By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
Humankind has come to the flash of insight in our understanding that the cellular and molecular evidence proves human life begins at conception. In other words, when the moment a sperm fuses with an egg to form a fertilized egg cell, human life, an alive person, appears.
I am not a scientist but by exploring the events at fertilization and the subsequent developmental continuum, we all can come to this conclusion.
Based on cellular, molecular, and developmental biology, the evidence clearly shows that human life begins at conception. The zygote’s unique genome, a full set of chromosomes, irrevocably establishes a distinct genetic identity, marking the emergence of a new individual. Its inherent ability to differentiate into every cell type required to form a complete human being underscores an unbroken developmental continuum from fertilization onward. Although ethical and philosophical debates persist, the scientific foundation that human development starts at conception remains unequivocal.
Human life, in its most fundamental and universal presence, begins with conception.
Under Alaska law, AS 11.41.150 establishes the crime of murder of an unborn child when there is intent to cause the death of an unborn child.
The Bible emphasizes the intimate involvement of God in our creation even before birth.
For instance, in Psalm 139:13-16, David writes, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,” highlighting that each person is fashioned by God from the very beginning. Similarly, Jeremiah 1:5 declares, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart,” suggesting that God’s knowledge and purpose for each individual is established even prior to birth. These passages affirm the sacred nature of life in the womb and underscore the belief that every human being is known, valued, and purposefully created by God from conception.
Whether you’re an uncompromising atheist or an excessively pious biblical literalist, the inescapable truth remains human life begins at conception.
Since abortion’s legalization by the Alaska Legislature in 1970 (before Roe v.Wade in 1973), the Alaska Church has chosen to ignore the tragedy and evil of abortion. Clearly, it is, in many ways, to cover up our ethical vulnerability with convenient theology.
In Alaska, many churches that pride themselves on moral leadership have conspicuously avoided taking a definitive stance on abortion. Rather than engaging in the hard ethical questions that abortion presents, these institutions offer a thin, convenient veneer of doctrine. It is a theological fig leaf offered to mask the Church’s inaction. By emphasizing ritual and superficial expressions of faith over meaningful moral discernment, the Church not only sidesteps a critical issue but also risk betraying the deeper ethical responsibilities it claims to uphold.
In the Alaska Church, where many claim to stand as bastions of virtue, the failure to address abortion head-on resembles a self-imposed exile from the hard questions of ethical responsibility. Just as one might try to justify oneself before God by reciting creeds and tithing, the Alaskan church has thus avoided the difficult reality of its shortcomings on eliminating abortion in Alaska.
So too do some church leaders sidestep the issue of abortion, preferring to maintain an illusion of moral purity rather than engaging in the messy, often painful work of genuine moral discernment? No pain… no gain.
Can the Alaska Church challenge its church leaders and members to confront the moral implications of abortion rather than evade them? In Alaska, many churches have opted for silence or ambiguity on this issue, avoiding a definitive moral stance. By sidestepping the debate, these institutions not only shirk their responsibility to guide congregants on critical ethical matters but also leave unresolved profound questions regarding the sanctity of human life. With no blood on the lintel, the Angel of Death mercilessly murders Alaska’s unborn.
Churches are granted tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code, which exempts them from federal income tax on donations and other income related to their religious activities. In exchange for this “privilege”, churches are prohibited from engaging in substantial political activity, including endorsing or opposing political candidates, so as to maintain a nonpartisan stance. Yet one must ask: hasn’t the Church historically been at the forefront of political engagement and social leadership?
This limitation on political speech ensures that the Alaska Church remains dedicated to their charitable and religious missions rather than becoming vehicles for moral and ethical advocacy. The unborn are silent and silenced.
This avoidance is not a neutral act; it is a deliberate choice to place one’s personal comfort and institutional self-interest above the call to confront injustice. Abortion is the single most evil injustice practiced by an immoral and unethical state.
In this case, injustice is absence of an ongoing abortion debate. It is a subject that demands both compassion and courage yet is too often dismissed by those who would rather cling to outdated dogmas and avoid controversy. By ignoring abortion, the Alaskan Church is not merely taking the easy path; it is, in effect, adopting a posture of moral indifference that risks becoming the very embodiment of the complacency and entitlement it professes to oppose.
Such a stance, while cloaked in the language of divine obedience, ultimately serves to subvert the true mission of the Alaskan Church. Instead of passionately serving God and the community, the focus shifts inward, toward preserving the sanctity of a self-serving institution. The result is a tragic irony: in seeking to avoid the wrath of a hard judge, the leadership of the Alaska Church not only fails to challenge the status quo but also undermine the very foundation of ethical leadership they claim to uphold.
The reluctance to take a clear united stand on abortion echoes the moral uncertainty found in the Parable of the Talents, forcing us to ask whether we have embraced an authentic, life-affirming faith in a loving God or settled for a watered-down, counterfeit version of the hard master?
By choosing silence and ambiguousness and by avoiding criticism and mockery, the Alaska church avoids confronting the uncomfortable truth that failing to fully commit to the protection of life is, in effect, a tacit endorsement of values that lead away from the true God. This evasion not only diminishes the inherent sanctity of life but also leaves congregants without the forthright and compassionate guidance needed to face Alaska’s most critical ethical challenges.
Thus, we are left with THE question: Will the Alaska Church, by avoiding the most critical moral issue of our time, genuinely serve and guide Alaska Christians, or will it simply choose to bury its talents beneath layers of self-delusion and doctrinal complacency?
Michael Tavoliero writes for Must Read Alaska.
