We stand for the right to life, not simply because the state needs more people, but rather because each human being is a unique creation of God, endowed with personhood and the rights that attach to personhood from the moment of conception.

On April 25-26, I had the privilege of representing LFL at a symposium of national pro-life leaders in Atlanta, sponsored by Georgia Right to Life.

The immediate impetus of the symposium was the Georgia Human Life Amendment, by which Georgia would recognize in its state constitution that human personhood begins at conception and therefore the rights that attach to personhood begin at conception.

Robert Muise of the Thomas More Center contended that, even though efforts to pass the Georgia Human Life Amendment were unsuccessful in this session of the legislature, we should continue these efforts not only in Georgia but also across the nation. The amendment would mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, and with the support of Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and possibly Kennedy, it is possible the Court would sustain the amendment as constitutional. Muise noted, "It’s always the right time to do the right thing," and he closed by quoting Wayne Gretzky: "You miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take."

Joni Eareckson Tada gave a video greeting in which she emphasized that all human life is meaningful because all humans are created in God’s image. Her own highly productive life as a quadriplegic is a living testimony that God has a plan for each and every one of us and that He uses us in His service despite (or because of) our defects.

In my own presentation, I began by saying that as a military man and a martial artist, I know it is best to attack at your strong point against your opponent’s weak point. That’s why we should emphasize the personhood of the unborn child—because the evidence from Scripture and medicine alike overwhelmingly demonstrates that the unborn child is a living human being. Justice Blackmun skirted this issue in Roe v. Wade. Instead, the legal debates have focused upon the state’s interest in the life of the unborn child and when that interest becomes compelling. But the state’s interest is a very frail reed upon which to rest our case. The state might argue, as Texas did in Roe, that it has a compelling interest in the life of the unborn child, because that child might grow up to be a useful citizen, serving in the armed forces, the work force, and among the ranks of taxpayers. But in different circumstances state officials might argue that they have an interest in abortion because the unborn child may grow up to be a criminal or an economic drain upon society.

The only solid basis upon which we must rest our case is the personhood of the unborn child, created in God’s image and therefore endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.

I also noted that conservatives have had mixed reactions to a national human life amendment: on the one hand, we want to oppose abortion, but on the other hand, we believe criminal jurisprudence should normally be left to the states. A state human life amendment should satisfy both concerns.

In speaking about personhood, I was also able to explain Luther’s concepts of the two kingdoms, the church being the kingdom of the right and the state being the kingdom of the left, and the role that revelation and reason play in these two kingdoms. As Christians, we formulate our convictions about human personhood from the Word of God. But when we enter the public arena of the courtroom or the legislature, we need to be prepared to defend our position before unbelievers based upon logic and evidence.

A highlight of the conference was bioethicist and author Wesley Smith, who noted that various modern ethicists try to define a "human person" as an organism with minimum intelligence, awareness, self-control, memory of the past, consciousness of the future, concern for others, and ability to communicate. Depending upon what levels are set for these tests, almost anyone could be defined out of personhood.

In his lecture on "Frankenscience," Smith spoke chillingly of the "transhumanists," those who want to practice cloning and other forms of genetic engineering to produce entirely new species of superhuman creatures, rendering mere humans as relics of an evolutionary past. He emphasized that we should not be intimidated into silence: "This is not a science debate; this is an ethics debate. Science can’t tell us what is right or wrong . . . Science can’t tell us whether human life has value."

It was a most stimulating weekend, which offered much food for thought, great inspiration, and direction for the future.