Do motherhood obligations begin at conception?

New to this column? Please read this introduction explaining its first-person nature.

This column will discuss the Supreme Court’s reality-rejecting abortion jurisprudence that authorizes the medical profession (scientists who know exactly when life begins) to kill living human beings when asked to do so by pregnant mothers wanting to kill their own children based merely upon their subjective feelings.

Which is correct:

Should a woman have a “right to choose” if she wants to be a mother after becoming pregnant? or

Is a pregnant woman scientifically a mother with a sacred, moral obligation to nurture the living child within her?

Those alternatives are the subject of the discussion following the reproduction below of the first two “It is a scientific fact” sections about that subject taken from the recently published: “A Declaration of Human and Constitutional Rights” by PreBorn Americans United.

  1. It is a scientific fact that all human life begins at the beginning – at the moment of conception/fertilization – where else? And because all human life begins at conception/fertilization. …
  2. … it is a scientific fact that motherhood and fatherhood also begin at the beginning – at conception/fertilization. Therefore, any pregnant woman seeking and getting an abortion is, by simple logic and by scientific fact, “a mother.” And that is true even after she commits an abortion-homicide on her own child! While it may be tempting to say that such a person doesn’t deserve the title of “mother,” and while it is technically accurate to describe such a mother as “a woman,” the intent of using that description is to evade the truth that she is the mother of the child she has killed or is about to kill. It is used as a dishonest, guilt-evading euphemism which inferentially, but clearly, admits the guilty knowledge of the heinous act being committed. Those using such deceptive language argue that “a woman” has “a choice” when the truth that exposes this lie is that that woman, a mother, does not have “a choice” because she has a sacred obligation to God and to her child to love and nurture him or her to birth and beyond.Even if our mothers and fathers want to kill us, and even if they are successful in doing so, honesty demands that they should still be referred to as “mother” and “father” both to reinforce the scientific fact of our humanity and to reinforce the truth that they have violated the most sacred, God-ordained, familial relationship between any two human beings: that between mother and child, and that between father and child. Those sacred relationships are not a question of anyone’s subjective opinion about whether he or she wants to be a parent. The belief in such a “choice” is anti-science, illogical, and a guilt-evading self-delusion. Accept it or deny it, parenthood begins at conception/fertilization with the new life just created. That is a scientific and a moral reality.

    In addition to “mother” and “father” being the more accurate descriptive words, using that honest and scientifically accurate language will confront those mothers and fathers with the truly horrible thing they’ve done, or are about to do, so that they can feel “the sorrow that is according to the will of God [which] produces repentance without regret leading to salvation…” See 2 Corinthians 7:10. Those mothers and fathers, hurting from having aborted their own child, can find counseling from most pro-life organizations but that is the specific mission of Rachel’s Vineyard.


    Regarding that last paragraph above, the meaningful remedy for those suffering from having aborted their own children, or who regret working in the abortion industry, is repentance and God’s forgiveness. See Biblical Encouragement for Women Healing from Abortion and Portraits of Grief in the Aftermath of Abortion.

    Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), upheld Roe v. Wade by masking a mother’s “right to choose” to kill her child in purely mystically and subjective terms, that:

    “… at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life,” page 851.

    That was followed on page 852 with:

    “… the destiny of the woman [a mother] must be shaped to a large extent on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.” Bracketed comment added.

    The actual lives of preborn Americans are given the status of untermenschen (subhuman) in Roe and Casey’s two party “judicial equation” between a mother’s “right to choose” to kill her child and the state’s “legitimate interest in promoting the … potential life of the unborn” (Casey at 870 quoting Roe at 882-883. Emphasis added).

    It is clear that the Court’s abortion cases use “potential life” exactly how the Nazis used “untermenchen” to rationalize the Jewish Holocaust (used in Roe nine times, in Casey about four dozen times). The amicus brief in the recently argued Dobbs case by Texas Right to Life details the malevolence of the term “potential life,” on pages 10-13.

    Regarding subhuman status, an amicus brief by Pacific Justice Institute states that:

    “… it is the mother who treats her aborted fetus as property, and thus as a slave, in violation of the 13th Amendment. Abortion carries with it all the indicia of slavery prohibited by that amendment.” Page 2.

    If our child-sacrificing nation is ever to redeem itself and save, not only tens of millions of helpless preborn babies but their mothers as well, it must acknowledge and expose this Big Lie by educating absolutely everyone that an abortion-homicide doesn’t magically convert a “pregnant mother” into an “un-pregnant person.” It just means that she is now the mother of a dead child – a tragedy, not a cause for celebration. Please respect our 63 million deceased brothers and sisters and continue referring to her as “a mother” for the sake of her ultimate repentance and forgiveness.

    This column is presented so readers understand why the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade next year using Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and why we demand Nuremberg-style trials to bring to justice the pro-abortion leaders responsible for the slaughter of our 63 million innocent brothers and sisters (Dobbs decision by June 2022).

    Please share this column with your friends on both sides of this most important issue as well as on social, print, and broadcast media (for past columns, search for “PreBorn Americans United”).

    And please consider supporting this effort with your greatly appreciated tax-deductible donations to bring you future columns 1) explaining the A Declaration of Human and Constitutional Rights by PreBorn Americans, 2) analyzing and reporting on the 138 briefs filed in Dobbs (some 5,000 to 12,000 words), and 3) reporting on the oral arguments and the decision in the Dobbs case. Donation details here.

    Contact the PreBorn Americans United project at: [email protected].

    Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts