Introduction
This subject
breaks my heart on so many levels. My
heart aches for the babies who have never been born. I grieve for the desperate women who find
themselves with an unwanted pregnancy (and sometimes in horrific
circumstances), but who do not fully comprehend the entire scope of the choice
they are making or have already made. I
cry as one of the many women who wrestle with having a barren womb while millions
of babies are being pulled out of their mothers’ bodies and discarded as refuse. I wanted to save this post for a series I’m
planning doing later this year called the “Why I Believe” series, but it seemed
neglectful to wait that long when this subject is so fresh in our minds now
with the recent decision made in New York.
I was required to write this paper for a class during my senior year at
Frontier School of the Bible. I have added
to it and altered it somewhat since then, but for the most part the arguments,
refutations, science, logic, and biblical truths have not changed. Some of my refutations may seem absurd to a
culture that largely scoffs at the concepts of right and wrong and absolute
truth, but I wholeheartedly believe in an unchanging moral standard. Either abortion is right, or it is
wrong. The circumstances surrounding it
may well be hazy and difficult to deal with, but regardless, it is either pleasing
to God and congruous with His character and design for the world, or it isn’t. Based on the refutations for the following arguments
(and much more information that I do not have time or space to provide here), I
strongly believe that it isn’t.
1.
A woman has the right to control her own body.
Abortion is not
completely isolated in its effects to the woman’s own body. The unborn child is not a part of the woman’s
body. He or she is supported by the
woman’s body, but is not her body itself.
All of the cells within an individual’s body have the same set of
DNA. At the moment of conception, the
new child (though now only a single cell) has his or her own full, unique set
of DNA that is different from that of the mother. In his book titled Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue, R.C. Sproul writes, “The fetus is contained
within the woman’s body and connected to it, but that does not mean the fetus
is a part of the mother’s body. A more
accurate description is to say that though the fetus shares the same
geographical location of the woman’s body, the fetus is not essentially a part
of her body. We can distinguish between
the essence of the woman’s body and the essence of the fetus. Given the gestation process, the fetus is
neither the product essentially or organically of the mother’s body alone nor
is the fetus a permanent fixture of the woman’s body. Left to the natural course, the unborn baby
will leave the mother’s body to carry out his or her own life” (102). This then becomes an issue not of the woman
controlling her own body, but choosing whether or not to take the life of
another human being, which is clearly condemned in Scripture (Ex. 20:13; Rev.
21:8). The fact that the unborn child is
residing within the woman’s body does not give the woman the right to decide
whether the child lives or dies.
Biblically,
I would take it a step further and say that a woman is commanded to control her own body in the sense that she is supposed
to flee immorality, which is how many unwanted children are conceived. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 says in no uncertain
terms: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you
abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own
vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles
who do not know God.” The writer of
Hebrews reveals the sinful nature of premarital sex and adultery in Hebrews
13:4: “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be
undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” If a woman makes the choice to obey Scripture
by exercising self-control when the temptation to participate in sexual
immorality arises, then in most cases she will not become pregnant by someone
who is not her husband; hence, she eliminates that particular excuse for an
abortion (we will discuss the issues of rape and incest in argument #4). In 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, Paul urges his
readers: “Flee immorality. Every other
sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against
his own body. Or do you not know that
your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God,
and that you are not your own? For you
have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.”
These
verses show that a woman does not have the right to do whatever she pleases
with her body. Whether married or
unmarried, she must answer to a higher authority and stick within the bounds of
God’s Word in the area of sex and
abortion as with any other area of life.
The verses used were addressed to believers, but this does not mean that
unbelieving women can do as they please with their bodies without
consequence. They also must answer to
God as their Creator (Rom. 1:18-32) and as the one who bought them with the
blood of His precious Son (He paid the price for all, though not all will
accept Him). Ultimately, their unbelief
is their foremost issue to face (Jn. 3:18), but their works will also have
consequences (Mt. 11:21-24; Lk. 12:42-48; Rev. 20:11-13).
2.
The fetus is not a human being or person, only a “potential” human
being.
A
fetus, as defined by medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, is “the developing young in the uterus,
specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, which in humans
is from the third month after fertilization until birth” (interestingly, the definition has changed from the
following since I first wrote this paper: “in humans, the unborn young from
the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as
distinguished from the earlier embryo”). Scripture speaks often of various people
during this time period of their lives as just that: people. Samson, Jesus, Jeremiah, and Paul are all
examples of people in Scripture who were called to a specific purpose from the
womb (Judg. 13:3-5; Isa. 49:1-6; Jer. 1:4, 5; Lk. 2:21; Gal. 1:15). Their lives were not uncertain while they
were in the womb, for God knew them and set them aside for specific tasks
before they ever saw the light of day. The
record of Jacob and Esau is also fascinating in relation to this topic. The boys struggled with each other while they
were still in the womb (Gen. 25:22).
When Rebekah asked God about this, “the LORD said to her, ‘Two nations
are in your womb; and two peoples will be separated from your body; and one
people shall be stronger than the other; and the older shall serve the younger”
(Gen. 25:23). Not only were Jacob and
Esau considered to be human beings, but whole nations that were to arise from
them were considered to be within the body of Rebekah. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit
while he was in his mother’s womb (Lk. 1:15); surely, no unformed substance or
merely “potential” human being could be filled with the Holy Spirit. Scripture passages such as Job 31:15 and Psalm
139:13-16 also provide evidence that a fetus is a real, legitimate human being
who is known by God, seen by God, and formed by God for a purpose.
Biologically,
a human being exists once a man’s sperm fertilizes a woman’s egg. This process results in only one cell, but
that single cell is a human being. In Abortion:Questions & Answers, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke write, “This is then only
a single cell? Yes. But a remarkable and unique one. This cell is now either male or female. The cell is unique, i.e., never before in the
history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly
like this human exist. The cell is
complete, i.e., nothing else – no bits or pieces – will be added from this time
until the old man or woman dies – nothing but nutrition and oxygen. This being
is programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled, ongoing process
of growth, development, and replacement of his or her own dying cells. This living being is depended upon his or her
mother for shelter and food, but in all other respects is a totally new, different,
unique, and independent being” (33).
Clearly, this cell that is formed during fertilization is much more than
a “potential” human being, yet the medical definition of a fetus does not even
apply until eight weeks (now three months!) after that human being’s conception. By this time, the single cell that formed as
a result of fertilization has doubled thirty of the forty-five times that occur
in the span of a human’s lifetime (Willke, 34).
In
addition to these considerations, one must think about the fact that a human
sperm that fertilizes a human egg always results in a human being in the
end. This combination never produces a
dog, fish, stink bug, tree, flamingo, disease, gelatinous non-living mass, or
rock. If human fertilization did produce
such a variety of living and non-living things, then one could call the
fertilized egg a “potential” human being because one would not know for sure
what that fertilized egg would become. Such
is not the case. The human fetus is very
much an individual human being, separate from the mother, though dependent on
her for just a short time of his or her life.
3.
Every baby born should be a “wanted” baby.
One
child in Scripture that was certainly unwanted, at least initially by his
father, was Perez. Perez was one of two
boys that were born when Judah unknowingly had sex with his daughter-in-law
Tamar, who pretended to be a prostitute (Gen. 38). This unplanned child is in the genealogy of
Jesus Christ (Mt. 1:3; Lk. 3:33).
Certainly, it would not have been better for him to have died than to be
born into a family, messed up as it was.
Ishmael was initially wanted in the sense that Sarai wanted Abram to
have sexual relations with Hagar so that she could have children through her
(Gen. 16:2). However, he was not wanted
for long and was eventually sent away with his mother (Gen. 21:10). Therefore, the fact that he was wanted at the
time of his conception did not guarantee that he would always be wanted. Conversely, children who are unwanted at
conception (or unplanned) often later become wanted by their parents. Whether wanted or not, every child is
valuable because every child is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).
All
parents should indeed want their children.
In a perfect world, every child born would be wanted because none would
be born as a result of rape, adultery, or premarital sex, and people would
understand that children are a gift from God (Ps. 127:3-5). In essence, this would require a world
without sin. However, this scenario is
not the reality of this present world.
Babies are often conceived in the sinful and painful circumstances cited
above or by parents who see children as an annoying byproduct of sexual
relations. Still others may not feel
that they have the financial means to support another child, and they do not
know God or trust God to provide for the children He gives them. Whatever the circumstances, the lack of
desire on the part of the parents to see a conceived child come to delivery
does not give them the right to end the child’s life. What this argument really amounts to is that
any unwanted child should be killed. How
far could proponents of abortion take this idea? What happens when a mother gets overly tired
of waking up in the middle of the night to change reeking diapers and suddenly wishes
she didn’t have a child? Could she then
kill the child? Could Sarai have killed
Ishmael when she no longer wanted him around?
Absolutely not! This sounds
preposterous, but this argument must be taken for what it is without the
sugar-coated wording.
4.
Abortions should always be allowed in the case of rape, incest,
deformity of the child, or
if giving birth is a threat to the
woman’s well-being.
Pregnancies resulting from rape and
incest are rare (Willke, 143-152). In
the rare instances when they do occur, having an abortion does not serve
justice for the wrong that was committed.
Instead, it creates new problems for the woman, including a keen sense
of guilt for killing her baby that may even overshadow whatever trauma she
experienced (Willke, 149). In the cases
of incest, the women have much deeper emotional and psychological sufferings
already of which an abortion will only add more (Willke, 152). In either case, the baby is not totally
foreign to the mother because he or she still carries half of the mother’s
DNA. In other words, the baby is still
her child even though that child was conceived in such horrific circumstances. The baby’s life should not be taken because
of the sins of the parents (Dt. 24:16; Jer. 31:29, 30).
Deformed children are no less
valuable or less human than healthy, fully-functioning children. In fact, Scripture shows that some people are
born with physical problems so that “the works of God might be displayed in
[them]” (Jn. 9:3). Jesus showed great
compassion to the crippled and the lame, and He taught others to do the same
(Lk. 14:2-4, 13, 14). These people were
not to be looked upon with disgust or discarded. Likewise, deformed babies should not be
discarded, for they also bear the image of God.
Another factor to consider is that the methods used to detect deformity
of the child in the womb are not always accurate. I have heard of several cases in which the
doctors told a mother that her child would be born with all sorts of problems,
but by the grace of God that child was born normal and healthy. Finally, several types of deformities can be
avoided by the healthy lifestyle of the mother.
For example, the abuse of drugs and alcohol by a pregnant woman can lead
to physical problems in the unborn child.
These should certainly be avoided.
However, even if they are not avoided, the child does not deserve to die
because of the choices of the mother.
Further, killing the child would not be merciful as some would suggest. Many deformed people today are thankful to be
alive and are glad that their parents did not take their lives in an attempt to
protect them from a painful life or a life that might be considered sub-par.
According to R.F.R. Gardner’s book, Abortion:The Personal Dilemma, the decision of whether to save the child or the
mother does not often arise. He writes,
“If that type of problem were to arise late in pregnancy a Caesarean section
would usually be possible. Were it to
occur early the state of the fetus would probably be so endangered by its
mother’s condition that the possibility of its being born alive would not
arise” (151). In the rare case where
dilemma does happen, Gardner supports the viewpoint that the mother should be
saved first since her life is more interconnected with other people who would
be affected more by her death and since she also has the right to life. This would not necessarily always require the
abortion of the baby; rather, the doctors’ full attention would be given to the
mother first and then to the child if they could save both. Another scenario that might arise would be to
“save the mother by an abortion, or lose both mother and fetus” (Gardner, 151). In this scenario, the baby has no chance of
survival; therefore, the doctor must do what he can to save the mother. These are not easy decisions to make, but
clearly abortions should not always
be allowed when giving birth is a threat to the mother’s well-being because
every circumstance is different.
Whatever the circumstance, both mother and child bear the image of God;
therefore, doctors should seek to save both whenever this is possible without
automatically discarding the child.
5.
Human life is routinely destroyed in miscarriage (a form of abortion),
so why cannot a
woman do the same thing to the unborn
fetus?
Miscarriages have a variety of
different causes. Some miscarriages are
a result of lifestyle choices (i.e., smoking, drinking alcohol, and using
illegal drugs) or other circumstances that can usually be avoided (i.e., severe
malnutrition, exposure to environmental and workplace hazards, radiation, and
medications). However, according to WebMD,
most miscarriages do not happen as a result of a choice of the mother, but as a
result of fatal genetic problems. Such
miscarriages are out of the control of the parents and doctors; therefore, they
cannot be held responsible for them.
Abortion is an entirely different situation. With an abortion, the mother, father, and
doctors
actively choose to kill the unborn child, which likely would have been born
otherwise.
Miscarriage
is not a choice, but abortion is. Just
because something happens naturally does not automatically mean that mimicking
such an event is morally right or justified. Death in general is a “natural” occurrence
(the result of sin according to Gen. 3:3, 19 and Rom. 5:12) in that all people
physically die in one way or another.
The “routine” occurrence of death does not justify the murder of another
person. Similarly, the fact that
miscarriages occur does not justify abortion.
Having a miscarriage does not violate the command of God in Exodus
20:13, but having an abortion does.
6.
Abortion is an entirely safe medical procedure.
Like
many medical procedures, abortions carry significant risks. Immediate physical complications for the
mother that can arise as the result of an abortion include infection, excessive
bleeding, blood clots, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, perforation of
the uterus, uterine rupture, cervical laceration, sudden death, cardio-vascular
arrest, and much more (Willke, 90-95).
Complications that can occur later as a result of an abortion include
sterility, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, placenta previa, and more
(Willke, 103-107). These physical
problems barely scratch the surface of all the havoc that an abortion can wreak
on a woman’s body and life. Abortions
can also lead to various emotional problems, a deep sense of guilt, and a
desire to commit suicide. Clearly, this
procedure is not “entirely safe” for the mother. Even more obvious is the fact that abortion
is not a safe medical procedure for the baby, and it is not intended to be,
seeing as how the whole purpose it to get rid of the child. Further, the aborted baby may not be the only
child affected because abortions can lead to future premature births and other
complications. Even if abortion were a
safe medical procedure for the mother and her future children, it would still
be wrong because it would still take the life of one child that bears the image
of God (Gen. 9:6).
7.
Opinion polls favor abortion.
Some opinion
polls do certainly favor abortion.
However, other opinion polls disfavor abortion. This is because the results of opinion polls
can easily be manipulated by careful wording of questions, by targeting
specific audiences, by utilizing false facts, or by including various exceptions
within the questions (Willke, 243-246).
For example, if an opinion poll uses words that relate to women’s rights
and includes the exception of protecting the life of the mother, then the
results will certainly be pro-abortion.
This manipulation alone discredits the use of opinion polls to determine
questions of morality.
More importantly, morality is not
determined by majority vote, even if the majority view is presented
accurately. In Exodus 32:1-6, the
majority of Israel thought it was morally acceptable to make and to worship a golden
calf. The fact that the majority agreed
with this action did not make it morally right.
In God’s estimation, they had corrupted themselves (v. 7), and His anger
burned against them to the point that He wanted to destroy them (v. 10). God’s word trumps all opinions of man, no
matter how many men agree with each other.
Morality is based on God’s unchanging character, not the ever-shifting
opinions of sinful mankind.
8.
We are in danger of over population.
Abortion helps to control this problem.
The
population growth that can be seen currently is largely due to longer life
spans and immigration (Willke, 154). The
birth rate, however, is much too low to simply replace the current population,
much less increase it (Willke, 155).
Willke notes, “The only factor that ultimately determines population
growth or decline is the birth rate. In
order for a population to just replace itself – to have ZPG (zero population
growth) – the average woman, in her reproductive years, must have 2.1 to 2.2
children. If the average is higher, the
nation grows. If the average is lower, the
nation ages and slowly dies” (p. 155).
The U.S. has been at, or below, 2.0 since 1972. As of 2016, it was at 1.8 (data.wordbank.org). The U.S. is not the only country that is
slowly dying. “Almost all of Western
Europe, Canada, and the United States, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand” have
this problem (Willke, 154).
Again,
it must be stated that even if we were in the so-called “danger” of
overpopulation, abortion would not be justified. On several occasions in history, God
specifically commanded men to multiply and fill or subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28,
9:1, 7; Dt. 30:16). God’s desire for man
since his very creation was that he would multiply and subdue the earth, and He
did not put a limit on this command. Psalm 127:3-5 reveals that children are a
gift and a blessing from God.
Specifically, the psalmist says, “How blessed is the man whose quiver is
full of them…” (v. 5). To abort babies
in an attempt to avoid overpopulation goes against the will of God for mankind
on this earth, and it goes against His express command not to murder (Gen. 9:6;
Ex. 20:13).
9.
Abortion is the most correct and moral choice for a woman who has
already had two or
more children.
This argument
does not line up with God’s plan for mankind to multiply and subdue the earth
(Gen. 1:28, 9:1, 7; Dt. 30:16). Neither
does it view children as the gift from God that they are according to Psalm 127:3-5. Instead, it asserts that murder is to be
preferred over having “too many” kids.
If one were to ask a pro-choice advocate if a murderer or a woman with
twelve children is in the greater wrong, would that person honestly answer the
latter? Nowhere in Scripture is it
suggested that someone can have “too many” kids or that having more than two
kids is morally wrong. Genesis 22:17
reveals that God promised to bless Abraham by greatly multiplying his “seed as
the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore.” Several parents in the Bible had what would
today be considered outrageous numbers of children (Gen. 4:1, 2; 5:3, 4; 29:31-30:24;
35:15-18; 46:8-26; 1 Chr. 3:1-8; 14:3-7; 2 Sam. 5:13-16); yet, they are never
condemned for this in Scripture. On the
other hand, we have already seen that murder is definitely condemned in
Scripture (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13).
10.
Pro-Life people are hypocritical in condemning Pro-Choicers because many
of them
use contraceptives or birth control
pills to keep pregnancies from happening.
Contraception is
not always the same as abortion.
Contraception prevents a human being from being formed, whereas abortion
kills a human being that is already living.
Granted, some forms of “contraceptives” are abortifacients, such as
various forms of the pill, intrauterine devices, and the morning-after pill
(Willke, 226-228). In cases where
pro-life people use these particular so-called contraceptives, they would be
hypocritical or inconsistent at the very least.
However, methods such as natural family planning, condoms, spermicides,
sterilization, and diaphragms do not abort a living human being (www.lifeissues.org/abortifacients/).
The
argument itself contains at least two logical fallacies: it is a red herring
and a fallacy of moral equivalence (owl.purdue.edu). It is a red herring in that it diverts the
reader’s attention from the issue of whether or not it is right to take the
life of a living being in the early stages of life to the issue of whether or
not it is right to prevent human life in the first place. These are two separate issues. This argument also contains the fallacy of
moral equivalence because it essentially equates pregnancy prevention to
murder.
Further,
the fact that some pro-life people are hypocritical in their judgment still does
not make abortion morally right. Matthew
7:1-5 sheds light on this issue of hypocritical judgment. It is certainly not commended, for Jesus
urges the hypocritical to first take care of their own issues before judging
others. However, He does not say that
the person with the speck in his eye is doing no wrong. The hypocrisy of one person does not excuse
sin in the life of another.
11.
The idea that life begins at conception is a religious belief, not a
scientific fact.
Scientifically, all
living organisms posses at least the following general basic properties:
chemical uniqueness, complexity and hierarchical organization, reproduction,
possession of a genetic program, metabolism, development, and environmental
reaction (biocyclopedia.com). A fertilized egg meets all of these
requirements. Therefore; a fertilized
egg must be considered a living organism according to this scientific
definition. However, it is not enough to
prove that a fertilized egg is a living organism. It must be human in order to bear the image
of God (Gen. 1:27). Normal humans have
46 human chromosomes (Willke, 1). It is
possible for a human to have 47 human chromosomes, and though they have an
“abnormality,” they are still human (Willke, 34). Other creatures may have the same number of
chromosomes as humans, but “different species have different types of
chromosomes” (Willke, 34). To sum up,
only human beings have 46 human
chromosomes, just as other species have various numbers and types of
chromosomes that are unique to that particular species. The normal fertilized egg of a human being
has 46 human chromosomes, possesses all of the general basic properties of
living organisms, and is, therefore, a scientifically living human being. As such, it bears the image of God and must
be protected as a human being.
12.
If abortion is made illegal, women will go to jail.
This argument assumes that if
abortion is made illegal, then women will continue to have abortions anyway,
they will get caught, and they will be sentenced to go to jail. This may be the case for some, but certainly
making abortion illegal would deter at least some women from having one in the
first place because there would be even more personal risk involved. This argument really involves a deeper
issue. Women already go to jail for
various reasons, such as theft, murder, embezzlement, and illegal use of
drugs. This fact does not mean that all
of these crimes should be legalized. The
very purpose of the justice system of a government is to punish those who do
evil and commend those who do right (Rom. 13:3, 4; 1 Pt. 2:14). The core issue, then, is whether or not
having an abortion is worthy of punishment.
In other words, is abortion morally right or morally wrong? As has been demonstrated in previous
arguments, abortion is the process of exterminating the life of a living human
being. The only absolute moral standard
that we have for determining right and wrong is God’s Word, which is based on
His character. God’s Word clearly and
repeatedly condemns the act of murder as being sinful, i.e., morally wrong
(Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13; Num. 35:30; Mt. 15:19, 20; Rom. 1:28, 29; 1 Tim. 1:8-10).
13.
The criminalization of abortion will cause the poor to suffer while the
rich will simply
continue to get abortions.
This argument assumes that the rich
will not be deterred at all by the personal risk that comes with participating
in illegal activity. One must also ask,
in what way will the poor suffer if abortion is criminalized? Abortions do not take away the suffering from
a traumatic experience, such as rape, or the psychological suffering that comes
from perverted sexual experiences, such as incest. They do not take away the guilt of an
adulteress or provide a totally normal life for an unwed teenager who made a
sinful choice. The “suffering” that
people, rich or poor, would have to experience as a result of the
criminalization of abortion would be the experience of taking their pregnancies
to term in spite of their choices or circumstances. They may take blows to their finances,
happiness, beauty, romantic relationships, and/or comfort, but none of these
are more important than the preservation of a life or obedience to God. They may have to let someone else raise their
child through adoption, but surely that is preferable to terminating the young
life altogether.
Also,
we have already seen in previous arguments that abortions themselves can cause a great deal of physical,
emotional, and psychological suffering, or even death. Criminalizing abortion would spare more
women, rich and poor, from these sufferings that are associated with abortion. Poor women would be spared because they might
not be able to afford the higher cost of illegal abortions that come with
higher risk. Rich women would also be
spared because of the deterrence due to the heightened personal risk of legal
consequences.
Above
all, having an abortion is a still a sin, regardless of any resulting suffering
or inconvenience that may come upon the parents by having the child. Sin itself can lead to some form of
consequential suffering (1 Cor. 5:1-5; 11:27-30), and it always leads to death
(Rom. 6:23; Jas. 1:13-15).
14.
The individual should decide whether or not to have an abortion, not the
state.
This argument must consider the
purpose of the “state” or government.
Government authorities are those chosen by God to punish those who do
evil and commend those who do right (Rom. 13:3, 4; 1 Pt. 2:14). The primary purpose of laws within a
government is to protect the people so that they “can live in peace and safety
with each other” (Sproul, 82). This is
accomplished by fulfilling the biblical role mentioned above. Clearly, this role is sometimes abused or
neglected by certain governments, but it is the primary role of government intended
by God nonetheless. Also, this does not
mean that the government should control or be involved in every aspect of an
individual’s life. However, “there is one
nonnegotiable issue…regarding government involvement: Government must be
involved in protecting people from murder.
The protection of human life is at the heart of proper governmental
concern” (Sproul, 88).
As
has been demonstrated in the refutation of previous arguments, unborn children
are living human beings. Hence, they
deserve the right of the government’s protection. They are entirely dependent on others to
fight for their right to live. If the
mother does not protect them, then they cannot protect themselves. Therefore, they need conscientious people who
can see the sinful nature of abortion to fight for their rights. Ultimately, they need protection by the government. Abortion is not an “individual” decision that
only affects the mother. It affects the
life of another human being who is incapable of voicing an opinion on the
matter. When abortion is seen for what
it is, murder, then this argument becomes outrageous: “The individual should
decide whether or not to murder her child, not the state.” This type of thinking ultimately leads to a
nonexistent government that does not protect its people. Such a government would result in chaos and
incredible violence as the full extent of the depraved, sinful human nature would be left unrestrained in its expression.
15.
If women do not have the option to have a legal medical abortion, they
will use much more crude, dangerous, unsanitary means to try to induce a
miscarriage themselves.
This may be true. However, the reality that women will be
willing to put their own bodies and lives at risk in order to get rid of the
life of their child does not make it okay for a medical professional to do it
for them instead. Consider if this were
the case with a two-year-old. Imagine a
woman has lost her husband or partner, whether by death or an end to the
relationship, she does not think she can handle being a single mother, she no
longer has an income that is high enough to provide everything for the child
that she wants to, and she is no longer happy having the child in her
life. Should a medical professional then
be allowed to take the life of the child in a sterile, relatively painless way
just so that the mother won’t run the risk of ruining the rest of her own free life
by murdering the child in a less palatable way – by strangulation, starvation,
drowning, etc? Of course not! For another example of this logic, should
medical professionals, who have a greater understanding of human anatomy, slit
the arms of depressed teenagers with sterile blades just so that they don’t
accidentally kill themselves by using a contaminated kitchen knife or by
unknowingly hitting a major artery?
Absolutely not!
I
can see why a person who does not believe that the “substance” inside a woman’s
womb is a living human child would be more concerned about protecting the
health and lives of women who do not understand the damage they can cause to
themselves by using crude miscarriage-inducing methods. But for someone like me who does believe that
life begins at conception and bears the very image of God, this seems to be a
question of whether or not the life and health of the woman are more valuable
than the life and health of her unborn child, however unwanted. Is it more acceptable to discard the young
life simply because his or her mother might unintentionally harm or kill
herself otherwise? Is the child less
valuable because he or she has not developed as much or lived as long as the
mother? Is the mother more valuable
simply because she is currently more known by people and can contribute more to
society? What I believe these scared and desperate
mothers need is not an abortion, but to know their Creator who will protect
them, guide them, love them, mold their hearts, and provide for all their
needs.
Conclusion
While the Bible does not
specifically use the word “abortion,” it is very clear about the sanctity of
life and the purpose and value of unborn children. I understand that some circumstances
surrounding abortion are excruciatingly painful and complicated, but I also
know that the majority of abortions occur because the parents either don’t want
the responsibility or do not think they can handle the responsibility. According to the Guttmacher Institute website,
“The three most common reasons [for having an abortion] – each cited by three-fourths
of patients – were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability
to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with
work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent
or were having problems with their husband or partner.” On the surface, these reasons
seem responsible and derived through worldly wisdom, especially if all that is lost
is a lump of tissue. As I’ve discussed, this
is simply not the case. To kill an older
child for any of these reasons would be considered absurd – so why is it any different
for a child who is still in the womb? Our
culture has sacrificed far too many infants to the idols of happiness, financial
freedom, beauty, comfort, ease, health and ultimately of our own selfishness. There is grace and forgiveness for those who have
chosen this path, but what is done cannot be undone. God, have mercy on us.
Don't forget to find We Are Seen on social media or sign up for e-mail updates!
(I promise not to spam you ☺)
