood won’t lift a finger to help a woman who wants to keep her child, how society is structured so that abortion is the “easiest” solution. How the only people who talk about helping scared, pregnant women are pro-lifers. I did some math and figured out that if every single woman of child-bearing age in this country were sexually active and trying to not get pregnant, and used condoms and the Pill, that only about ten thousand women would experience an “unplanned” pregnancy every year. (Not that I agree with those assumptions, but they help the pro-life cause!) I saw common-sense, pro-life legislation (like “no partial birth abortion unless both of you are about to die”) being eviscerated as some great infringement upon my rights as a woman. Heck, I learned what PBA was!

    Most importantly, I understood that there is no middle ground – that you cannot be personally pro-life, politically pro-choice, because once evil takes root in a society that sanctions it, that evil will be revered as a god. Maybe that seems really basic to y’all, but it’s not to some of us.

    Wow, that was long. Hope it was helpful, in that I hope it can provide a bit of insight – insight that can be used to bring people around to the pro-life view.


    1. Thank you for sharing that Roxeanne. I think most people, including myself, originally focused on the validity of the arguments being used by the pro-choice crowd to justify abortion. But the point you raise is actually where the battle is won. What is the impact to society in general? Are we better or worse off for allowing abortion. I think the answer is pretty clear therefore I am pro-life.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s