Welcome to morganton.com. Skip directly to: our Keyword Search, Section Navigation, Content.

Morganton.com - Morganton - The News Herald

HomeNewsEntertainmentSportsLifestylesOpinionCommunityWeather Online Tools Jobs | Real Estate | Shopping | Classified

Is abortion controversial?

By Kerry Byrd | Truth or Consequences - The News Herald

Published: February 6, 2009

Last week marked another anniversary of legalized abortion in America and was highlighted by our newly elected president making it easier for abortions to be financed and performed outside the country. Consequently there have been numerous opinions offered in numerous forums about the "controversy" of abortion, but I have never understood how someone could allege that this issue is controversial.
A pastor once invited me to his church. I could tell that the motive for me to attend was somewhat suspect, so I inquired about his stand on abortion. I was quickly told that his church avoids such controversial issues, focusing instead on "finding common ground" on which they could all love one another. I explained that I see no controversy in the subject of abortion: scientifically, logically, nor biblically.
In medical school, my colleagues and I were taught to obtain a reproductive history from female patients. We would simply ask how many times they had conceived and compare that answer with how many children they bore. If there was a difference in these two numbers, it was clear that a life had been aborted. The question was then whether there had been a "spontaneous abortion," known as a miscarriage, or "elective abortion," destroying life by other than natural causes. We were not taught to inquire as to the motive of an elective abortion. That information was not needed. We only needed to know that a life was aborted as the details may be useful in making a diagnosis or prognosis. There was no controversy: a life started was aborted.
One reason there was no controversy relates to our scientific education. In light of the variety of science classes we took, the evidence was clear: human life begins at fertilization. This is when two cells become one cell which immediately results in an explosion of biochemical pathways that result in more and more cells forming and specializing into a genetically predetermined function and form. We marveled as we saw the evidence of this under high powered microscopes. The more we learned about the biochemical pathways, the more we were amazed at the design. We marveled more as we saw this occur artificially at fertility labs, when scientists literally injected one sperm into one egg, initiating life. There was no controversy — no pretending that what we were seeing was not happening.
Then there was the logical understanding that there was an appropriate environment needed in which this newly formed life could thrive. Whether fertilization occurred in the fallopian tube or test tube, at the appropriate time, a womb was needed because the female's womb is the best environment to allow the biochemical pathways that started at fertilization to continue. Technology is allowing other environments to substitute for the womb at younger gestational ages, but the reality is that the womb is the best. There is no evidence to suggest that a developing baby is part of her mother's body, it is simply using the mother's womb as the most appropriate place to develop until it is able to live outside the womb.
Even then life is dependent on an appropriate environment in which to live. If I were jettisoned into space or submerged under water, it would soon become very clear that these environments were not suitable to sustain my life, and I would die. However, the fact that I was alive prior to entering a hostile environment is indisputable. To argue that life is not life simply because it cannot live outside the womb is illogical, not controversial.
From a biblical perspective, the evidence is clear: God knew us before we were born. (Psalm 139:13-16, Job 10:8-12, Job 31:15, Isaiah 44:2, Jeremiah 1:5) We all recognize numerous causes of natural death, but to purposefully abort living biochemical pathways within the womb is destroying a person that God formed and knew. This is murder, not controversy.
Is the topic of abortion divisive and polarizing? Yes. Is the abortion industry financially lucrative? Yes. Are some willing to justify murder to accomplish their agendas? Yes (Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden). But is electively aborting life in the womb scientifically, logically, or biblically controversial? No way.

Kerry Byrd, MD, of Valdese Family Practice may be reached at BCBC@directus.net.