Are the Lives of the Unborn of Less Importance than the Choice of the Mother?

Does autonomy and self-determination outweigh the life inside the womb? Do all children—both born and unborn—deserve the protections afforded to us as inalienable rights? This week, Jo and Vince answer a sensitive question about abortion, discussing their personal experience with their son’s earliest weeks of life, the philosophical issue of when “personhood” begins, the societal implications of denying personhood to certain classes of people, and the biblical understanding of a God who loves every person and was willing to go to great lengths to give life to his children.


I believe the greatest scripture for this question is Jeremiah 1:5. 'Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. ’

If God knew us before we developed in the womb, we must have had existence of some sort before conception. Conception and birth is God’s method of bringing us to earth from heaven.
He has plans for each of us, which He made before conception. Whether we follow and continue in those plans after birth is subject to our free agency.

Why should any other human being, even a biologic mother, be allowed by to interfere with divinely endowed free agency?
The woman’s ‘choice’ should be made before conception. In the case of rape, let the child be born and, if the mother still does not want it, let it be adopted.

One thing that I appreciate about RZIM speakers in general is their sensitivity to the people behind the issue. I think this was amply demonstrated in the way Vince and Jo acknowledged people from all sides on this emotionally very difficult topic.

I mean, many pro-lifers - and I include myself here - know all the arguments: Focusing on the biological fact of the humanity of the unborn, trotting out the toddler, etc. At the same time, it would do the pro-life cause much good if all of us learned to acknowledge the emotional complexity of the issue, like Vince and Jo did. Bravo!

What is the Indian saying that Ravi quotes often? That there’s no point in cutting off someone’s nose and then giving him a rose to smell? :slight_smile:


Hi, David. I appreciate the Scripture you mentioned and the thoughts about God’s knowledge of us. I am curious, though: if there is no time in God’s realm, as in time is relegated to the Earth and its rotations/revolutions, would that change this? Very interesting thought you brought up. Thank you for that!

When it comes to cases of rape, I gently but strongly request that Christian men be very careful about how they speak. May I speak freely? Men can have sex and walk away scot free, without a care in the world about whom they were with. When rape is involved for a woman, just because the violent act itself is over does not mean the consequences for the woman are over. They are not. I sadly do not think most men have ever truly considered the fear and horror that actually happens during rape, and the only possible thing they might understand is the idea of being in prison and being raped by another man (cellmate) with the possibility of that happening repeatedly. Then men “might” have an inkling of the ongoing saga that rape creates.

Then add to that the conception of a child. It may be easy for men to say, “Just have the baby and then decide if you want it or not.” That comes across, although I doubt you meant it this way, as very heartless and callous. That unwilling mother has to not only carry this child and feel the ongoing and constant reminder of her assault daily for nearly an entire year, but also she has to deal with the financial fallout that she very well may be unable to meet.

Should not the man’s choice be brought into this scenario as well, rape or not? The faulty logic of it being all a woman’s choice is godless at best, resting on man’s pride and willingness to blame the woman, just as Adam did so many centuries ago. This topic should be handled prayerfully by all involved, and carefully even more so by us who claim Christ. Christians fill churches that sweep sexual assault and seduction under the rug, often under the guise of “boys will be boys”. Again, that is a godless philosophy and negates all of the personal responsibility to which our Almighty Father holds us.

Hopefully this can help us see that especially for women who have not had their eyes opened by and to Christ, a one-size-fits-all answer that seems to have no heart in it can drive them away from Christ instead of drawing them to Him.

This is a difficult topic, to be sure, and one that I wish we could have face-to-face so voice inflections and facial gestures can be seen to avoid misunderstandings. May we approach all of this with the fruit of the Spirit that He is working out in each of us. :pray::pray::pray:


Not less important, MORE important. I DO believe the rapist should be brought to justice and receive appropriate recompense. Every effort should be made to identify and apprehend said individuals. But don’t force the child to share the punishment. As to financial hardship, as I stated before, adoption is always available.

A post was split to a new topic: Should we consider that all reserved rights by national legislators and international agreements for persons are for embryos too?

I believe the question sets up a false dichotomy, as if the importance of the one necessarily precludes the importance of the other. I think that BOTH the life of the unborn AND the choice of the mother are sacred and inalienable. Let me use myself as illustration…

I can do whatever I want to with my own property, while I’m on my own property. These are inalienable rights. My property, my choice.

Enter the context: I own my home, and I own a gun (well, a few, actually, but that’s beside the point hehe)

If I can do whatever I want to with my property, on my property, I should be able to fire my gun, right? Well, that’s only true until MY bullet passes the boundary of MY property and into territory that is NOT mine. Once that happens, all bets are off, and I bear full responsibility for that bullet and anywhere it traveled.

So it is with the mother’s choice. As long as her choice stays on her property, her will reigns supreme, sovereign, unchallenged. But as soon as her choice crosses over into territory that does NOT belong to her – i.e. the body that belongs to her child – all bets are off, and she bears full responsibility for whatever happens to the child.

1 Like