new

[Life does not begin at conception]

The sperm is already alive.
The egg is already alive.

When they unite, life CONTINUES.

We don't have life from non life; hence, life does not begin at conception.

Now, it has human dna; therefore, its NATURE is human.

If it is not human, then what is it?

If it is not human, then when does it become human?

If it becomes human at some point, what constituted a change in nature?

If its nature changed from non human to human, what is the differentiation that defines it as human?

Think. Let's suppose there is a person who was in a bad car accident, who is in a coma, lost his arms and legs, is on a breathing machine, cannot communicate, has a catheter, and must be cared for because he cannot sustain his own life.

Is that person human? Of course he is. Humanness is more than arms and legs, more than mere consciousness, more than merely breathing. There is something more, something different, something 'human' that defines its nature.

This nature is possessed by the old people.
This nature is possessed by middle aged people.
This nature is possessed by adults.
This nature is possessed by adolescents.
This nature is possessed by children.
This nature is possessed by babies.
This nature is possessed by that which lives in the womb of the mother.

If what is alive in the womb is NOT human, then it must be okay to transfer it to the womb of a ***** (female dog). There shouldn't be any problem, because its nature is not human.

But, that'd be stupid, wrong, immoral.

Well, pro deathers, those who advocate destroying the helpless life in the womb of the mother, those who promote killing the innocent, tells us what the nature of the life in the womb is at say.... 6 weeks. If it isn't human, then tell us what it IS, not what it is NOT!

If you can't, then step out of the argument and repent of your sin against God for your murderous position.

Pro-lifers will win. I'm convinced of it. As long as we hold to our values against the world’s dehumanizing trends we will counter this darkening culture with light and eventually prevail.

Here are a few reasons for my hope:

1) Pro-aborts can't call themselves what they are. They call themselves pro-choice. It's a not-so-subtle nomenclature shift meant to appeal to freedom-loving Americans. But in the end, I believe, if your rallying cry is a lie your supporters are going to figure it out after a while. They're not pro-choice. They're pro-abortion. But they can't admit to that. If you have to lie about what you're for, you're going to lose...eventually.

2) Improvements in science continues to enhance our knowledge of what's going on in the womb, putting pro-aborts on the side of being "anti-science." When Roe first became the law of the land pro-aborts argued that the baby wasn't a baby at all but just a clump of cells. Most people know that's not true anymore. People have seen 3-D Ultrasounds. People have seen the photo of the baby reaching out during an in-utero surgery. The numbers of the ignorant are dwindling and that aids our cause.

3) There are no great pro-choice speeches and there never will be any. You can't move people by speaking eloquently of the right to have consequence-less sex with someone you don't love. Think back - how many great speeches in the American pantheon have there been which include the words "rape and incest." I'm thinking it's a pretty low number. "Give me freedom or give me rape and incest" just doesn't work right. Even the great orator of our time Barack Obama could only come up with, "I don't want them punished with a baby" in support of abortion. Pro-lifers on the other hand speak about those things which move us -life, rights and God. In the end, our superior speechifying will win out.

4) We pro-lifers have more babies. It's simple. Those that don't believe in killing babies in the womb typically end up having more babies. Pro-lifers are more...prolific. Go to church some Sunday and you'll hear a chorus of babies attempting to drown out the sermon. You don't bring babies to a NARAL meeting. It's considered rude. In the end, demographics win.

I truly believe we'll win. We have to. We must. And we must never accept that some must die for convenience or that some must be selected to die for the greater good of society. And we must not accept that killing someone is a mercy to them because their life would be difficult due to illness. Until every life is legally esteemed as sacred we should never rest and never give up.

As an example of the shifting tide, ABC News (7/29) covered a heartwarming story of two unborn babies with a terrible problem. The twins were diagnosed with "Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome," a deadly complication that would likely kill both unborn children. The children were saved by a remarkable in utero surgery.

Almost as remarkable as the surgery, however, is the the fact the ABC decided to do a story which so clearly illustrates the humanity of the unborn. Add to that, this introduction by Charlie Gibson.

We have “Closer Look,” tonight, at some of the most awe-inspiring surgery that modern medicine has to offer. It is not an operation performed on a heart or a brain, as delicate as those procedures might be. This surgery is done on the tiniest, most fragile of patients imaginable. Babies yet to be born. ABC’s John McKenzie on a rare procedure done inside the womb. Not just on one fetus, but two.
Were that not enough, the piece included this exchange between John McKenzie and Dr. Kenneth Moise of the Texas Children's Hospital.

MCKENZIE: Using a kind of miniature telescope, doctors enter Kim’s amniotic sack. And there they are, the boys. Their perfectly formed feet and hands.

MOISE: You can see them moving sometimes they’ll reach up and grab the scope.

MCKENZIE: The fetus will grab the scope?

MOISE We’ve had it actually pull on the scope.
As we remember from the famous Michael Clancy photo, nothing illustrates the humanity of the unborn better than their little hands grasping just as newborns do.