No, Sperm are not People (and Stop Using that Bad Argument)

When I debate pro-aborts, I often hear some version of this argument: "But aren’t sperm and eggs alive? Does masturbation kill children? Or are there children on used tampons?" It’s a really bad argument, but I hear it a lot. The idea seems to be to ridicule Christians and try to throw out life at conception arguments by pretending that sperm are people too (or at least that Christians think so).

The root of this idea, that Christians think it is murder to kill a sperm cell, seems to come from a passage in Genesis 38:8-10 where a man named Onan is killed by God after engaging in coitus interruptus.

King James Version
“And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.”

The argument that Onan's sin was ejaculating outside a woman is a Catholic interpretation that is not consistent with the rest of the Biblical text or an understanding of Bible times. Furthermore, this is one of the ideas that has put ammunition in the hands of pro-choicers to claim that Christians think sperm are human beings and shouldn't be "killed” – either in an attempt to ridicule Christian beliefs or to argue that life doesn’t begin at fertilization.

In interpreting this passage, it’s important to look at the context, the rest of the Bible, and also to have an idea of the culture at the time. Onan's actual sin was marrying a woman (Tamar) and then flat out refusing to provide for her. The problem wasn't that he "spilled his seed on the ground," but that he didn't ever plan to get her pregnant at all. The text even says that was his motivation.

Onan only married Tamar, his dead brother's wife, because it was his duty to provide an heir for his brother and a child to care for Tamar in her old age. Refusing to give her a child meant that Onan would inherit more (his brother would have no heir to get a share of the family inheritance), so he planned never to get her pregnant, even though that would mean Tamar would be left alone with no child one day.

Other translations make this even more clear.

English Standard Version
"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother."

Note that it says "whenever" he had sex with Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground. This indicates, not just one contraceptive act, but a pattern intended to deprive her and his dead brother of an heir. The wording in the King James version is vague as to whether it was one time or a pattern. It could be either, although the phrase "and it came to pass" usually indicates the passage of a period of time and thus suggests multiple instances. Most translations, however, use wording that indicates an on-going pattern of refusal to produce a child. Thus, the sin of Onan is made more clear in being a refusal to produce a child out of selfishness, not a one time act of placing sperm outside a woman's vagina.

Also, given that the sin of Onan was serious enough to cause God to strike him dead, one would think it would be clearly spelled out elsewhere in Scripture. If the sin was putting sperm somewhere besides a woman's vagina, there is no mention anywhere else in Scripture that this is forbidden. On the other hand, if the sin was refusing to provide a child to his wife and thus to fail to provide for her old age as well, there is other Scripture that is consistent with this. For example, the Bible tells us in I Timothy 5:8 that a man who fails to provide for his family is “worse than an infidel” (i.e. an unbeliever). So, apparently, God does consider it a grave sin for a man to fail to provide for His family.

So the Bible does not teach that sperm are sacred or that they can only be placed inside a woman. And it certainly does not teach that they are human beings.

My position makes much more sense of the Bible as a whole, I think, but it also makes sense of the science involved in human reproduction in which sperm die naturally every day. Sperm die and are reabsorbed in the male reproductive tracts if they aren't ejaculated. Sometimes sperm are released during nocturnal emissions (i.e. "wet dreams"), which is perfectly natural. Of the millions of sperm that are ejaculated at any one time, the vast majority never even reach the egg (assuming there is even an egg there), and of those who do, only one (at most) will actually fertilize it. Human biology sure doesn’t seem designed to keep sperm from dying. The design of the human reproductive system doesn't seem to indicate any principle that sperm are anything more than just cells or that the death of a sperm cell is cause for alarm or that sperm must be conserved and only released inside a woman.

Most importantly, we know from science that only after a sperm and egg fuse is there a separate human being. Sperm and eggs by themselves are just cells - no different than a skin cell or blood cell in that regard. They're part of the body they came from, but broken off, as it were. They aren't separate living organisms.

Of course, there are Christians who disagree with me on the topic of contraception and do think it is a sin. However, even these people agree that contraception does not kill a human being. Nobody is claiming that sperm are human children.

Killing sperm is not the same thing as killing a human individual. That's biological fact, regardless of anyone's position on contraception. Sperm are not human beings.

West Virginia Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks Over Governor Veto

According to this article, West Virginia lawmakers have passed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks over a governor veto. The bill was passed and then vetoed by Governor Tomblin. It was then passed again, 77-16, to override the veto and make it law.

Bans on late-term abortion are overwhelmingly supported by the people across the country and of different political views. But they still have a hard time passing in many areas because of leftist senators, representatives, and governors who fight these protections for unborn children.

Babies at 20 weeks are known to be capable of feeling pain and babies as young as 22 weeks have survived outside the womb. All of the organs and organ systems are in place and starting to function. Babies of this age and younger have also been successfully operated on while still in the womb.

Of course, unborn babies of any age are human individuals and should be protected, but even people who cannot see this fact can recognize that a 20 week old fetus looks like a human baby and has all the usual organs. And since they can feel pain, it is especially cruel to allow them to be dismembered and crushed during an abortion.

Vetoing the bill was a despicable thing to do. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing young human individuals who can feel pain to be barbarously murdered simply because they are unwanted.

But thankfully, the legislators of West Virginia have stepped up and provided protection for these vulnerable members of the human race. Good for them. Keep it up, West Virginia. There are more babies needing protection.

Abortion is Not Compassionate

In discussing abortion with someone who is pro-choice, it doesn’t take long to realize that they consider supporting abortion to be a compassionate choice. They know that a lot of women have very bad situations and aren’t prepared to take care of a baby. So in sympathizing with these women, they want to offer them the choice to abort.

But abortion is not really compassionate. It’s false compassion that is more about making people feel better, not addressing the underlying issues in their lives and really helping them.

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

A woman has a boyfriend who has a minimum wage job, drinks to excess sometimes, and hates kids. She wants to get married and have a family someday, but the current guy isn't husband and father material, nor is he in a position to take care of a family. But he's what she has for now and she doesn't really expect it to be permanent. Or maybe she's hoping he'll come to his senses and see what a perfect match they are and marry her. They live together and have a 2-year lease. They share phone and utility bills. She's finishing up a degree and working nights. All the sudden, she finds out she's pregnant.

Of course she's panicked because she was definitely not planning on this. Her boyfriend is mad when he finds out and tells her to get rid of the baby. She knows she can't afford a baby now and couldn't afford to pay the rent and other bills by herself if her boyfriend leaves. She doesn't want to be a single mother, but her boyfriend is showing no interest in marrying her or raising a child. She feels trapped and scared. "If only there were no baby," she thinks. If only there was a quick fix, an undo button. A baby will ruin everything.

So she considers abortion.

This is a VERY common scenario. Lots of women find themselves in this very situation or one very similar. They’re pregnant at a time when they truly are not prepared and having a child would be tremendously problematic. And it's very sad.

It’s also totally avoidable.

While I am all for helping this woman learn about adoption possibilities or find financial help and childcare services so that she can continue to work and go to school and keep her child, wouldn't it be better if she had avoided the situation all together?

The thing is, this woman chose to get herself into this situation. She chose a boyfriend who wouldn’t commit to marriage and she chose to have sex, even though she knew that she was in no position to take care of a baby. There is no quick fix or undo button in real life. Actions have consequences, and sometimes you have to live with them. Killing an innocent unborn child to take away the consequences of your own bad choices is not the right answer.

Wouldn’t it be better if she had chosen another path – one of abstinence and logical choices? Why can’t we advocate that women avoid sex when they know they aren’t in a position to have a baby. After all, conceiving a child is a very real possibility whenever you have sex - even if you use contraception! That’s just a fact of life. And it’s better to face the facts than to live in denial, only to have a rude awakening when the unexpected happens and you’re totally unprepared and terrified.

What we’re currently doing, as a society, is encouraging women to live in denial about the consequences of sex. And then we wonder why they end up in such bad situations where they feel trapped and scared and are desperate for someone to tell them they’ll make it all go away. It’s not a much of a choice when they feel so desperate and everything is screaming at them to take the easy road and kill their baby.

I want women to have the information to make good choices and avoid getting into bad situations in the first place. Advocating abortion as a quick fix is not only wrong, but it keeps us from finding a real solution to this kind of difficult situation.

The truth is that it’s not okay to kill a baby in order to make a woman’s life better or easier. It’s not okay to make bad choices that lead to the creation of a child at a time when a pregnancy would be catastrophic and then get out of the consequences by ending an innocent life. If you’re going to engage in activities that make a baby, you have to live with those choices. Making the baby pay the price for her parents’ bad decisions isn’t fair or right.

Offering abortion as a “solution” to women like this is not only wrong, but it’s not helping them either. It’s enabling their bad decisions. It’s preying on their fears and hardships. And it’s killing their children. Abortion is NOT compassionate.

Proof that Life Begins at Fertilization

It is well-known and well-established from science that life begins at fertilization. A new human individual comes into being when a human sperm and human egg fuse. This is no secret. There is no controversy in scientific circles. It's at least as established as the theory of gravity.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Here is an article with 41 quotes from scientific sources that show this scientific consensus on the topic. And if you don't believe these, you're welcome to speak to any biologist or embryologist or read any human anatomy or embryology text for yourself. Even better, you could study these subjects, get a degree and become an expert on the topic. No matter how deep you decide to dig, you'll come to the same conclusion. It's not difficult at all to determine when life begins. It's already been done. It's been verified many, many times. It's a simple fact that life begins at fertilization.

Here are some of the quotes from the article:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012).

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and  Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30.

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”

Landrum B. Shettles, “Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth” Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983 p 40. (Landrum Shettles was the first scientist to successfully complete an in vitro fertilization.)

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”

Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”

James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985).

“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum and a much smaller male sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into the complex …structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.”

Clark, J. ed., The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in the Human Body, Torstar Books Inc., Toronto, 1985, page 99.


These are just a few of the many, many such quotes from scientists and medical professionals that affirm that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life. This is well-known fact that no biologist contests.

The ONLY reason remaining for doubting this obvious fact is that people don't like it. They don't want to believe it. Why? Perhaps they don't want to have to face the fact that abortion kills a human individual. If they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't know when life begins, they can keep their position that abortion is okay. I can't think of any other reason.

Amazing Photos that Show the Humanity of the Unborn

 

This picture shows an ultrasound of my nephew, Kyler, in the womb compared to a picture of him at about a year old. The similarity is amazing! His distinctive facial features were already present, long before he was born.

 

Of course, scientifically speaking, that isn't really so surprising. After all, his genetic blueprint has been there since he was a zygote. Yes, Kyler was a zygote, then he was an embryo, then he was fetus, then he was a neonate, and now he is a toddler. But going through different stages of development didn't change who he is. He was the same person before and after birth. Birth didn't change who he was. It only changed his location.

 

This example is just one of many that demonstrates the humanity of children in the womb. We are all distinct and unique human individuals from conception onward.

 

If it would be wrong to kill Kyler now (and it is), it would also have been wrong to kill him in some earlier stage of development. That previous stage was the same child, just a little younger. It was still Kyler.

 

The arguments that are often given for abortion don't hold up when you consider this simple fact - that the child who is born is the same child that was in the womb. It's the same person.

So if it would NOT be okay to kill a toddler because of these reasons:

 

• his mother's life is difficult
• he is unloved
• he'll grow up poor or abused
• his mother was raped
• he's a burden on his mother
• he has a physical deformity
• his parents are closely related
• his mother isn't ready to be a mother right now

Then it is NOT okay to kill that same child when he's younger and still in the womb for those reasons either.

It's really very simple. Abortion is not okay. Abortion is wrong. It's the killing of a defenseless human child. No excuses or sad stories about the mother make it okay to kill the child.