How many times have you heard the phrase, “The science says…?” Have you ever stopped to think where the science came from, who interpreted the data to see what the science is saying, or how the science even works? The average person may think, “Well, the science says it, so it must be true.” In this article, we are looking at the subject of science, and specifically, what science says about the topic of abortion since the Supreme Court Case of Roe V Wade. When most people say “science,” what they’re talking about is the “Scientific Method.” Science is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data. The Scientific Method is the
process of repeatable experimentation that comes to the same conclusion. So the scientific method completely depends on repeatability. Without the ability to try the same experiment over and over and get the same results, you don’t have science; you have a theory at best. First and foremost, we have science because it mirrors the orderliness of its creator, God. The Christian worldview accounts for science through the scope of the Word of God, and what God has revealed about himself through it. God is never changing; He is absolute truth with no deviations. God is the same in the time of Moses, as He is the very day you are reading this
article. So in a world with no God, a world that is random matter in motion with no transcendent purpose, the scientific method cannot exist because there is no guarantee of repeatability. Without the foundation of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent
God as the creator and keeper of all things, you are left with random chance, where atoms chaotically bump into each other like the bouncy ball someone throws against the wall to watch it bounce out of control as it hits everything in sight. In a godless, no-purpose world, science simply cannot exist. But because science does exist, it follows that God must exist. The first piece of science to examine is DNA. In 1973, when Roe V Wade was decided, we could not prove that unique human DNA was formed at the very moment of conception. This DNA, while formed by the mother’s and father’s DNA, is completely independent of the mother and father. We now know that at the moment of conception, unique human DNA is formed, and since unique human DNA is formed, we have human life. We can definitively say that life begins at conception. To support this argument, I’d ask you to think about it like this: if a bone is found in the woods and the police department does a DNA test on it, and it comes back as a bone belonging to a cow, do they investigate the bone as part of a crime? No. But what if the DNA comes back as belonging to a human? How do the police respond? They open an investigation. Why would they open the investigation? Because they have determined human life. If human
life is medically and legally determined by the presence of human DNA, why would human DNA be any different in the womb? Remember, we need repeatability for any honest scientific outcome. So if DNA is a defined marker of human life in every other form of science and/or law, the same DNA remains a marker of life inside the mother’s womb. So the problem we are facing is that people are arguing against DNA as evidence of human life in the womb. This violates the Laws of Logic, particularly “The Law of Noncontradiction.” Here’s an example of the Law of Noncontradiction. Can your car be parked in your driveway in Tennessee and at Disneyland at the same time? No. But why? Why can the car not be in two places at the same time? Because it’s a logical contradiction. And if science and laws of logic are to be believed (which they should), then DNA cannot represent the key marker for human life in a bone found in a field, but NOT represent human life in the womb. The next argument for life beginning in the womb is Fetal Pain. The point at which the child feels pain is debated, but it is the common scientific stance that babies feel pain in the womb. If you come across an animal on the side of the road and want to know if it’s still alive, the most common thing people do is poke it. If the animal doesn’t respond, most conclude it’s not alive. But if the animal moves, we conclude it is. What makes the animal move when it’s poked? It hurts! If something can feel pain, is it alive? Yes. The animal is responding out of a pain reflex, and if the animal was not alive for the nerves to send pain signals to a functioning brain, there would be no response. Therefore, a recordable response to pain equates life. The same is true of a baby in the womb. The final argument to examine is the “clump of cells” defense that was popular from the time of Roe V Wade all the way up into the late 1980s and early 1990s. Abortionists, pro-abortion politicians, and abortion activists used this argument over and over. Some still try to use the “clump of cells” argument, knowing it doesn’t hold up to science. The basic premise is that when fertilization happens, you are left with clumps of random cells that don’t possess any characteristics of life. The clump of cells is no different than a tumor or a skin tag. It is simply a mass of tissue that doesn’t equate life. Like any believable lie, it needs elements of truth. Yes, the baby does start through cells splitting and reproducing, but so are your own cells as you are reading this article (cells reproduce, it’s how God designed them). There are also three subcategories of arguments that fall under the “clump of cells” argument. They are normally thrown out in random order, and as someone dismisses these arguments, the pro-abortion advocates will jump to the next one in line. These arguments are (1) level of development and dependence, (2) location, and (3) size. The level of development/dependence argument gets framed like this: Since this baby isn’t fully developed into a self-autonomous and independent person, he or she isn’t a real person. The
counter to this is very simple and straightforward. If the level of dependence or development is what makes a person, then the people in the hospital on life support are not really people either. If we pulled the plug on the ventilator keeping this person alive, we have committed murder. How can we commit murder on something that isn’t really a person? My 2-year-old, if left to her own volition, would not make it more than a day or two without certain death. She depends on her mother and me to stay alive. The beautiful child with special needs, who is a precious gift from God isn’t really a person according to this train of thought, because they have
physical or mental limitations that prevent their independence. This argument is massively flawed! The person in the hospital on a ventilator and the special needs child are both full of human life given by God. The location argument is framed like this: since the baby is in the mother’s womb, it’s not a baby yet. It won’t be a baby until it’s outside of the mother’s womb. If this argument is true, we
would have to follow it to its logical conclusion. This means there can be places on the earth where you can become “not a real person.” Can you think of any other place on earth that constitutes you not being a real person because you’re standing there? No.
The size argument is framed like this: because the baby is so small, it’s not really a person. If this were true, who decides what the minimum size to qualify as life is? At the time of Roe V Wade, science was certain that the earliest a baby could survive outside the womb was 28 weeks. Modern science is now down to 20 weeks as the earliest a baby could survive. Who knows what the number will be in another decade. So how can the level of dependence or development, location, or size determine a baby is really a human life? It can’t. In closing, we must never lose focus on who the giver of life is. Life doesn’t happen because sperm meets an egg and a biological process happens. Life happens because God gives it, by joining a sperm to an egg. He is the author of life. Therefore, He is the only one qualified to take it. The unjust taking of human life in the mother’s womb is murder, and junk science has been
used to validate it for decades.