Abortion and Evolution
The battle rages on all fronts to preserve the unborn baby. Christians are lobbying and protesting across the nation to preserve the inherent right to life. However, those in the scientific and medical community have continued to depersonalize the humanity of the unborn with supposed findings based on evolutionary philosophy.
Considered simply a "fetus," the humanity of the unborn child is often viewed today as contingent upon its full development. This concept is not governed by scientific facts, but rather by an evolutionary presupposition that assumes life is only a process, rather than the result of a special moment of creation.
This premise arose from a scientific idea that one could determine evolutionary history by studying the development of the fetus. For example, human life begins with a single cell and then multiplies in complexity. During one stage, the human fetus has so-called "gill slits" that seem to represent the "fish stage" in human development.
Next, the fetus seems to have a tail segment similar to reptiles, and the yolk sac seems similar to bird evolution.
Thus, the development of the fetus has appeared to some scientists as a mere reflection of how humans supposedly developed from lower animal forms. This idea was widely taught even at the beginning of this decade. Even though this evolutionary idea of fetal development has been scientifically disproven, the notion still seems to prevail. Evolutionists argue that the fetus has not fully evolved into a baby, and thus has no need or right to life because it is not fully human.
A closer examination of this premise reveals scientific error, however. The "gill slits," or pharyngeal pouches, actually become the thymus gland, the parathyroids, and the middle ear canals. The "tail", or coccyx, is a point of muscle attachment at the...