In light of the recent “leak” of the potential Supreme Court verdict overturning Roe v. Wade (which it should be overturned), I thought it appropriate to reprint an article I did a while back to give a slight glimpse as to why we oppose abortion…
Since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling, abortion on demand (elective abortion) has been allowed in the United States. Although it may be legal, that does not mean that it is moral. Strong lines have been drawn on both sides of the issue as “Pro-Choicers” and “Pro-Lifers” battle it out for the heart and soul of the nation. However, where Christians stake their claim on the issue ought to be informed by the Bible both explicitly and implicitly. When one carefully considers the Biblical stance, one would find that abortion is not permitted in the vast majority of the cases.
Although there is no one law or rule in the Bible that says: ‘You shall not commit abortion of a baby in the womb,’ there are nevertheless biblical and rational principles that would seem to give one guidance on this important issue. The main biblical precept one must consider is the commandment: ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13). To say that one should not murder is to say that one ought not to willfully and deliberately take another innocent human life. Life is precious to God. This can be seen in the various laws and commands that protect life and call for punishment, including capital punishment, for those who would take another’s life. It would almost seem obvious that a child, even in the womb, has not committed any action that would call for his or her death, therefore the child is innocent (at least, innocent of a crime worthy of death), and thereby their life is precious and protected. To kill a baby by deliberate abortion is murder.
As cut and dry as this might seem, there are several issues that are raised when considering this commandment with regard to abortion. One issue that does not seem obvious to some people is when life actually begins. Those who support abortion come up with all sorts of reasons to try to make the child that is in the womb less than human. They may argue that until the child is outside the womb, he or she is still part of the mother’s body, and the mother has a right to choose what she can do with her own body. Other may argue that unless a child is viable, able to make abstract decisions, able to do some things on their own (and other such criteria) that the fetus is not a person (of course, they may or may not realize that their criteria would also consider several older children and even some adults who may have some mental handicaps as not being persons under these standards).
Is the child in the womb a person? I would say from a biblical and scientific standpoint that God considers the child in the womb a person who is worthy of life and protection from the moment of conception. Biblically, one can consider the fact that God says that He is intimately involved in the forming and shaping of the person toward a specific goal according to His will while still yet in the womb. One considers what the psalmist says in Psalm 139:13-16 that God knew him and molded him from the time he was conceived. One also considers what God told the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5, that even from the womb he had been called to be a prophet. God related to the child within the womb as a person—God does not ‘know’ mere inanimate objects or chemical processes in a relational way, and God does not ‘call’ mere inanimate objects or chemical processes in a relational way toward a purpose. God knows and calls people in relation to Him. With the overall biblical view that life is precious and special, along with the fact that the Bible stresses that mankind is made in the image of God and is therefore the epitome of His creation, it would appear that the pure biblical view would be that from the moment of conception the embryo is a person, and is therefore worthy of the protection of the commandment: ‘You shall not murder.’
Yet, I believe that scientifically it could also be demonstrated that the embryo is a person—more specifically a distinct person from the mother. After the sperm fertilizes the egg, immediately the process begins whereby the father’s and mother’s chromosomes mix and match, and within a matter of hours, the embryo has his or her own distinct genetic makeup that is completely separate from that of the father or mother. That being the case, technically the embryo is not merely another piece of flesh that is part of the mother’s body. The embryo has different DNA than any other cell found within the mother’s body (be it a skin cell, liver cell, etc.). With different DNA, the child is a separate person from the mother. Thus, again, from the moment of conception the baby is a unique life, made in the image of God, precious in His sight, and therefore is afforded the same protection: ‘You shall not murder.’
From a more rational standpoint, I would also say that even if you would not consider these biblical and scientific points as evidences that life starts at conception, and that you would instead just claim ignorance for knowing when life begins (since making such decisions are above your paygrade), common sense would seem to dictate that you would err on the side of caution and assume that an embryo is a person whose life began at conception. Instead of immediately leaning to the side of murder (from my standpoint, but they’d say it’s a choice), one ought to believe the embryo is a child until proven otherwise. This cavalier attitude of claiming ignorance but going ahead and facilitating murder would be like a demolition company that was hired to demolish an old building, and when it came time for the explosives to be charged they realized that nobody checked to make sure that the building was abandoned. So, instead of ensuring that the building was empty, they claim ignorance and go ahead with the demolition anyway. In this last case, most people would say they acted immorally and carelessly. Yet, how is claiming ignorance about when life begins and yet condoning elective abortion any different?
With these considerations in mind, it would biblically appear that any elective abortion at any time during the pregnancy is the murder of a person, and is thus morally reprehensible. This would include the oral abortive known as the ‘morning after pill.’ The morning after pill apparently prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall, thereby the fertilized egg perishes. As indicated above, from the moment of conception the process immediately begins of the fertilized egg forming his or her own genetic makeup, and is therefore a person outright. This would therefore include the morning after pill as murdering the child.
From a more philosophic note, some rational considerations can also be included when considering the issue of abortion. For example, one ought to rationally consider what makes a difference between a child that is inside the womb from a child outside the womb? From a rational standpoint, what does a child outside the womb have that a child inside the womb does not? One might say that size is one of the differences—the child inside the womb is obviously smaller than one outside the womb (at least in the initial stages of pregnancy). But to say that a child is a person because they are bigger and more physically developed, and a child in the womb is not, would be tantamount to arguing that short people are less so people than tall people. No one would argue that all the short people in the world are not people and therefore taking their life is not murder (no matter what the song may say that short people have no reason to live). Another consideration might be their location. Some may argue that it is the fact that the embryo is inside the womb and a child is outside the womb—somehow being outside the womb grants you personhood. But location is a ridiculous notion, because it would be tantamount to saying that people in Wisconsin are less so people than people in Kentucky. Unfortunately, some have actually believed the lie that people in one nation are less so people than in their own nation, and used that argument for genocide (with the extreme case illustrated by the Nazis with the Jews). But this too is a rationally ridiculous and immoral notion. A third consideration might be their developmental ability. A child outside the womb might be able to do more (such as crawl, eventually walk, eventually drive a car), and therefore that is what makes them a person. But such a claim would then argue that anybody that is not as developed in their ability as others have less personhood than others. Unfortunately, some have made that argument for killing those with handicaps or killing (or, they may say, euthanizing) the elderly—because they no longer have the abilities to function as a helpful citizen in society. This too is rationally and morally wrong. My son is much more developed and has much more ability in sports than I do. Does that make me less of a person? So even from a more rational standpoint, there is little reason to consider a child within the womb as less of a person outside the womb. That being the case, elective abortion murders an innocent human life—a genuine person made in the image of God.
Yet even with these positive moral considerations, those who support elective abortion of fetuses will give their own argument to support abortion or at least attempt defeaters for the arguments brought forth from the Christian perspective. In one case, they actually try to utilize a Bible verse that they interpret to mean that God does not consider embryos in the womb to be people. In Exodus 21 there is a case brought up that if two men are fighting and somehow a pregnant woman is present and gets injured or killed that there are specific punishments that are to be meted out. What the abortion supporters consider is a part that they translate and interpret to mean that if the child is killed, there is only monetary damage given to the parents for that loss. Knowing that the Old Testament biblical principle was a life for a life in such cases, they argue that since the penalty is not death to the offending party, then that means the embryo does not have the status of a child (is not considered a ‘life’). There are several problems with this particular argument. First, this case study would appear to describe something that happens accidentally—there was no intention on the part of the fighting men to hurt the mother or the child. This is a far cry from deliberate, intentional killing of another human life. The other problem is with the translation and interpretation itself. It would actually appear that the Hebrew verbiage in this case does not refer to the death of the child, but rather to the mother going into premature labor and having the child early rather than going to full term. Thus the monetary penalty could be for medical care for any harm that came to mother or child. Therefore, this argument does not disprove the notion that a baby is a person from the moment of conception.
Another argument that is often mentioned by supporters of abortion is the fact that more embryos die from spontaneous abortions than by elective abortions and there is no moral quandary in those cases. They might state that elective abortions are doing nothing more than what nature itself does. They refer to the fact that quite often fertilized eggs will not naturally attach themselves to the uterine wall, and are naturally aborted. They also refer to the fact of miscarriages and stillbirths. Sadly, these things do happen at a large frequency—an unfortunate part of the sin-curse on the earth. Yet there is no moral problem with these since these are tragic accidents that occur on their own. In such cases there is no deliberate intention nor motive to cause harm to the child. On the other hand, elective abortion is motivated by a deliberate intention to end the child’s life. This is what makes elective abortion murder and the other not.
At other times, supporters of abortion will attempt to come up with exceptions, saying that it would not be moral to take away the abortion option for girls going through these particular situations. One of the most common exceptions mentioned is for the health of the mother. Often times supporters of abortion blow out of proportion the number of abortions that occur to save a mother’s life, when in reality over 93% of abortions are merely for personal/social/economic reasons (see, for example, http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html). With medical technology as it is, there are very few cases where both mother and baby cannot be saved. Yet, for the sake of argument, one may consider such a case. What may happen is an ectopic pregnancy where the child begins to grow somewhere other than the uterus (quite often in one of the fallopian tubes). If the child were to continue to grow, the mother would eventually die. However, in this case, the child himself or herself will also die. This is a case where both will die. It is morally better to side with life, therefore the mother has the biblical and natural right to protect her own life, therefore an abortion in this case might not be immoral. In such cases, there does seem to be a hierarchy of values. A similar case might be argued with regard to a mother who is pregnant, only to find out that she has some form of cancer. If the mother takes treatments for the cancer (chemo, radiation, etc.) the baby will die, or possibly the baby would need to be aborted for the mother to have the treatments. However, if the mother chooses not to receive treatments, she will die. Here, as before, there does not seem to be an easy solution, but the mother does have a right to protect her own life. ere, she could choose to abort or allow the baby to die from the treatment, or she could choose to forestall treatment to give birth to the child, possibly forfeiting her own life. Neither choice is ideal, but the mother might not be immoral in making either choice. Now, having considered this particular exception, in no way does this give a moral greenlight for elective abortions outside such cases. There is nothing in this argument that would commend the 93%+ abortions that occur due to personal/social/economic reasons. Abortions in these cases would still be considered murder.
Abortion supporters also talk about exceptions being made in the cases of rape and incest. No doubt rape and incest are utter moral tragedies that unfortunately occur in a fallen world. These victims will need help to live and cope with these crimes, and this is where the church can do much good in loving and supporting such people. However, the means or method by which a conception occurred in no way negates the personhood of the child. Life still began at conception for the child at the time of the rape or incest. How he or she was first conceived is not the child’s fault—they are the innocent party. Therefore, it would still be murder to abort a child in these cases. And, as before, this does not give the moral greenlight to the 93%+ of abortions that occur for personal/social/economic reasons.
Abortion supporters may talk about the need to abort a child due to some handicap (be it physical, mental, or genetic) that the child may be born with. They believe that it is cruel to allow someone to live in such a state. Yet, just because someone has some sort of handicap does not make them less of a person. No doubt, the child will struggle and the family will struggle, and again this is where the church can come alongside the parents to help, love, and support them. But a handicapped child is still a person, and therefore to abort them is to murder them.
There are so many considerations to take into account when dealing with this issue. Emotions run high on every side. Abortion supporters argue that it is a woman’s choice to do with her body what she wants to do with her body. However, a fetus is a separate life, a child, and is therefore not part of the woman’s body, and she therefore does not morally have a choice to murder the innocent. The child in the womb is a person who is made in the image of God like all other human beings, is special to God, for whom God has a plan. Therefore, they have just as much right to live as anybody else. Biblically, scientifically, and rationally abortion is murder, and the only moral thing to do is heed: ‘You shall not murder.’