"I was equating it with killing a child," said Willocks, 54, who now gives talks in support of such research. "I thought of it as grinding up fetuses and all of that, so I didn't want any part of it."
What changed Willocks was a personal experience.
She watched a friend and a fellow Parkinson's sufferer get to where she could move only her eyes for two months before dying. Willocks then went back to her Bible, recalled God's compassion for the living and determined that cells in a petri dish aren't sacred because Scripture informs her that "life begins in the womb," she said.
Notice how Willocks first changed her mind based on a personal experience and then went to the Bible in an effort to affirm what her changed mind already felt. There's nothing quite like ignoring reality and hoping that you'll be able to find a scripture to bend to your will.
I'm really wondering what verse of Scripture informs her that "life begins in the womb?"
I'm guessing there are 2 possibilities.
There's Jeremiah 1:5 which says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart." It would be hard to rationalize Willocks' belief with this verse because the verse indicates that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. One could even argue that "before I formed you in the womb" could mean the time between conception and implantation. But then again it's entirely possible that Willocks has decided that "formed" equates with "life begins" so that Scripture can conform to her personal views.
Then there's Pslams 139:13 which says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." Here the psalmist says that God knit him together in the womb or that God aided in his growth. I wonder why Willocks didn't continue reading Psalm 139 and then decide that according to Psalm 139:15 that life begins "in the depths of the earth." Why isn't she claiming that our lives began in liquid hot magma?
For Willocks to claim that either of these verses (or any other verse) shows that "life begins in the womb" is absurd.
I wonder what will happen to the opinions of people like Willocks, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (quoted in the article) and Orrin Hatch if or when our technology takes us to the place where artificial wombs are able to nurture a human child until birth. Will they then claim that a born child who was never implanted in a woman's womb isn't alive because "life begins in the womb."
Here's another quote that informs us how the reporter feels about unborn children:
As with the abortion issue, much hinges on the moral status of biological material that could one day become a full-fledged human being.
Biological material? Could become a full-fledged human being? Grrr......
HT: World Mag Blog