Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Authored By  :
Published On :
Last Updated :

NOTE: This article or series has not been updated recently. As such, it may possibly contain some outdated information, and/or ideas and beliefs which I no longer embrace, or which have changed to some degree.



Based on the previous verses, it becomes quite clear that if a husband is opposed to his wife obtaining an abortion, her responsibility, as mandated by God's Word, is to submit to her husband's will; for in so doing, she is submitting unto the Lord. So as you can see, this ridiculous notion, and in fact, lie, that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, is totally contrary to the Scriptures, and is in reality an evil invention of modern, ungodly abortionists. It should also be noted that even if the husband does not oppose the abortion, it is still wrong to obtain one for the reasons which I have already stated. Furthermore, if the husband does agree to the abortion, then he makes himself an accomplice to her crime against God, as well as against the unborn child which they have agreed to slaughter.

But surely no true, Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian woman would ever consent to having an abortion, would she? While I was conducting some web research for this series, I discovered some shocking information which should alarm all Christians. According to "The Center Of Bio-Ethical Reform" website, a full seventy per cent of all abortions that are performed in the United States, are requested by women of faith of one form or another. Consider the following tragic statistics:

37.4% - Protestant women
31.3% - Catholic women
23.7% - women with no religious affiliation
18.0% - Born-again/Evangelical women
1.30% - Jewish woman

One would think that most abortions are obtained by women who do not profess belief in God, but to our shame, this is clearly not the case. Protestants and Catholics appear to be the guiltiest parties of all. Also, please note that the 18.0% figure is actually a part of the Protestant group as well; at least that is how I interpret the data.

I suspect that part of the problem is that many women today have been poisoned by the philosophy of the "women's lib" movement. As a result, rather than just humbly accept their traditional role in society, as is ordained by God's Word, they have chosen to engage in such things as the so-called fight for the equality of the sexes. So many women now feel that they have to prove to the world that they are just as "good" as men. No you don't! Simply be a good wife to your husband, as well as a good mother to your children. That is what God expects and demands of you most, and nothing more. In fact, I would dare say that in fulfilling these Biblical obligations, He will bless you the most, and you will also reap the reward of being the happiest, and feeling the most fulfilled in life. As Jesus said:

"If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."


Another great verse from the Book of Proverbs states:

"Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD."


Thus, contrary to modern opinion which contradicts the Bible, the truth of the matter is that being a stay-at-home wife and mother is definitely not something of which a woman should feel the least bit ashamed. For more information regarding the topic of marriage relationships, please consider reading other articles such as "Women Shepherds, Pastors and Teachers: A Biblical Perspective", and "Churchianity Or Christianity: Which Do You Practice?".

Of course, the way that some people try to circumvent the Biblical truths that I just presented, is by claiming that they don't believe in God; and therefore, His Laws, and His Word, don't apply to them. They know that they'll never win against God's Word, so they have no other recourse than to continue to try to defend their wayward position with what appear to be logical arguments. On the surface, saying that they don't believe in God, and therefore are not bound by His Word, may sound quite logical to some people, but in reality it isn't.

As I recently pointed out to some of my online friends, to feign ignorance to God and His Word, is like attempting to speed down a roadway at sixty miles an hour, when all along your route there are signs which clearly tell you that the speed limit is thirty-five miles per hour. Eventually, you are going to be pulled over by a police officer, (hopefully an honest one who doesn't accept bribes), who is more than likely going to present you with a speeding ticket.

If you go to traffic court, and try to plead your innocence by explaining to the judge that you just don't recognize the legality of speed limit signs, or worse yet, that you don't recognize his authority as the judge, he is going to laugh in your face and probably lay a heavy fine on you. If you're foolish enough to act belligerently and argue with him, you might even end up spending a few days in jail. So it is with God. You may deny His existence, or refuse to recognize the Authority of His Word as Divine Law, but it does not make a bit of difference. If you violate His Laws, (which is what sin is -- 1 John 3:4), you will be found guilty as charged. As the Apostle Paul once boldly declared to the Greeks on Mars' Hill in the city of Athens:

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."


Paul is of course referring to Jesus, who will righteously judge the world one of these days. As Paul states, God may put up with our foolish rebellion and feigned ignorance for a while, but sooner or later, He is going to be forced to put His foot down; and trust me; if you are on the wrong side of the fence at that time, you are not going to like what happens next. So to reiterate my point, attempting to find some way around God's Laws is an exercise in futility, because the Bible plainly tells us that our God is the God of the Universe; He is the God of all flesh. Furthermore, we are told that God's Laws are written upon the tables of our hearts, whether we have ever read the Bible or not. As a result, we are all without excuse. We know the difference between right and wrong; and abortion is definitely wrong. Consider these verses:

"Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"


"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"


"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"


This issue of feigning ignorance, and trying to find a way around God's Laws, (as if that is really possible), ties in to an issue that we discussed earlier. As we have seen, one tactic that abortion advocates frequently use in their vain attempts to try to justify the violent, murderous acts that are daily perpetrated upon the unborn, is to try to conceal their evil deeds behind the "legal fence" that is now known as the "right to privacy" issue. The mentality seems to be "out-of-sight, out-of-mind". While the world at large may be foolish enough to accept this flimsy excuse, God is most certainly not. In fact, the Bible clearly tells us that it is utterly useless for us to try to hide our sins from the Almighty. As the old saying goes, "Be sure that your sins will find you out"; and that most certainly applies to the ugly, ungodly sin of abortion. Concerning the hypocritical religious leaders of His own day, Jesus Christ Himself stated:

"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known."


"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin."


In his Epistles, the Apostle Paul also makes it clear that we all have a future appointment with the Lord, and that we will be judged according to our actions in this life:

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ . . . So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."


"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."


"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"


In the Old Testament, we are also told that some people will be raised to Everlasting Life, while others will be raised to shame and everlasting contempt, as we see here:

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."


So as you can plainly see, we may be able to fool others at times, and we can try to hide our sins behind the legality of the law, such as with the right to privacy and abortion, but no matter how hard we try, we simply cannot fool God. He knows the score; and the Day of Reckoning is coming for each and every one of us. That includes for the people who engage in the violent act of abortion, whether we choose to believe it or not. We will all have to acknowledge our sins. Knowing then that we will each have to answer for ourselves, should go a long way in motivating us to always make certain that we are doing the right thing in the Lord's eyes to the best of our knowledge and ability; particularly in such issues as abortion, where another person's life is involved.

One question which I posed earlier in this series, is why, after so many years, and after having so many conservative judges appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as to the Federal Appeals Courts, has abortion remained the law of the land? While some people might point to legal issues as the root problem, from some of the research that I've done, I have formed the impression that some justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are hesitant to overturn Roe v. Wade because, in their view, the current social environment within the USA is not yet conducive to doing so. In other words, they feel that the American public is not quite ready yet for such a monumental change in the legal status of abortion. Obviously, while the Conservative Right and Bible-believing Christians would rejoice at such a gesture by the Supreme Court, there would also be a public outcry against such a move, by the individuals and organizations that we discussed earlier in this series, as well as by many other women.

As I lay in bed this morning, still waking up from a good night's rest, my mind turned to this current series, being as it was the last thing that I worked on last night before retiring. As I lay there pondering this issue, I thought of a simple way to illustrate in a powerful way, the distorted social attitude which seems to currently prevail in the USA, when it comes to the contentious issue of abortion. I must assume that this same attitude also prevails in other parts of the world as well, due to the fact that approximately 42 million legal abortions are performed worldwide annually. I want you to consider the following incidents and the general public's reaction to them. These incidents are listed in no particular order, except for the last one:

1. Sept. 11, 2001, 2,996 people dead   - shock, dismay, anger
2. Columbine High School, 13 dead      - shock, dismay, anger
3. John F. Kennedy's assassination     - shock, dismay, anger
4. Martin Luther King's assassination  - shock, dismay, anger
5. Jeffrey Dahmer, 17 gory murders     - shock, dismay, anger
6. John Lennon's murder                - shock, dismay, anger
7. Bali Bombings, 202 dead             - shock, dismay, anger
8. Oklahoma City Bombing, 168 dead     - shock, dismay, anger
9. Branch Davidians Siege, 82 dead     - shock, dismay, anger
10. Jonestown Mass Suicide, 909 dead   - shock, dismay, anger
11. Heaven's Gate Suicides, 39 dead    - shock, dismay, anger
12. 1.3 million annual US abortions    - it's a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases.

Clearly, there is something wrong with our society, when the vast majority of people express shock, dismay, anger, disgust and repulsion upon hearing of the above-noted events, and yet so many of those same people adopt such indifference when it comes to the ugly issue of abortion, and the pre-meditated, cold-blooded slaughter of over 1.37 million unborn, innocent children annually in the United States of America alone.

It just seems to me that if the Supreme Court justices truly wanted to correct the serious legal mistake that was made so long ago, surely they would have done it already. Think about the following. The Roe v. Wade case was first argued before the Supreme Court on December 9, 1971. It was then reargued ten months later on October 11, 1972. The Supreme Court then ruled in favor of "Jane Roe", on January 22, 1973. In short, Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in a matter of just over thirteen months. Thirty-six years have now passed since then; so why is it that the Supreme Court is finding it so difficult to reverse its decision? It just amazes me that three women in their mid-twenties -- Sarah Weddington, Linda Coffee and Norma L. McCorvey -- were able to convince the supposedly wise sages of the U.S. Supreme Court, who should have known better than to have made the Roe v. Wade ruling.

While there exists a variety of reasons, both legal, as well as Bible-based, regarding why the Roe v. Wade ruling should be overturned, one which I find particularly compelling is the fact that the determination was made in part, based upon what we now know was an intentional deception. In the case, Norma L. McCorvey, (who adopted the pseudonym of "Jane Roe"), claimed that her pregnancy was the result of being raped. She has since admitted that this was not true. Furthermore, she has since stated that she was a pawn who was manipulated by two rather ambitious Texas attorneys by the names of Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge Texas law which made abortion illegal, except in the case when it is necessary to save a woman's life. I am obviously no legal scholar, but unless I am mistaken, isn't perjury sufficient reason to throw out a case? Isn't this a valid reason to revisit the Roe v. Wade ruling, even though thirty-six years have passed?

What I find ironic is the fact that while this famous case revolved around McCorvey's right to obtain an abortion, she never actually had the abortion, and gave birth to a girl, which she gave up for adoption. It might also interest you to know that in 1995, McCorvey made a full reversal, and allied herself with "Operation Rescue", which is dedicated to making abortion illegal again. In her 1998 book entitled "Won By Love", McCorvey described the defining moment when she reversed her position regarding abortion. She wrote:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth -- that's a baby!"

"I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion - at any point - was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

----- End Quote -----

Realizing how much damage she had caused to unborn children, in 2004, in the case McCorvey v. Hill, the former "Jane Doe" petitioned to have the 1973 ruling overturned. In the case, she argued that Roe v. Wade should be heard again in light of evidence that abortion does harm to women. However, due to a legal time limitation, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that it was too late for McCorvey to file her case. The district court's ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and on February 22, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Judicial Review, known in legalese as "Certiorari", thus rendering the Fifth Circuit's ruling final; and that is where the case currently stands. Furthermore, I have read certain legal opinions which seem to indicate that due to the specific language that was used in the ruling, it is possible that Roe v. Wade may never be overturned.

What the above information tells me personally, is that the U.S. Supreme Court apparently has no desire or interest in overturning Roe v. Wade. Think about this for a moment. Ms. Norma L. McCorvey petitioned at a time when a conservative administration was in office, and the U.S. Supreme Court is filled with conservative-minded justices. In spite of these facts, by resorting to Certiorari, the court was basically saying "We have no interest in reviewing the case". If this is the best that we can anticipate from a conservative court during a conservative administration, can you imagine what's going to happen when President-elect Obama takes office in less than two weeks?

The handwriting is obviously already written on the wall, and has been for some time. As we discussed before in this series, the Freedom of Choice Act will become law just as soon as the US Congress passes the final version of the bill to incoming president, Barack Obama. As I recently explained to some of my online friends, I was reading a news article which again confirms that Obama won't hesitate to undo some of the good that President Bush has managed to accomplish in the fight to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling during the eight years of his presidency.

The article deals with the Bush Administration's attempt to push through a proposed rule which would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses, pharmacy workers, and other health care workers, who, due to their "religious beliefs or moral convictions", refuse to be involved in abortion procedures, or sterilization procedures. Halfway through the article in question, Obama's intentions regarding this rule, (should it become effective), are made perfectly clear. Consider these excerpts from the article:

----- Begin Quote -----

The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives.

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said they intended to issue a final version of the rule within days. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he would try to rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

----- End Quote -----

The way that Obama will probably rescind this rule, will be by signing the all-encompassing Freedom of Choice Act just soon as it lands on his desk. As we saw earlier, FOCA will make abortion on demand the unquestionable law of the land; and medical professionals won't be able to refuse to perform an abortion, without facing serious legal repercussions. If this is truly an act dealing with the freedom of choice, why will these medical professionals be forced to do something which is against their conscience? FOCA will in fact legally enforce the will of the abortionists upon everyone. The name of this bill is nothing short of deceptive.

So as I've been warning for the past several months, in spite of the wild jubilation that millions of Americans experienced following Obama's November 4th victory, the real truth of the matter is that the United States has turned another dark page in its moral decline by electing Obama. The general consensus is that during his term in office, he will have opportunity to appoint several liberal justices to the US Supreme Court, and probably even more to the Federal Appeals Courts as well. If Obama's first term in office goes well with not too many bumps, and he is re-elected in 2012, he will have opportunity to do even more damage. If we consider that US Supreme Court justices usually serve for life, the depth of the damage that Obama can and probably will do becomes even more apparent.

Therefore, while many people in America watch as the waning days of the Bush Administration are slowly counted down, and anticipate the inauguration of their new president, there is really no reason for us Christians to rejoice. Please refer to the four-part series "Obama, McCain And The Bush Legacy" for more information regarding this issue.

As I noted earlier, as a result of their rejection of God's Word, many people aimlessly walk in spiritual darkness. One of the consequences of their belligerence against the Lord is that they are forced to create their own set of rules by which to live, based upon their flawed moral standard. This of course affects their personal perspective regarding the issue of abortion. While I've mentioned a number of flawed excuses that are sometimes used in order to try to justify slaughtering an unborn innocent child, perhaps some of the saddest, most twisted, and truly bizarre reasons come from two people with whom I communicated online several years ago. The first person stated as follows:

----- Begin Quote -----

"It sounds like you enjoy your life. It's not so easy for some people. The children born to parents who would want to abort them are children who will not have a happy life. Be glad they do not have a chance at God's gift . . . You are doing them a favor in many cases. If the parents don't want them, what do they have to look forward to? They certainly won't belong to any family . . . Is life so grand where you live? People around here who grow up without a family turn into criminals and drug dealers."

----- End Quote -----

A second person, who also engaged in this same conversation with us, made the following similar astounding remarks:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Then I look at the other side. Would you rather have 15 year old mothers aborting their babies or stuffing them in trash cans? Flushing them down the toilet? Throwing them off bridges? At least once a week in this country, (the United States), we hear of a new baby thrown in a dumpster, had in the bathroom during a school dance, and left in the bathroom to die, dropped into a river, or tied in a plastic bag. The babies won't even be given the option of a painless death. They will die cruelly, or they will be neglected, beaten, and otherwise not taken care of their whole lives. Perhaps they will be put into foster care, bouncing from home to home to home all their life, or another teenager on welfare payroll. Can you actually say that God would want these babies to be born into such conditions? I don't think it's murder. I think that it's a good thing to allow mothers the choice of abortion, or bringing yet another welfare baby into the world."

----- End Quote -----

When I read the previous comments by these two individuals, I was absolutely appalled. As I stated earlier, the people who make such shocking comments have fully convinced themselves that their positions are not only very logical, but in fact, very humanitarian as well. As you can see, in their sick and perverted frame of mind, these people have actually convinced themselves that slaughtering an unborn innocent child in cold blood is doing them a big favor. Their sense of morality is so completely warped, that they even insist that we should be glad that these unborn children are killed, and won't have to suffer. May God help them by enlightening them to the truth!

The fact of the matter remains that the idea of committing one horrendous act of violence, (in this case, abortion), in order to potentially prevent another horrible act from being committed, (dumping aborted fetuses in garbage cans, etc.), is totally unjustifiable. It is downright sick!

As we have already seen, in addition to the fact that no one has the right to play "God", none of us knows the future of any of these unborn children, other than God Himself; and if He willed them into existence, as I believe He did, then it must be for a very good reason, whether we understand it or know it or not. Concerning the question regarding whether or not God wants children to grow up in a negative environment, allow me to say this: Of course He doesn't; however, neither is it God's fault that they do. The Lord expects that mother, or those two parents, to forsake their selfish, foolish ways, and to raise that child properly in a loving environment. If they fail to do so, you can bet that He will hold them very accountable.

We saw earlier from the verses in Psalm 139 that God not only knew us long before we were conceived in our mother's womb, but He even designed our exact physical appearance as well. Having now looked at Psalm 139, as well as the story of the young Prophet Jeremiah, allow me to share yet another interesting example that is found in the pages of the Old Testament.

In this case, God foresaw and planned the birth of the son of Abraham; that is, the Patriarch Isaac, who would become the father of Jacob. Jacob, of course, would later be known as Israel, and would become the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. If you are familiar with the story, then perhaps you already know that Abraham and Sarah were well stricken in years, far beyond Sarah's ability to conceive or bare any children for Abraham. Naturally, Abraham was very concerned, because other than Eliezer, who was a Damascene, and also the steward of Abraham's house, he had no flesh heir. Here is a part of the story:

"And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be."


Well, several chapters later, we find both Abraham and Sarah laughing in disbelief at the words of the Lord, because dear Abraham is already one hundred years old, and his wife Sarah is ninety years old. But Abraham and Sarah soon realize that this is no laughing matter, and that the Lord is being quite serious about this whole issue. We'll find out exactly what the Lord told them as we continue this story in part five.


Please go to part five for the continuation of this series.


⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.