[Editor’s note: Following is the final exchange of an e-mail correspondence on the subject of abortion. Such discussions tend to wander all over the place. Usually I begin to number the points for easier reference. Thus the numbers and the comments following them in italics are mine. The respondent, who called himself Sevin, could not answer the arguments; so he decided to terminate the discussion by accusing me of misrepresenting him. Many of his replies are very weak. I am willing for the reader to decide who has the best case. Below we begin with his comments and responses to my previous e-mail, and then follow my final comments to him.]
SEVIN: In any event the continued blatant distortions on your part has made it necessary to discontinue this discussion with you, for it appears you are currently not able to consider any facts presented to you other than those that underscore your own perceptions…. Nonetheless I will extend you the courtesy of replying once again to the points you here seek further clarification on, as it relates to my previously stated convictions.
1. Define personhood. Why is it that you are not specific? When does the child become a person? If your answer is that you do not know, then you have no reason to argue the subject (since you have no case).
SEVIN: Since we agree that personhood is more than the aggregation of human tissue, allow this further addition: Personhood results from the divinity contribution to the conception of human life. It results in the production of the soul and is a product of the Spirit that thereby accomplishes and effects this extraordinary partnership between humankind and God. There is no evidence for concluding that bestowal of the soul begins at the time of human conception, other than the citing of the very extraordinary instance of the conception of the Son of God which Son had a prior [prehuman] origin.
2. We agree that, in your words, personhood and human cells are not the same thing. For that reason a child (person) should not be aborted. The child is not just cells. The child in the womb is a person. Proof? Read Luke 1:41, 44 and Luke 2:12, 16. GOD calls what is in the mother’s womb a person. He designates the child IN the womb by the same term as the child OUT of the womb. Now try to deal directly with this point.
SEVIN: As just stated: The instance of the conception of John by Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah, and the conception of Jehoishua [Jesus] through the action of the Holy Spirit that miraculously transferred His prehuman, preexisting eternal life from heaven into the womb of the woman. This was a special intervention which does not apply in the same manner to all other humans [1 John 1:1-3] who, while being the inheritors of life through their parents’ living egg and sperm, are not specially conceived or protected either during the time spent in the womb or afterward, as is (as you have acknowledged) evidenced in the case of human stillbirths and spontaneous abortions.
3. Medically, a child has its own heartbeat at the age of 12 weeks. The baby’s lungs are also working by that time; this person also has his own teeth, fingernails, toenails, and hair follicles. Bones are already growing. His lips are already sucking a thumb. Most abortions do not occur prior to this time. Why, for you, does this not constitute personhood?
SEVIN: You are reciting progressions of human development prior to birth. The differentiation of cells into varied organs, nervous system, brain etc., while being evidence of the development of the unborn, is not proof of personhood for personhood requires “ensoulment.” Reflexive actions [reflexes] in the womb [responses and movements] are evidences of the developing nervous system and brain but do not evidence personhood which requires personality differentiation resulting from the bestowal of the soul. No medical procedure can establish whether the growing pre-natal form becomes ensouled while in the womb or can determine when such may occur after the birth of the completely formed previously unborn human.
Nonetheless I state this with much reservation for to no degree am I–now or at any time prior–sanctioning the routine abortions given at abortion clinics and the abuses of that procedure and of its ready indiscriminate availability.
4. It is your inaccurate understanding regarding personhood that leads you to make statements such as the following from your previous e-mail: Sevin: “If then you believe that western laws are based upon biblical precepts why do you not then accept them, including Roe vs. Wade? Why are you so certain that God did not inspire that work so as to prevent childhood abuse?” You state that perhaps Roe v. Wade might have been inspired by God to prevent child abuse. You ARE saying that abortion prevents child abuse. You really should think about the implications of what you say.
SEVIN: My, my, how you exaggerate and misinterpret, for nowhere do I state that “abortion prevents child abuse.” For although I understand how you would reach such a conclusion as your way of defending your position–a position which I do not altogether disrespect. As I have mentioned before, it has been your labeling of all others who have availed themselves of abortions that has prompted my replies to you.
5. Malice. You continue to miss the distinction between premeditated versus malice and hatred. If the child in the womb is a person (which the Scriptures and medical knowledge confirm), then malice and fear as motivations are irrelevant. The doctor who does the abortion knows he is killing a human life. The mother may or may not know, depending on the information she has. But the child is just as dead, regardless. It IS murder because the child possesses personhood.
I gave you an example of your “no malice, no murder” fallacy. You answered that I would be breaking a law by killing someone with whom I disagreed. True. But let’s say that legislators adopt YOUR philosophy and choose not to call it murder if there is no malice. Since I am just trying to make society better, I kill you because you cannot discern between a toenail and a human being and are an obvious threat to society. It would still be wrong to do so whether or not our laws permitted it–even if I didn’t harbor any malice, because you are made in the image of God. So it is with abortion.
SEVIN: Is there no end to such skewed extrapolations on your part which would attempt to make it appear that I deem an unborn human to have no more value than a toenail, hair follicle, etc.? My original reply related to human cells–not to a fully formed human. Why do you persist in misrepresenting me?
6. You say that aborting a child the day before birth is stretching a point? Nevertheless, it is LEGAL until the time of birth. But answer this: When would it not be stretching the point? Two days earlier? Two months? When?
SEVIN: I agree, It is unfortunate and tragic that legal precedent and law do not make a distinction between the conceptus [recently conceived human cells] and its more fully developed state as is occurring and being completed during the third trimester. This is a matter of legal reticence and likely ineptness and confusion.
7. Miscarriages occur tragically, and this loss often makes a profound impression on the mother. She knows she has lost a child. It was not through anyone’s intent or premeditation that such occurs–any more than a stillborn child is–or a child already born meeting with an accident. This is not parallel to anything we are discussing.
SEVIN: Check again the context in which those tragic possibilities were mentioned. I will post the entire text again in its entirety if you wish.
8. I have not said that my definition was a legal one or a dictionary one. I said it is a Biblical definition. You have yet to show that Biblically it is false. Murder is taking the life of an innocent human being without the authority of God. Which part of the definition is false, and what Scripture proves the case?
SEVIN: In conclusion: Far be it from me to dissuade you from highly regarding any stage of the development and maturation of human life. I have repeatedly set forth my convictions in the matter while continuing to suggest you not play the judge or executioner of those you deem to have violated your interpretation of biblical precepts.
Therefore, Maintain YOUR respect for both the born and the unborn and you should do well and be an example for others less inclined to imitate.
This discussion has been helpful to me in many ways. Thanks for so engaging.
[Sevin 1/30/99 12: 46 AM].
[Below is my last message to Sevin. Since all the comments are mine, they will not appear in italics.]
In every paragraph (nearly), you accuse me of misrepresenting you. If you genuinely believe that to be so, then you should break off the discussion. However, one wonders if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of the same things. Even when I have pointed out your own words to you (documentation), you still accuse me of misrepresentation. This is hardly a proper way to have a discussion. So far as I am concerned, you may break off the discussion at any time, but I would like to point out that you have fallen short on evidence for your position. Calling me judgmental (your references to being judge and executioner, in case you have forgotten already) is nothing more than judgmentalism on your part.
I have not intentionally misrepresented you or any person; there is no need. To show you the implication of your position is not misrepresentation. Certainly, you do not hold some of the positions I have set forth, but what you say results in some of the things I have pointed out. Calling them misrepresentations does not deal with the argument or defend your ideas.
1. When does a child become a person? Although you said a lot, you never specified WHEN. Here is your reply: “Personhood results from the divinity contribution to the conception of human life. It results in the production of the soul and is a product of the Spirit that thereby accomplishes and effects this extraordinary partnership between humankind and God.” Your definition is fine as far as it goes, but it never states WHEN God does His part. You say there is no evidence for it at conception. You could be right (although this seems like the logical time to me). But if you are right, then are you not obligated to specify WHEN the correct time is?
2. It is true that Jesus was preexistent as Deity (John 1:1-3), but John was not, and it is John who is called by the same Greek word IN the womb as Jesus was OUT of the womb. You did not answer this question, either. (Please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting you or your answer. Anyone reading this exchange will know you have not answered sufficiently questions #1 or #2).
3. Personhood requires “ensoulment.” No argument, but again, WHEN does ensoulment occur?
4. To accuse me of exaggeration will not do. You wrote: “Perhaps Roe v. Wade might have been inspired by God to prevent child abuse.” If this statement does not mean that legalized abortion (the upshot of Roe v. Wade) prevents child abuse (the later possibility of being abused once an unwanted child is born), then what did you mean?
5. Your answer to number five was not germane to the point being made.
7. Once again, you did not respond to the point being made. What happens through nature is not comparable to human beings making a conscious decision to terminate an innocent human life.
8. Once again, you did not address or prove wrong the definition. All you need to do is cite one Scripture or one Bible example. You have not done so because you cannot do so. If you can do so, I will gladly rethink the definition I have been using.
[Our communication regarding these issues terminated at this point. It is instructive to observe how Sevin dodges the questions. For example, though I clearly asked him WHEN a child becomes a person, he never answered. He rambled on and on about HOW “ensoulment” occurs, but never came close to specifying WHEN. He was certain that the WHEN was not at conception, but could not name any other time.
His answer regarding Jesus and John as being special interventions still does not answer the question. There still came a point in time when, regardless of God intervening, that Jesus and John were conceived. Were they persons at that point? If so, then why would it be different for any other human being? If not, then WHEN did they attain “personhood”?
Sevin could not deal with the implications of his own statements. He said earlier in the discussion that malice and hatred were necessary for abortion to be murder. This philosophy would allow someone to kill others for the good of society, so long as hatred and malice were absent. He refused to touch the Biblical definition of murder. The reason debates are so valuable is that they allow the discerning person to notice these things.]