ABORTION
​
Most “pro life” people take a view that human life as sacred and of intrinsic value and that abortion as morally unacceptable and thus firmly opposed. As most “pro life” people also have a strong religious conviction, they would also say that human life is God’s sovereign creation and thus God has a Divine prerogative over life and death.
For those who take a “pro choice” view, there is a totally different dynamic. To them, an unborn child does not carry the dignity of being a living human being, rather, as long as the unborn foetus remains in-utero, it is a part of the mother’s body over which she has a total right, thus if she chooses to end the pregnancy by means of an abortion, she is morally
free to do so.
There is a third view that is shared by many people and that is fundamentally the “pro life” view but with a range of “exceptions” that allow abortion in certain circumstances. The strict “pro life” and “pro choice” views are cast as absolutes, thus need no explanation – abortion is absolutely unacceptable to one group and fully acceptable to the other.
In this paper, I will address the “exceptions” offered by the third group.
It should be noted as an overall comment, that if God has an absolute prerogative over life and death, then there can be no exception (or it could no longer be an absolute). If God is the one with the absolute prerogative, then anyone wanting to create such an exception would have to place him/herself above God. Likewise, if abortion is morally unacceptable (that, by definition, is a statement of an absolute), then again there can be no exception. If the “no abortion” rule is a moral absolute, then to allow an exception in specific situations would require the adoption of a form of situational ethics (morality).
So, let’s consider the four main exceptions that the third group offers.
Exception 1: Abortion is acceptable if the life of the mother is at stake
Firstly, I must note that this “exception” is very close to my own heart.
In 1984, my wife was pregnant with our 3rd child. The short version of our story is that my wife and I were told by a specialist that the pregnancy HAD TO BE terminated immediately; I was told that failure to do so would cost the life of my wife. There were no ifs or buts, the child could not (not “might not” but a very definite “could not”) survive and neither would my wife if the pregnancy continued. The drive home (100km … we were living in Condobolin NSW, the nearest specialist was at Parkes, 100km East of our town) would kill my wife. My wife and I discussed the issue only for a moment because we were convinced that there was no real question to answer – we considered life to be the Divine prerogative, thus we refused the specialist’s warnings and drove the 100km home. I asked the elders of our church (of which I was the pastor) to come and pray. They did. At that stage we had two other children under 4 years of age who “demanded” mummy’s attention, so life was in many ways “forced” to continue on as normal. My wife survived. The baby was born in due course; she is now 31, a musician on the team at Nexus (Qld), a professional counsellor and has just become a mother herself.
According to this “exception” that some propose, it would have been OK to terminate my daughter’s life in the Specialist’s surgery on that day in 1984. This surely contradicts the notion that life is a Divine Prerogative and to do so in this situation has certain logical implications. Why should I have allowed a medical specialist (who may not share my moral/ethical belief system and may not have a personal belief in God and thus no notion of a Divine prerogative) to exercise the divine right over my daughter’s life? If her life was of such little value that termination was morally justified, at what point did God give her life value? If we had decided to terminate as advised, would our decision have been within God’s purposes and if so, at what point did His purpose for my daughter’s life change? Would it have been acceptable to operate outside of God’s purposes?
Of course, for those Christians who believe in Divine healing a further complication is created – surely a belief that God holds the Divine prerogative over life and death combined with a belief in Divine healing would make it impossible to determine that medical termination was something that should be endorsed rather declaring a belief in Divine healing?
If the Bible portrays human life, from conception, as sacred and intrinsically valuable, and firmly opposes the taking of innocent human life, then why would termination have been acceptable in my daughter’s case?
This “exception” is based on the mother’s life being at risk. Who determines that the mother’s life is at stake? What circumstances are covered by this statement? For example, a single young lady is pregnant, but declares that she will commit suicide if the pregnancy continues. The unborn child is healthy. Is abortion acceptable in this case? Up until what stage of a pregnancy would such terminations be condoned under this exception? For example, in my wife’s case, she was about 3 months into the pregnancy, presumably 3 months would be OK. What if the doctor had made that call when she was 6 months pregnant? What about at 8 months? Where do you draw the line of “acceptability” of abortion and why is the line drawn at that point? Why is the child’s life of more value on one side of “the line” than the other?
There are essentially two issues here; one is medical (is it ever necessary – i.e. without alternative or option – to have an abortion in order to save the mother's life?) and the other is moral (is an abortion in the “mother at risk” category ever morally acceptable?).
I submit that the only acceptable answer to both questions is no.
My research has found no listed medical situation involving a child in utero, whose only solution is a direct abortion. The reality is that pregnancy and childbirth is always a (medically) dangerous process. If one accepts the notion that abortion is acceptable where the mother’s life is put at risk, and we accept that many women have died in childbirth itself (an indisputable reality), it would be reasonable (i.e. within the scope of normal application of logical development of an argument) to argue that, as childbirth puts the mother’s life at risk, any pregnancy can be terminated under the pretext of this danger to the life of the mother.
I consider that the “ectopic pregnancy” argument that is often raised to justify the “life of the mother” argument is somewhat of a “red herring”. The reality is that, by definition, an ectopic pregnancy is not a normal pregnancy in that the baby is not considered to be in utero (it is generally in the fallopian tube) and thus the pregnancy is absolutely unviable. The mother’s body will naturally reject zygote/embryo and, in the process, may put the life of the mother at significant risk. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy cannot be compared to the removal of an embryo or a more developed foetus from the uterus, from either a medical or moral perspective as there is, at present, no technology to treat both the mother and the child in the life-threatening situation when the embryo attaches to the fallopian tube.
In 2003 in the USA, convicted murderer Paul Hill used an argument similar to the "life of the mother" argument in an attempt to justify the murder of a doctor who performed abortions, claiming that he was taking one life to save another life (i.e. the doctor’s murder prevented him conducting abortions and thus saved unborn lives).
It is understood that there are circumstances when a pregnant woman may need to undergo medical procedures (excluding intentional abortions) and, in spite of the best medical efforts, either the baby, the mother or both of them die. In such cases, clearly nothing morally wrong has been done, because an effort has been made to save life, but has failed for one of the lives. That is far different from intentionally terminating a pregnancy (c.f. passive euthanasia as opposed to active euthanasia).
I note the comments of former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who stated that in thirty-six years as a paediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the mother’s life. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion was a ‘smoke screen’.
Where the “life of the mother” argument is raised later in pregnancy and the developing foetus is considered to be premature but viable, the question that needs to be asked is why it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy? With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labour or performing a caesarean section, saving both mother and baby.
If we are to believe that the giving and taking of life is purely God’s prerogative, one must ask exactly who “replaces” God in this circumstance. Is it the church in its declaration that abortion in such a circumstance is morally acceptable? Not really, the diagnosis that the mother’s life is at risk is the key factor at play, and that diagnosis is made by a doctor who may (or may not) have a strong anti biblical world view and who may or may not be right in his/her diagnosis. I also note here that the diagnosis of “risk” to the welfare or life of the mother will have a very broad interpretation by some and a narrow interpretation by others. Some will include a mother’s threat to self harm as evidence that she is at risk, some will reject that notion. One thing is for certain; if this “exception” is the accepted position, then, regardless of the possible risk to the mother, the life of the baby (a human life) is certainly at great risk and, in fact, the child is certain to die.
It is surely a “slippery slope” when we see the church surrendering a moral prerogative to a potentially non Christian medical practitioner and then further surrendering the divine prerogative to that same person. It is surely theologically unsafe to have our doctrinal, moral and ethical views set, or even influenced, by anything other than the clear declaration of the Word of God.
I submit that in terms of morality, it is never right to directly kill an innocent person, even if good results are expected. We surely cannot say that a baby's life is more important than the mother's, nor the mother’s more than the child. We would surely say that they are equal in value and it is morally corrupt to favour one over the other. It would be morally wrong to directly kill either one of them.
We surely cannot afford to “compromise” in order to present a “compassionate face” to the world rather than declaring single-mindedly that God’s Word opposes the murder of innocent children.
Exception 2: When the pregnancy is the direct result of rape
Genesis shows us clearly that, in the beginning, God created only three basic types or “categories” of life, and each was given the ability to reproduce, but only “after its own kind”. First, He created plants that reproduce “after their own kind” because of the life planting power of the seed (when apples reproduce, they create apples). Second, He created animals that reproduce after their own kind. Whilst the word “kind” is a non scientific word that refers to a form of categorisation that is far broader than that defined by the word “species” , the bottom line remains unchanged – a horse will produce a horse (not a dog or cat). Third, He also created human beings, but when He did so, He made them more “special” that the general animal kingdom as He created them to be in His own image (Gen. 1:26-30). People are distinct from the animal kingdom per-se, they are an eternal being made with an eternal purpose that was formed before the foundation of the earth was laid. However, the one thing that they have in common with the rest of creation is they are restricted to reproduce only after their own kind – i.e. when humans reproduce, the only form of life that they can produce is human life. This being the case, the way that the ovum was fertilised and the circumstances leading to that fertilization (such as rape) cannot change the simple reality that as soon as there is cellular division in the fertilized ovum, a unique life that is separate to the mother in whom the seed is planted, has been formed and that new life can only be seen as human life.
The fact that the conception occurred during / as a direct result of rape simply cannot alter that reality. A new human life, made in the image of God and with an eternal soul and divine purpose, has come into existence and if we see the start and the end of that life as a divine prerogative, then there can be no exception – even for rape – we cannot exchange the divine prerogative for a human prerogative and approve a termination of that life.
There is no question that rape is an extremely tragic event for the woman involved, and the nature of this violent event should not be glossed over. However, the murder of a child conceived in such circumstances can never be seen as a Biblically permissible or morally acceptable way to proceed. Compounding one sin by committing another is surely not very helpful. One wrong is not corrected by another wrong, one violent act is not “repaired” by committing another violent act.
It should of course, be noted that all instances of rape do not result in conception. Pregnancy due to rape is statistically quite rare. There are reasons for this; sometimes the rapist is infertile and often normal ovulation is inhibited because of the psychological trauma of the victim.
Abortion for the victim of rape is often justified by declaring it as an act of kindness and mercy for the woman who is the victim of the rape despite the lack of kindness and mercy being shown to the unborn child. However, one should not overlook the possibility of the woman later suffering post abortion trauma (often expressed as severe depression). Statistically, post-abortion trauma for victims of rape occurs as frequently as post-abortion trauma where rape was not involved. So the risk is that rape, followed by pregnancy, followed by abortion, may well leave three victims: the woman who was initially traumatized by the rape; the unborn child who is traumatised, and in fact murdered, by the abortion; and then the woman, who was the original victim of the rape, may be re-traumatized by her decision to have an abortion.
There is no question that the rape of the woman involved in such an horrible scenario is a sinful act, the woman is the victim of sin and the child conceived was conceived by that sinful act of rape. What about where two teenagers – let’s say 15 year olds – decide to sleep together and the girl falls pregnant. This is not a case of rape, but it is a sinful act and one that can (and probably will) cause significant trauma to the young woman involved. Do we extend the “mercy” of the church to condone abortion in this circumstance? If the answer to that question is “No!”, then the question of “Why not?” must be addressed and I submit that it would be very difficult to draw a line of reason between the two circumstances.
The issue raised above in the “risk to the life of the mother” comments applies again here and should be carefully considered. At what point during the pregnancy will abortion be permitted on the basis that the woman is a victim of rape? If she decides after 3 months, or 6 months, or even 8 months that she does not want the baby because he/she was conceived as a result of rape, at what point will it be considered acceptable? I note that in at least one State in Australia (with others possibly following suit), abortion up to full term is permitted by the law, so this may not be a legal issue, just a moral issue? If one adopts this “exception”, we declare that abortion may be permissible, but we fail to nominate any point in the pregnancy when this moral approval may expire, thus leaving the supposition that we may, in the case of rape, approve full term abortion. If we do set a limit on the period of gestation that is acceptable in relation to abortion under this exception, we are left to answer the question of why the value of the human life changes at this point.
I submit that, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception, a child is still a child with a life that was planned before the foundation of the earth was laid. I wonder what you would do if you found that your spouse or adopted child was fathered by a rapist? Would such a discovery, in any way, change your view of their worth? Would you love them any less? If not, why should we view the innocent unborn child any differently? If the life of a child conceived as a result of rape can be terminated prior to birth, could it be terminated after birth? The answer is an obvious “no”, but that leaves the question about the life of the unborn – is the unborn less “human” than a child who has been born? If we accept that termination is OK up to full term, where does that leave a child (who, for the sake of this discussion, was conceived by rape) who is born say 6 weeks prematurely? That is, this unborn child whose life is terminated close to full term, may in fact be “older” than the child born prematurely. Would that make the termination of the pre-maturely born child acceptable up until at least they reach the “age” of full term termination that we have endorsed?
While we can all sympathise with such difficult circumstances as pregnancy due to rape, we must surely be careful not to allow such concerns to result in any watering down of an uncompromising Biblical stand. This child may have been brought into the woman’s life by a horrible, repulsive act. But God can use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil, we must never lose sight of this (see Romans 8:28).
Exception 3: When the pregnancy is the direct result of incest
It is hard to imagine a more difficult scenario than a woman falling pregnant not only to rape, but to rape, or some form of consensual relationship, between the woman and a close relative (father, brother, cousin or uncle). Incest is an evil sin. If there is anything worse than rape, it would have to be incestuous rape.
Most of the argument around abortion in this horrible scenario has been covered in the two “Exceptions” covered above, so I will not repeat them here.
I will however, draw your attention to an argument against abortion of incest pregnancies that is sometimes overlooked. My research has shown that incest victims often decline an abortion when given the option, rather than viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, incest victims often see their pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship, knowing that the birth of her child will expose the incestuous sexual activity. She may also see that her pregnancy gives her the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a true loving relationship, one far different to the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.
On the other hand, her pregnancy stands as a real threat to the predatory relative who has been exploiting her and the pathological secrecy which has protected him from having his evil conduct discovered. It may even become a threat to other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge that the abuse is occurring, even though they may suspect or even know with certainty that it is happening. Sometimes, the victim is coerced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members and may live to regret the decision as she deals with ever increasing attacks of depression and self loathing. To those who may engage in any such coercion, we must be careful not to give any solace or justification for their coercive action by suggesting that abortion is acceptable in such a circumstance.
Incest is an unspeakably evil practice, so it is hard for us to move our thinking from the evil of the cause of the pregnancy to the issue of the termination of the life that the evil behaviour produced. But once again, we must understand that the unborn child is not the aggressor, the child is the product of sin, but is innocent in his/her own self. The perpetrator is the aggressor, the sinner. The unborn child is just as much an innocent victim as his/her mother. So again, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn child carries some sense of evil or guilt that must be removed. This child is the product of human reproduction and is thus a human being, created in the image of God and we have neither moral nor Biblical right to destroy that image, to take an innocent life whose steps have already been ordered by The Lord.
Creating these “exceptions” for something such as incest is (when the same principles of logic are applied elsewhere) like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws because we know that one might, in some rare circumstance, have to break part of the law (e.g. emergency dash to a hospital – legally no excuse, but morally understandable). Finding an apparent exception does not change the rule itself. In fact, by trying to create an exception to what is essentially God’s absolute, His law, serves only to encourage others to create their own exceptions to try and justify their actions in other areas of life.
Exception 4: When the child’s life is not viable
The problem with creating an “exception” because of the perceived non viability of the life of the unborn child, is not dissimilar to the exceptions dealt with above.
The Bible uses the same word for a "born" or "unborn" child and this simple reality helps us to understand that the Author of the Bible did not distinguish between the two. In Scripture, there is not some special event when a "human being" becomes a "person". Rather, he or she is a person from the beginning who goes through growth and development both inside and outside of the womb.
To determine that an unborn child’s life is not viable – i.e. once born, the child would not be able to survive without assistance – is very dangerous. Any human being may find their life becomes “unviable” because of age, illness or serious injury. A 3-month-old child cannot sustain life on their own, they absolutely rely on a parent. Nor can a 45 year-old who has become dependent on a respirator due to an accident be described as “viable” – able to sustain their own life without dependence on another. Likewise an aged person who has lost the ability to live independently due to stroke or some other debilitating disease. But do their situations negate the personhood of these people? Does the fact that their life is no longer “viable” mean that they should be actively euthanised? Absolutely not! To create a “viability standard” removes protection from those who need it the most. The viability factor is not a valid argument. If it applies to the unborn to justify their termination, then the same argument must equally apply to those living post birth.
I have seen a child born more than 16 weeks prematurely and be declared unviable, live. Joshua was born to parents of strong faith, he was small enough to fit in the palm of an adult’s hand. The parents were told that the baby was unviable and the decision was made to turn off “life support” machinery. Joshua survived and is now in his 20’s.
Who determines the viability of an unborn child? A doctor? A machine? No, it is God alone who makes the call, He is the creator and sustainer of all life, and life and death are totally His prerogative. There can be NO exceptions, it is an absolute.
The issue of counsel and respecting the right of the mother
From a pastoral perspective, it has been suggested that one must give counsel but then respect the decision and action of the woman involved even if she decides to abort the baby. The problem with such a position is that, if this view is accepted, it would logically have to be applied consistently in all areas of pastoral counsel. For example, let’s say that a woman to whom you were offering counsel, asked if it would be OK to murder a violent husband. Of course your counsel would against such action, even though you may understand the woman’s stress and emotional state. But suppose that she ignored your counsel and murdered her husband. Would you then “respect the decision and action” of the woman? A man comes to confess to a strong temptation that he is facing and suggests that he is considering having an illicit affair with his “temptress” because of his wife’s “coldness” toward him. Of course your counsel would against such action, even though you may understand the emotion and the temptation that he faces. But suppose that he ignored your counsel and has an affair. Would you then “respect the decision and action” of the man? I would think that in both instances, no pastor would condone or even accept, the conduct; you may understand why the actions were taken, but you could never condone them – after all, both murder and adultery are clearly sinful acts and you would have to address them as such. I suggest that exactly the same applies to the child in the womb – regardless of the circumstances surrounding that abortion, it is just as much a taking of human life as it would be if that life had already been born.
I can never condone abortion; it will always be to me the taking of an innocent human life and, considering the innocence of the unborn, it would be justifiable to see it as an even greater evil that the taking of a life of one who was guilty of violence toward the person who ultimately took his life.
I accept that this issue is controversial in society at large, however in the life of the Christian, our morality and ethical standards must be established in the Word of God rather than in the social pressure that a morally compromising generation demands.
Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says: “I have set before you life and death. … Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”