One of the most contentious topics of our lifetimes is the
topic of abortion. Mud-slinging and
stereotypes fly from both sides with no end in sight. In this article I will attempt to give a
reasoned, non-emotion fueled, look at this issue. I will not hide the fact that I am pro-life
and a Christian, although, I think those two traits do not necessarily have to
go together. There are some non-religious
people in the pro-life camp as well as religious people in the pro-choice camp. I will first take a philosophical look at the
issue and then, since Christians are to look to God’s Word for guidance, I will
look at Biblical scriptures that are used from both sides in the argument.
Philosophical analysis
My analysis begins with positing a deductive argument in
opposition to abortion:
1.
It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an
innocent person – i.e. murder.
2.
The womb of a pregnant woman contains an
innocent person
3.
Abortion kills the occupant in the woman’s womb.
4.
According to #2 that occupant is an innocent
person.
5.
Therefore, abortion is the intentional killing
of an innocent person and is morally wrong.
This is a deductive argument in that if the premises are
true the conclusion necessarily follows.
I think most would agree with premise 1 but if there are disagreements
it would require a separate discussion on what actions, if any, are “morally
wrong”. Premise 3 and 4 are
non-controversial. The heart of the
argument is premise 2.
The question of when and what constitutes personhood or
humanness (in the philosophical context) will not be decided here. It is a debate that is nowhere near an
end. Despite this we will look at some
ideas that have been considered.
Some have argued for “viability” as the gauge for
personhood and this has been used in some legal definitions but viability is a
measure of technology and not personhood.
As technology increases the age of viability has and will continue to decrease.
Some may argue that what is in the womb at 4 weeks is
much different than what is in the womb at 39 weeks and that while what is in
the womb at 39 weeks may be a person what is in the womb at 4 weeks is
not. My question then is what is the
defining property for personhood that they are using in making this determination
and when is it obtained?
I would propose that whatever defining property anyone
comes up with that it be consistent and not ad hoc. The evaluation method should be able to be
applied equally to the unborn as well as the infant and on to the elderly –
from the healthy to the handicapped.
Some have suggested that the determination of personhood
should be self-awareness and\or capability for rational thought. On a quick glance this sounds reasonable but
then what about infants and mentally handicapped, both of which would fail this
definition? This would be an example of
a defining property that cannot be held consistently as I suggested in the
previous paragraph.
When there lacks a clear definition, how do we
proceed? We can look to examples in our
experiences. When there is an
uncertainty of whether or not innocent persons may be in danger what is the
typical protocol? Consider hostage
situations. Law enforcement could storm
the location in an aggressive attack if there is no possible danger to innocent
persons but if there is uncertainty then their plan may change. The common protocol is caution in favor of
the potential of innocent persons – i.e. when there is doubt they play it safe
in the interest of life. When there is
uncertainty of the presence of innocent persons the decisions made and actions
taken will assume the presence of innocent persons. What reasoning can be given to not do the
same regarding the unborn in the womb? I
do not see any.
Based on this reasoning I believe that premise 2 is valid
and the conclusion of the deductive argument stands – abortion is morally
wrong.
What about the rights of the woman? Does she not have the rights over her own
body? The right to have control over
one’s own body is one that is common in our society. From eating to smoking to drinking to getting
a tattoo, the rights over one’s own body is not infringed except for
determining an appropriate age for one to participate in these actions. Limits on these actions can be allowed when
these rights might infringe on another person’s rights. We have laws regarding second hand smoke and
drunk driving to protect the innocent.
Likewise, I would submit that the woman’s right over her body may be
infringed upon when there exists the possibility that it conflicts with the
rights of another. In such a situation
we must determine which right is more fundamental. In this case it may be infringing on the life of an innocent person. Life is the most valuable property a person
could ever have. It is the most basic
right anyone could have. Without it no
other rights could exist. So, it seems
to me that we have a logical reason to support the right to life in this case
over the right of control over one’s own body.
Is this unfair to the woman? What if it is a pregnancy she did not
want? What if she wasn’t even a willing
participant? What if the life in the
womb is a danger to the woman’s life?
Some argue that the unborn in the womb is nothing more
than a trespasser. Personally, I think
this is an argument from desperation.
The unborn in the womb didn’t choose to be there. Why is it that in the pro-choice argument not
everyone gets a choice? Also, in my
country at least, trespassing is not a capital crime and those accused of
trespassing have the right to due process.
Abortion robs the right of due process.
Many on the pro-life side will often allow two
exceptions: rape and if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
Let’s look at rape first.
Rape is a horrific crime and the emotional damage caused by it could
only be fully understood by those that have experienced it. A pregnancy caused by a rape could
potentially leave the victimized woman in emotional trauma for 9 months or more. We cannot ignore or minimize this but as I
said in my opening paragraph I am removing emotion from this discussion. Given my deductive argument above, how would
rape affect it? It wouldn’t. Rape is a crime with a victim. Murder is a crime with a victim. Rape leaves the victim with emotional and
possibly physical damage. Murder leaves
the victim dead. Abortion in the case of
rape would be two crimes with unequal consequences for the victims. If I am correct that life is the most basic
right we have then it takes precedence over life that is free of emotional or
physical damage. We should work with,
minister and do what we can to help the healing of those placed into a position
of a pregnancy they had no choice in but still we should not rob a person of
the most basic right of life.
What about an exception in cases where the life of the
woman is in danger? This could present
quite a dilemma in that here we have the life of one person conflicting with
the life of another person – how could a decision be made on which person
should be allowed to live? I could be a
hardliner and say that given the deductive argument presented above that
abortion would still be murder so the thing to do is just let nature take its
course but instead, what I would passively argue is that if we strive towards
saving both lives and only when there is no other option do we do otherwise we
are still striving to secure life, that most basic right. I believe that passive argument may be
unnecessary though. What I really want
to ask about this scenario is if it is real or simply a red herring. Does the situation really exist where an
abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother? In abortion the delivery of the baby is still
necessary – it just isn’t alive when delivered.
So, how would an abortion help?
Typically the mother can receive other treatments that will preserve
both the life of the mother and the unborn1. Another point to consider is that abortions
cannot be done immediately but can take up to 36 hours to prepare the womb.2
That would seem to make the idea of an abortion as an emergency procedure to
save the mother a false dilemma.
So, I find the argument against abortion to be the most
logical conclusion to this moral question. I don’t find any of the arguments in
favor of abortion to be logically consistent or genuine.
What about scripture?
As a Christian I should always look to the Bible for guidance. There are scriptures used by both sides of
the argument. Let’s take a quick look
at some of these scriptures.
Biblical
Analysis
Scriptures used
for the Pro-Choice argument
Exodus
21:22-23 This passage presents a
scenario where two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is accidentally
struck. The woman is not hurt but
depending on the translation the baby is either the victim of a miscarriage or
born premature but alive. The Hebrew
word in question here is yasa and
means to go or come out.3
Frequently, yasa is used in
the Old Testament to render a live birth.
This may be irrelevant to this argument since this scripture is not
referring to an intentional act of killing the unborn. Those that use this scripture to support a
pro-choice argument usually say that verse 23 shows that the unborn are not
given the same rights as those outside of the womb. This understanding would require the
translation of yasa as a miscarriage
or abortion but since verse 22 clearly depicts an accident it wouldn’t be a
murder but simply an accident or an equivalent of involuntary manslaughter
which doesn’t carry the same penalty as murder.
It is not a statement on the value or rights of a person but instead a
statement on the intentions of those that caused the event.
Jeremiah
20:14-18 In this passage Jeremiah is lamenting that he was ever born. He expresses a wish that he had been aborted,
having his mother’s womb as his grave.
The error in using this as scripture for pro-choice is that it assumes
that an expression desiring that one had been aborted is declaration that
abortion is morally permitted but this text doesn’t go that far. He wonders why he was born just to end his
life in shame but we know that Jeremiah’s life did not end in shame. His reason for desiring that he had been
aborted was shown to be wrong. What this
scripture does do, though, is speak of the unborn as a person.
Ecclesiastes
6:3-5 and Job 3:16-19 Like the
passage from Jeremiah we have an account of a person lamenting life and
questioning if it is better to never have been born. This does not promote or support abortion but
questions whether or not it can be better to never have been born than to not be
able to enjoy the fruits of life or find rest and security from the wicked.
Scriptures used
for the Pro-Life argument
Psalm
22:10, Luke 1:15 and Luke
1:41 These verses are used by some pro-life advocates to show the
personhood of the unborn in the womb. I
do not think that is the intent the Psalmist or Luke had. These verses seem to me to be figurative and\or
hyperbolic speech.
Exodus
20:13 This is the command from the
10 commandments against murder. I do
believe abortion is murder but I do not believe this verse can be used as an
argument against abortion unless the personhood of the unborn in the womb is
established first to establish the act as murder.
Although I do not believe we have scripture that directly
addresses abortion I do believe we can find the views of the earliest Christian
church by writings outside of the Bible.
For example, The Didache, a Christian writing dated to the 1st
century states “you shall not murder a child by abortion”.4
Abortion is possibly the greatest tragedy in modern
history but we should not demonize the women that have found themselves in a
crisis pregnancy and have chosen an abortion.
Often they were not presented with the information and options that are
available. We must provide support to
these women or to agencies that have experience in ministering to the women in
the crisis pregnancy and providing support to the women that are experiencing
post abortion trauma.5
Bill Clute is the Greenville, SC chapter director for Reasonable Faith. He works as an
IT professional with a degree in Computer Systems from the University of North
Carolina-Asheville where he was also a member of the basketball team. He
has also been a professional airshow pilot and now flies a plane which was
built from scratch by he and his father.
References
1. Dr.
Anthony Levatino Addresses Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tzMV9OmvY
(4:20 mark addresses abortion to save the life of the mother)
2. Ibid
5. In
my area the Piedmont Women’s Center
is an agency providing this type of assistance.
