What does the Bible have to say about abortion? What was Roe v. Wade all about? Why has this become such a polarizing issue in our culture? How do I talk to non-Christians about this?For some reason the abortion issue continues to be an emotionally charged, confrontational debate between Christians and non-Christians. I'd like to offer some thoughts on the issue, to give Christians a more balanced position to adopt in their confrontation with non-Christians. It's my conviction that part of being an effective disciple is to understand culture, and through understanding, to effectively engage it. People who have little understanding of their culture (Christian cultural recluses) tend not to be very effective for Christ. I also want to talk about how we, as Christians, slip into the same cultural values that lie behind abortion, even though we oppose that one particular action.
I'm sure we are all aware that this decision in some sense legalized abortion, but it should be clarified what this decision actually accomplished. It made it unconstitutional for a state to legislate against abortion for the first 6 months of pregnancy. The Constitution guarantees our individual rights against the government's tendency to interfere. In Roe v. Wade, the Court actually invented a new right to permit women to choose abortion without the local government interfering—a right we now commonly refer to as the right to privacy. This right is not in the constitution, but the justices argued that it was implied by several of the Amendments.
1. The fabrication of a new "right" for the pregnant woman
Privacy sounds like a good thing. It's what keeps the government from breaking into your home, for instance, or strip searching you, without probable cause to suspect you of committing a crime. This seems like a good thing. But all this was already protected in the Constitution. The right to privacy as developed by Roe v. Wade was something else. It is, essentially, your right to make any decisions which involve your own well being without the government's involvement. A better word than "privacy" is perhaps "autonomy"—self-rule. The idea behind it is that you have no responsibility to the government or to other human beings, and a lack of responsibility implies the absence of obligation. You have no obligation to them, and they have none to you. In our culture, we are cut off— protected, but isolated from the larger fabric of society.
This sounds appealing to many people; other people should mind their own business, right? But I want to point out that this is a radical departure from the cultural values of people in our society less than two generations ago. It used to be the case, for example, that people thought it was an honor to defend their country, to risk their lives for the good of others. In that era (which was not long ago), the "right to privacy," understood as the right to live my life without obligation to others, would have seemed absurd. Something has happened, and if you understand it, you can understand why abortion is now so deeply embedded in our cultural consciousness, and why the Christian position is so abhorrent and antithetical to the values of a majority of people in our society.
The creation of a right to privacy, which is really no more than the concretization of a broad cultural sentiment that we are each the master of our own lives and have no indebtedness to anyone else, doesn't all by itself give us the right to have an abortion. But it is the starting point. Christians who oppose abortion typically do it in reference to the next point (the denial of rights to the fetus), but those who support abortion typically view the Christian as attacking this point—their right to self-rule. And this is a very deep value in our Western, individualistic culture. I think especially so for women, who have been so disenfranchised and oppressed in earlier stages of our culture, and therefore even more sensitive to losing their right to self-determination. It is my thought that the Christian who opposes abortion often does so without sensitivity to this issue, prioritizing the rights of the fetus without taking into account that, in our culture, the rights of others are never so central to our concern as our own.
2. The denial of all rights to the fetus
This is the second step, and the critical one to legislate a right to choose abortion, but again, it only becomes intuitive because of the cultural sentiment of self-rule, mentioned earlier. In an earlier phase of our society, the denial of the fetus's rights would be unthinkable, because self-determination was understood as secondary to our indebtedness to others.
While the Constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, it does specifically mention a right to life. The 5th and 14th amendments specifically protect a person's life from legislation that might allow others to snuff it out. But is a fetus a person, protected under the Constitution? From the majority opinion, delivered by Justice Blackmun:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
In other words, the Supreme Court is saying that it doesn't know at what point a fetus becomes a person. Why? Because there is no consensus on it. Here is their logic: since there is no consensus, a fetus can't be protected under the 14th Amendment. Doesn't that seem odd? In other words, if I can't determine whether or not you are a person, if I'm unsure, then it's alright for me to kill you. This is a typical Christian analysis. But this isn't the way the Court was thinking, of course. For them, it's a conflict of rights between the pregnant woman and the fetus. Since the fetus's right to life is uncertain, the woman's right to privacy (which is definite) wins out. The Court apparently feels that there is justification for prioritizing them this way, but they never explain why. (I've studied the Court's decision at length, and there are many gaping holes in their determination.)
The Court does, in a strange move, say that the judiciary has some responsibility to protect "potential personhood," though. But at what point does the right of a "potential person" override the mother's right to privacy? According to the Court, at the beginning of the third trimester. At six months, a state can legislate against having abortion, though most states permit abortion up until a few days before birth. Why pick 6 months to start talking about the rights of a potential person? It's because this is the point of "viability," where infants can live outside of the womb. So this seems to be a significant point to the court.
"With respect to the state's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications."
It's still a rather arbitrary point to pick, as I'll show in a moment.
3. The use of atypical examples to argue for the priority of a woman's rights over those of a fetus
This point is not explicit in the Court's decision, though it is clearly understood in the justices' reasoning, and it is a typical feature of many popular pro-choice arguments (see Tina Rosenberg, "The Stealth War Againat Abortion," Rolling Stone 737 [June 27, 1996], pp. 47-50). The pro-life position is represented as unreasonable by appeal to cases like poor adolescent women in the Mississippi delta (this is Rosenberg's example) who are made to go through mandatory waiting periods and education before being permitted to have an abortion. Certainly, these women are too young and poor to bear the responsibility of parenthood, and the reader is led to sympathize, "This is terrible, that these women are put through this. We should let them do what is best for themselves, instead of pressing our upper-class values on them. How can anyone tell these women that they must have their babies? Are we willing to step in and help support them for the rest of their lives? If not, we should let them have the abortion." Here is the reasoning: if abortion isn't legal, then some women would face tremendous hardship by being forced to go through a pregnancy and deliver a baby. Therefore abortion should be legal. Even with the alternative of adoption ignored by these people, hopefully you can see the problem in their reasoning. These examples are the exception, not the norm. It is possible to construct a situation which lends weight to the woman's right over against the fetus's. But it is a fallacy to use atypical examples to argue that abortion is morally permissible for everyone, and for any reason. All that follows (if anything) is that abortion should be allowed for a very few people. It is important that the Christian understand this line of reasoning, though, because appeal to these atypical cases can itself be charged with sentiment (e.g., championing the rights of the poor).
1. The decision of the Court purports to represent a position which does not favor any one view of personhood—but only one view of personhood is consistent with the Court's decision.
The Court says they don't know when personhood begins, but then they decide that the fetus has no rights. The only view compatible with that is the view that the fetus is not a person. In fact, the only view compatible with Roe v. Wade is that the fetus is not a person until the moment of birth. If you're uncertain about whether the fetus is a person, you don't allow it to be killed. If there is any chance a human being is at risk, you don't take that life. No one's right to privacy can override a person's right to life, and more importantly, no right to privacy allows me to take a life that might be human without being certain about it.
2. The point of viability is completely arbitrary, and the selection of any such arbitrary point for protecting fetal rights argues strongly for the point of conception as the beginning of fetal rights.
After its own admission that it doesn't know when personhood begins, the Court decides that the point of viability is when some degree of protection should be extended to the fetus. Why pick that point? Why not pick when brainwaves first appear? Why not at conception? The Court gives no reason. Another problem is that there is no objective point where a fetus can live outside of a womb. With modern medical technology, that point is always changing. And what is the mystique of the point of viability? What baby, born prematurely at 6 months, can live on its own? What infant, born at 9 ½ months, can live on its own? None can. Viability, as a protection point for a fetus, is meaningless. In fact, there is only one point that anyone can point at and say, "Before this point we definitely did not have a person," and that is the point of conception. There are no other definite points leading up to live birth.
3. The "right to privacy" which was extrapolated from the Constitution by the Court is so vague as to allow almost any ethically questionable action that does not immediately harm another person (and in some cases, "personhood" can be defined vaguely enough to allow even actions that do bring harm, as with abortion).
Again, our right to privacy was already protected by the Constitution. "Privacy" is a new right which is really just validation of a broad cultural sentiment. This is why 72% of people in our society are pro-choice—abortion lines up with self-determination, and that is very important to us. When Christians attack pro-choice, the people they attack feel that their most cherished value, even their very identity as an autonomous adult, is being attacked.
I want to spend a brief bit of space covering the biblical position, but please understand that this is going to be essentially useless in a discussion with a non-Christian. The correct way to address this issue is to make an appeal to reason (as I have been doing, in pointing out the flaws in the Court's decision). Still, the Christian for her own sake should understand the biblical position. Hopefully, the Christian will also discern how very indirect the scriptural arguments against abortion really are, and use them with care.
1. All human life is created in the image of God, and therefore has intrinsic value.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen. 1:26)
I cannot here delve into the image of God and what it signifies, but it is the basis for why we value human life so highly as Christian theists. And it is the basis for why God values us so highly; we are like Him. We are all forever connected to Him in the most fundamental way. We are significant because He is significant.
2. God is opposed to the killing of human beings (except as a form of capital punishment) for the reason that they bear His image.
"You shall not murder." (Exod. 20:13; see Matt. 5:21; 19:18)
"And surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man." (Gen. 9:5-6; see Exod. 21; Rom. 13:9)
Note the last part of Genesis 9:6; the reason we should not kill one another is not because killing itself is inherently wrong (there is no penalty when we kill animals), but because human beings are significant.
3. One can infer from Scripture that the fetus is a human being, and therefore should not be killed.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5)
For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mothers womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. (Ps. 139:13-15)
And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. (Heb. 7:9-10)
The implication of Ps. 51:5 is that David could not be a sinner in his mother's womb and not also be a person. (Sinners are people.) Ps. 139:13-15 is even more direct, since David connects his fetal origins to the person he is when he writes of the special work God did in his mother's womb (the context goes into even more detail, mentioning the days of his life God planned for him in the womb).
Heb. 7:9-10 is fascinating, because it seems to argue that the spiritual substance of people is passed through conception, along with the genetic material (Levi was in Abraham, so to speak, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek). This implies that personhood is related to conception. Understand that if you try to use these passages to defend the pro-life position, you open yourself up to a very simple counterattack. A non-Christian can argue that the Psalms are poetic literature, and therefore not the right basis to construct a solid theological argument. I want to point out that the Christian position is reasonable without appeal to these few verses. It just happens that they are consistent with the idea of personhood from the point of conception.
I should say something about Exod. 21:22-25, since this is used as a counterexample by some people who argue that the Bible does not depict the fetus as a person:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Exod. 21:22-25)
Notice in this verse that there is no penalty (demanded by Lev. 24:17-20) exacted from someone who causes a fetus's death; thus, it is argued, the fetus is not a person. But the phrase "has a miscarriage" can just as accurately be translated, "has an early delivery." In other words, the struggle here doesn't result in the death of a fetus, but its early delivery. There is no punishment except a fine for this. But if the fetus was killed in the process, the death would be covered by the "any further injury" clause (which could apply just as well to either the mother or the child).
The real argument of scripture against abortion is not the verses above, but rather the moral perspective which opposes the whole pro-choice (autonomous self) ethic. Our culture promotes what is, essentially, a consumer ethic: I determine what is right for me. My choices do not amount to right or wrong—only right and wrong for me. The same value system that typifies a weekend shopping experience (i.e., "Who are you to criticize my purchases? As long as I'm happy, what business is it of yours?") is projected on our public and private lives. The origins of this mentality, and how it has transformed our society and its most essential values over the last two decades, are beyond the scope of this present question. But as I mentioned, things weren't always this way. Consumer values infect our culture, and sadly, they infect the church. We often oppose abortion but live as though we have no obligation to others, even as Christians. In contrast are the values of Jesus Christ. I will spend a brief time reflecting on them as a conclusion to this paper.
1. Jesus was the most significant human being that ever lived, but he prioritized the needs of all people over his own life (Phil. 2:5-11; 1 John 4:9-11)
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8)
Cultural tendency: Prioritization of self
In our culture, we don't treat other people like they're more important than our own needs. We place ourselves before others. We take care of ourselves. To the degree that we do this as Christians, we stand at odds with Jesus' example. And He began not as an important person, but as God, and put people before Himself even to the point of dying for them. The only values which matter before God are the ones Christ lived out, not the ones present in our selfish, individualistic culture. And I would add, living out consumer values in your relationships (marriage, ministry, etc.) will undoubtedly destroy them. Living out Jesus' values will lead to lasting commitments and changed lives.
2. Jesus responded to the needs of individuals as often as he came upon them (cf. Luke 10:30-37).
"Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers hands?" And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." And Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same." (Luke 10:36-37)
Jesus didn't just come here to die; He put others before Himself every day of His life. Note that as often as Jesus encounters people in need, He slows His journey and helps them:
Healing: Matt. 4:23-24; 8:2-3, 5-13; 9:1-8, 18-25, 27-31; 15:22-28; Luke 4:38-40; 5:12-13; 7:11-15; 8:43-50; 17:11-19; 18:35-43; John 5:1-9; 9:1-7
Typical example of Jesus' value system (slowing His journey to put others first):
And as they were going out from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" And the multitude sternly told them to be quiet; but they cried out all the more, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, "What do you want Me to do for you?" They said to Him, "Lord, we want our eyes to be opened." And moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him. (Matt 20:29-34)
Jesus' treatment of women: John 4:1-42; 8:1-11; Luke 7:36-50
Jesus' treatment of children: Mark 10:13-16
Cultural tendency: Selective kindness, moderated by personal convenience
In contrast, we help people when it's convenient. We give money when we have plenty. And we rationalize it by noting that there is too much need out in the world for us (as individuals) to respond to. This is a mere rationalization. Jesus did whatever He could as often as He came across someone with needs.
3. Responding to the needs of others is the essence of love (1 John 3:15-18; James 2:15-16)
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (1 John 3:15-18)
If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? (James 2:15-16)
Cultural tendency: Reduction of "love" to selfish gratification
Our cultural conceptions of love are otherwise than Jesus'. We define "love," at times, as romantic thoughts, lustful urges, or feeling a strong emotional bond. These may be correlates of love, but love itself cannot be so reduced. Biblically, love is always a response to need. This is important, because cultural conceptions of love, without this component, may be consistent with selfishness. Someone may tell you, "I love you," but really just mean, "I like what you do for me," which really isn't about love at all. Love is about what I do for you, not what I feel. Thus, we can love people that bother us, or that inconvenience us terribly. People probably bothered and inconvenienced Jesus every day, but He never avoided His obligation to other people.
4. Jesus says that the identifying characteristic of his followers is that they love one another the way he loved them (John 13:34-35; 15:12-14; 13:15-16)
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)
"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends, if you do what I command you." (John 15:12-14)
"For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:15-16)
Cultural tendency: Opting for a "lower" or "more relaxed" Christianity than the one modeled by Jesus
Thus, if we truly follow Christ, we take on His agenda. Our tendency is to conceive of two roads to discipleship, one for ministry professionals and one for the rest of us, and we leave the really serious obligations to love others to the pros. Jesus never offers a lower path than the one He Himself followed. This great reversal, the prioritization of other people over your own needs, is your obligation.
5. Jesus so highly values human beings (as made in the image of God) that he considers our love for others as interchangeable with our love for him (Matt. 22:36-39; 25:31-46; John 21:15-17; 1 John 4:20-21)
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matt. 22:36-39)
"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'" (Matt. 25:31-40)
Cultural tendency: "Spiritualizing" the requirements of the Christian life
Our tendency is to individualize our Christian experience, to envision the Christian life as something I get from God, not something I do for others. This is particularly attractive in a culture that inundates us with consumer values. Jesus makes it clear that what counts at the judgment, what stands as evidence of our faith, is how we have treated others.
Even while we oppose the cultural values which lie behind a cultural acceptance of Roe v. Wade, we often don't live out Jesus' values (which stand in tension with our culture's) in our own lives. Rather than indict our culture for being consistent in their values (which are individualistic consumer values), let's begin with adopting Jesus' values in ourselves, and demonstrating to the world through our actions why the lives of others have value.
Counter-cultural goals:
1. To value other people so highly that you see them not as an inconvenience but as an opportunity.
2. To make it a point to invest in each and every life that God places in your path, every day of your life.
3. To identify the times when investments in the lives of others cost you something, and then intentionally choose to give something up to meet someone else's need.