Abortion

INTRODUCTION

The intention of this paper is very modest. As the title indicates, this paper will only be concerned with selected exegetical and ethical issues in the wide-ranging discussion on abortion in our society. There are many issues which are very important (such as formulating an action plan for dealing with abortion in our culture), but which are tangential to the scope of this current work. Thus I will attempt to draw as tight a radius as possible around the material that is most crucial to the various exegetical and ethical issues that will be surveyed. I do not consider this paper to be anything of an authoritative word on the subject, but rather the product of my own preliminary exploration of this issue.

 

EXEGETICAL ISSUES

Genesis 1:28/9:1

"Be fruitful and multiply..."

This command to be fruitful and multiply can be taken as a proof text to deny the legitimacy of abortion, since abortion clearly obstructs multiplication from occurring. While there may be some value in using this expression to establish the principle that God has designed the human race to propagate life through reproduction, and is therefore favourably disposed to life itself,[1] as a whole these texts fail to provide much support to an antiabortion position. This is not due to a defect in the text, but to a defective application of the text to an issue that it is not really concerned with. Leaning solely on these texts (and overlooking the fact that these commands come to Adam & Eve when there are only two humans in the world, and to Noah as he emerges into the post-diluvian world), one could argue that all contraceptive use is wrong, since it blocks the design of being fruitful and multiplying. It could further be argued that a couple that has two abortions and five children have fulfilled God's intention more than a couple who never have an abortion but who produce only two children.

 

Exodus 21:22-25

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [marginal reading "has a miscarriage"] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (NIV)

 

This text is the most controversial biblical passage in the entire canon when it comes to abortion. The translation of the text, either as giving birth prematurely or as a miscarriage is of considerable importance. If the woman prematurely births a viable baby without any serious injury then the fine would be due to personal damages along the lines of trauma, stress, and perhaps low birth weight, etc.,. On the other hand, if the baby emerges from the mother's womb and there is serious damage done to either the baby or the mother, then lex talionis applies.^[2] This can be taken as a strong argument that the baby in the womb is a living person, since any serious injury to the baby results in the legal administration of lex talionis, a law that is never applied to a human who inflicts an injury on a non-human being (c.f. Lev. 24:17-22).

The difficulty with this interpretation is that it seems to be based on an incorrect understanding of verse 22. Philologically either "miscarriage" or "premature birth" is an allowable translation, since; "it is not demonstrable either that this language in itself must be understood with reference to a miscarriage or that it cannot be so understood."^[3] Even the context of Exodus 21:22-25 allows for elasticity in the interpretation, since verse 23 allows for there being serious injury, up to and including loss of life, from the act of having the content of the woman's womb expelled. Thus it is impossible to maintain in a strict fashion that verse 22 must be speaking of a viable, premature birth. At best the language is neutral and merely indicates that the womb has been emptied, either in a miscarriage or in birth.^[4]

The majority of scholars, however, do not merely allow for the possibility that verse 22 is referring to a miscarriage, they insist upon it. This interpretation carries with it the not inconsiderable historical fact that ancient exegetes universally interpreted this verse as referring to the contents of the womb being expelled and the result being death (i.e. a miscarriage).^[5] It is generally a courteous principle to assume that people who spoke the language and lived in the culture usually knew what the words meant. Granted this translation, the text now reads so that a miscarriage is classified as no serious injury, and a fine is the proper punitive measure. The serious injury clause and lex talionis applies not to the fetus, but to the mother. This has then been taken (by no less an evangelical Old Testament authority than Bruce Waltke^[6]) to mean that the fetus is less than a full person, since lex talionis does not apply. The fetus can be forcibly expelled from the womb with the result being death, and this is not seen as a serious injury. The implication for those who favour abortion seems to be that the authoritative Scriptures grant a fetus less than fully human status, and subordinate the value of the fetus' life to the value of the mother's life.

One very interesting strand of evidence has emerged recently that lends support to the miscarriage translation, and it comes from current medical technology. Examining the case in this text from a medical perspective overwhelmingly supports the idea of expulsion resulting in fetal death. A medical doctor, after surveying various cases where blunt trauma may cause labour, writes; "There are only a few instances, in a non-technological era, in which blunt trauma serious enough to cause abortion of the fetus would result in a viable birth. If medical data has anything to say about Exodus 21:22, it indicates that the overwhelming probability for such a situation is an outcome of trauma-induced abortion with fetal demise."^[7]

It is undeniable that there is a general scholarly consensus that Exodus 21:22-25 should be translated as involving fetal death rather than a viable premature birth.^[8] Does this translation mean that abortion is therefore permissible? It is important to answer this question with reasons instead of knee jerk reactions.

Part of what complicates this question is the fact that the Bible contains no apodictic law prohibiting abortion. Exodus 21:22-25 is transparently casuistic, and one most be careful about making the parallels as tight as possible for direct transcultural application since, "OT casuistic law primarily treats civil or criminal cases rather than religious ones."^[9] Upon close examination it appears that this case has basically no parallels to modern abortion at all. In the first place, the damage done to either the baby or the mother is purely accidental. There are men who are fighting, and the pregnant woman is inadvertently struck. One has to stretch considerably to see this text as justifying a woman's deliberate choice to abort her child.

What is of far greater significance, however, is the fact that different valuations in the Old Testament for human life never implies lack of humanity or personhood.^[10] In the two verses immediately prior to this text there is direction given for the beating of a slave. In verses 28-32 a bull that has a habit of goring kills a free man or woman, and the bull's owner is put to death (or pays a redemption fine if that is preferred by those who have suffered the loss). Yet if the bull gores a slave, the bull's owner pays the slave's master 30 shekels of silver. There is obviously a difference in valuation of the life, but this cannot be taken to mean that the slave is a not a human being. The same principle runs through the Pentateuch for values of males and females. Males are more highly valued monetarily, but they are not therefore more essentially human.^[11] The Scriptures are not alone in assigning different values to persons, as this was the case in the entire broader Ancient Near Eastern legal context.^[12] In fact, it may be argued that since there is a fine involved, the miscarried baby is recognized as a person, albeit with a different assigned value. By any standard, however, to move from this piece of case law to the conclusion that abortion is justifiable is to fall into a glaring non sequitor.

 

Psalm 51:5

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." (NAS)

 

As David reflects on his sins concerning Bathsheba, he concludes that his actions stem from his sinful character, which is traceable back to the moment of his conception. This is not a statement concerning the morality of his mother, or the legitimacy of the coitus when he was conceived.^[13] Rather, it roots his participation in the sinful nature of humanity at the time of his conception. This inspired declaration that from the moment of conception the zygote is considered sinful proves that it is at this moment that the being is part of the fallen Adamic race (c.f. Rom 5:12), and is therefore to be considered a human person.^[14] To quote Waltke: "Finally, Psalm 51:5 f. (7 f. Hebrew) in particular supports the notion that at the time of conception man is in a state of sin and that man's spiritual, moral faculty is already present in the fetus."^[15]

 

Psalm 139:13-16

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's 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 skilfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them." (NAS)

 

Without being too simplistic, it would be difficult to describe the work of God in the development of a human being in the womb in clearer language than is found in this Psalm. Even in the womb God created David's 'inward parts' (i.e. that most important part of his true self, corresponding to kardia in Greek). The word translated 'unformed substance' in verse 16 is a word that is often translated as 'embryo,' and could helpfully be so translated here.^[16] One can only agree with Boice when he writes; "these verses plainly teach the individuality of a child while it is still in its mother's womb."^[17]

From this passage a very clear inference can be drawn, namely that the embryo is no mere lump of biological matter. There is absolutely no warrant for looking at the sovereign activity of God's creative work in the womb, and to conclude that a woman has the autonomous right to abort the fetus due to her own sense of sovereignty over her body. It is God who enables the woman to conceive (c.f. Ruth 4:13), and it is God who then actively crafts the individual child in both body and inward parts. The woman simply does not have the right to make a unilateral decision as to what will happen in her body.

While it may not advance the argument (I would dare say this particular text cannot be charged with opaqueness and scarcely needs any argument other than being read), it would be missing the point not only of the entire Psalm, but also of this four verse section if one failed to be led into doxology. Meditate on Spurgeon's words:

 

Before I could know thee, or aught else, thou hadst a care for me, and didst hide me away as a treasure till thou shouldst see fit to bring me to the light. Thus the Psalmist describes the intimacy which God had with him. In his most secret part - his reins, and in his most secret condition - yet unborn, he was under the control and guardianship of God.^[18]

 

Jeremiah 1:4-5

"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."" (NAS)

 

This text locates the Lord's relationship with Jeremiah not simply at the moment of conception, or at the time of his birth, but before the Lord even formed him in the womb. The word translated 'know' is yada, a word which connotes not mere intellectual cognition but intimate relation in Hebrew thought (see also Amos 3:2).^[19] Jeremiah's prehistory, if such language is allowable,^[20] reaches back into a time before he was even conceived. Yet during this preconception time frame, Yahweh was intimately related to him, and had chosen him to be a prophet to the nations. Yahweh was deeply committed to Jeremiah before Jeremiah was born.^[21]

It is this special relational characteristic of Yahweh's concern for Jeremiah that makes me somewhat hesitant to sweepingly apply this text as a general statement concerning God's relationship with all human beings before they are conceived and born. Israel is the only nation that God 'knows' amongst all the other nations (c.f. Amos 3:2). God foreknows the elect, but not the non-elect. It is difficult to imagine God saying to Pharaoh "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, etc.," The simple fact is that God did not 'know' Pharaoh prior to his conception, while he was in the womb, or after he was born (think also of Jesus' words "depart from me I never knew you" Mt. 7:23). Theoretically it could be argued that God knows the elect in the womb (and even previously), but since we have no idea which pregnancies are bearing elect humans and which are not, we would not be wise to risk aborting an individual that God knows. What is more to the point, however, is that even if God does not know (yada) all humans in the womb, it does not follow that they are not human, or that aborting them is permissible. This would be an illegitimate negative inference. Expressed syllogistically, it is illogical to conclude that: A) God knows the elect in the womb; B) the elect are human; C) God does not know the non-elect in the womb; D) therefore the non-elect are not human.

It is of course also syllogistically invalid to conclude that since God relates to Jeremiah before he was conceived, he relates to the non-elect prior to conception as well. The fact that God does relate to the non-elect before they are born, however, is demonstrated in the case of Jacob and Esau. In terms of election God relates to Jacob (with love) and to Esau (with hate); "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad," (Rom. 9:11a; cf. 9:10-13). Paul employs relational categories (love or hate) to describe God's position towards both elect and reprobate before birth. Based on the stances of God described in relational terms towards elect and non-elect, it seems fair to conclude that all babies in the womb are viewed by God as persons, especially since the twins are used as a case study in how God exercises his sovereign decretive purposes in election.^[22]

 

Luke 1:26-56 (esp. 41, 44)

"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favoured, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." (Lk 1:41-44, NIV)

 

The greater context of this scene is Mary traveling (Lk 1:39) to see Elizabeth, who is in her sixth month of pregnancy (v. 36). While it is not explicitly stated, it is assumed in the exchange Elizabeth has with Mary that Mary has already conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is significant for our discussion that verse 39 "at that time" ties Mary's leaving to visit Elizabeth with her visitation from Gabriel.^[23] When Mary reaches Elizabeth, the baby (brefo") Elizabeth is bearing leaps in her womb in response to the Holy Spirit (c.f. Lk 1:15). Several points are worthy of consideration.

First, the baby who will be known as John the Baptist, and who is filled with the Spirit from the womb^[24] leaps with joy at the approach of the woman who is bearing his Lord. Green helpfully notes that; "even from the womb he prophesies, implicitly transferring the designation of 'Lord' to Mary's unborn baby, recognizing in this baby the eschatological coming of God."^[25]

Second, the timing is critical. Elizabeth was in her sixth month when Mary left to visit her. Since it is assumed that Mary is pregnant when she arrives at her relative's house, the conceived Christ is likely still in the stage of a zygote.^[26] John the Baptist in his mother's womb recognizes through the power of the Holy Spirit that the mother of his Lord is speaking. The Lord is the Word made flesh (c.f. John 1:14), and he is recognized by his eschatological Elijah forerunner from the time of his conception. Jesus Christ, always the theanthropic person, is both fully God and fully man from conception.

Third, the word "baby" (brefo") is used for John the Baptist in the womb at around six months. This is the same word which is used in Luke 2:12&16 when the angels announce to the shepherds that they will find the "baby" lying in the manger. Biblically, the same terminology is used for the ontological being in the womb and the ontological being in the manger. This gives the Christian biblical warrant to speak without hesitation about the life in the womb as a "baby." John was a baby in the womb no less than Jesus was a baby in the manger. Abortion truly destroys an unborn baby.

 

ETHICAL ISSUES

There exists a multiplicity of avenues that Christians have tried to use in order to engage societal problems.^[27] While it is well beyond the scope of this paper to attempt any sort of postulating as to what avenues are currently best, it will be useful to spend time in thinking concerning what the society is like that we are engaging. To a very large degree evangelicals simply do not share the same paradigmatic worldview that is accepted in the culture at large.

Since God inspired the Bible correctly, he begins in the beginning, and immediately establishes the proper framework of a being with the attribute of aseity. He creates all matter and beings in the universe. This sovereign Creator therefore has the right to set rules for his creation, and to deal with his creation any way which he deems best. All subsequent revelation stands only because of the foundation of living in a genuinely theistic universe. Morals flow from God.

Our society has gloatingly traded in a purposeful beginning under the supervision of God for a purely accidental, purposeless existence under the supervision of impersonal, naturalistic forces.^[28] While science is impotent to furnish an answer as to why something exists instead of nothing, it has been concluded that there is no God, and that random concatenations of atoms are what we owe our existence to. This Darwinian Creation mythology has firmly rooted the existence of human beings in nothingness, and this requires any concept of a meaningful teleological purpose to be rendered an incoherent proposition. When human beings come from nothing (meaningless origins) and are going nowhere (meaningless telos), one struggles to find any point for the present. One can only concur with Jean-Paul Sartre that man is truly a useless passion. The culture of today is reaping the harvest sown in modernity of the lost "ontic logos" which saw our origins grounded in the personal and purposive.^[29]

It is painful to see how sloppy the philosophical speculation concerning ethics has been in our culture ever since God was banished from his universe. If human beings are nothing more than accidental chemical interactions, all discussion of human rights, morality, etc., becomes blatantly foolish. Evolutionists have progressed to the point where they no longer view evolution as climaxing in man.^[30] This yields itself to the famous 'speciesist' argument, perhaps put in its most popular form by Peter Singer.^[31] The argument essentially states that since all beings evolved, all beings should have basic protection of rights. One is forced to wonder, however, when evolution yielded to 'right' and 'wrong.' This is the brutal fallacy of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Putting humans on the same level as other animals does not exalt animals, it debases humans. The argument that we should not perform experimental medical tests on animals because we do not do so on humans does not challenge the morality of animal testing; it challenges the logic behind not conducting these tests on humans the way the Nazis did. There is simply no satisfactory answer as to why any ethical formulation is good or bad when one lives in a context of absolute and utter pointlessness. The only sane conclusion is that the entire universe is amoral, and every act is amoral as well. As one writer expressed the case, "the moral self is also a self with no foundation."^[32]

Beyond the complete inability for a purely naturalistic explanation of life to yield to morality, our society is also wrapped up in the clutches of postmodernity.^[33] In general the drift of thought in our society has moved from modernism (which was far too confident in man's ability to discover all truth), to a terrible agnosticism that there even is such a thing as truth that can be known (except of course that this agnosticism towards discovering truth is truly the correct position). Pluralism's gurus assert that principles are merely preferences,^[34] and preferences are not of binding moral worth on anyone else. When it comes to moral formulations:

"One of the weaknesses of relativism is that it cannot draw reasonable moral comparisons among different traditions and conceptions of a good life, because it admits of no context-independent grounds for making such comparisons."^[35]

 

In real terms this means that the debate in society is not pitched on whether or not the unborn baby is biologically human, but on whether or not there is a perception that this pregnancy, if carried to term, will result in a better 'quality of life,' a phrase which is frustratingly vacuous of meaningful content or definition.^[36]

The above excursus on our cultural climate hopefully sets a framework for what follows. By saying it once I will not need to repeat myself ad nauseum that arguing for a woman's 'right' to choose abortion is flatly contradictory to forbidding her from committing infanticide when her infant is two months old, since neither action has any moral grounding in the first place. It will also do to note just this once that one can fully anticipate hearing that abortion is wrong if you believe it will negatively affect your quality of life, but it is right if your (or someone else's) quality of life will suffer as a result of carrying the child to term. Since it is impossible to say that the women's liberation movement is better or worse for humanity than the Nazis^[37] or the Christians since there is no independent contextual grounds for making such assessments, there is no guide as to what an individual should choose besides preference. Let us now consider some particular ethical issues and arguments.

 

The Slippery Slope Argument

The line of philosophical reasoning commonly referred to as the Slippery Slope carries very little weight with academic philosophers. In order for the argument to be validated, it needs to be demonstrable that the proposition p will in fact inexorably lead to x, y, and z, and that these new points will be increasingly unacceptable. This requires extrapolation, and when one extrapolates one loses infallible control of the variables and their reactions. When applied to abortion, Slippery Slope advocates generally argue that allowing abortion a will lead to lack of respect for human life x, euthanasia y, and eugenics z.

In my opinion, this argument is fallacious for several reasons. For one, it assumes a causal connection between abortion and the other points on the slope. This seems to qualify under the rubric of a common logical error that confuses causality with correlation. "A correlation has been established if whenever we find x, we are likely to find y."^[38] That there is a correlation between abortion and the other points I would not wish to deny, but I am unable to see that a definitive case can be made for direct causation.

A second point against arguing for abortion as a Slippery Slope is that it seems to me that such an argument rather botches a correct perception as to what the slope is in the first place. Abortion is not the slope; our society's secular humanistic philosophy and worldview is the slope. In my judgment abortion is not the floodgate p, it is one of the identifiable points that alerts us to the fact that we are already tumbling down a slippery slope head over heels. Abortion is the fruit, not the root of a deeper worldview conflict.

Third, there is some limited usefulness to applying the Slippery Slope argument in the abortion context. In a very specific way, the Slippery Slope progression may be reasonably sustainable in the field of embryology and fetal medicine. There is testimony by medical doctors that a real concern arises from the fact that they are expected to do whatever they can to save a premature baby, and then they are expected to turn around and terminate a healthy pregnancy. The result is professional schizophrenia. It is virtually impossible for a medical doctor to maintain the highest level of concern in both cases, and the result is a lessening in effort poured out to sustain and save the struggling fetal life.^[39]

 

Abortion Harms Women

Some pro-life advocates believe that if a compelling case can be built for the position that abortion harms women more than it helps them, abortion will be seen as an evil. This has even been optimistically termed "a non-controversial approach to abortion."^[40] The author of this article, R. Jay Sappington, builds a very strong case for the harmful effects of abortion on women. He catalogues physical effects (e.g., subsequent higher risks of cancer, severe bleeding, infections, death, and many others), psychological effects (e.g., tremendous guilt, nightmares, and a condition experienced by the vast majority of women who have abortions termed 'post-abortion trauma.'^[41]), and greater relational effects (e.g., disruption of trust between partners, suicide attempts, and more). If nothing else Sappington's research makes one furious that the pro-choice lobby is not doing far more to provide alternate choices to such a procedure.

While Sappington's arguments are persuasive, I am sceptical that they will convince others. In the first place, such prudential argumentation leaves too much room to manoeuvre because it abandons the argument in a realm of subjectivity. How does one define 'harm?' A socioeconomic feminist^[42] can imagine nothing more harmful than women being less able to gain economic power than men because of the obstacle of pregnancy and child birth. Pregnancy can be avoided through abstinence, but then women are less able than men to express their sexuality (this is one reason why so much militant feminism embraces lesbianism; it allows for sexual gratification with no possibility of conception interfering with the pursuit of economic power).

Sappington's approach can also be argued against ad infinitum when it comes to any concrete case. It may be readily conceded that abortion harms many women, but it can also be argued that abortion helps many women who are not prepared for the psychological pressure of motherhood. If a teenage girl gets an abortion without the knowledge of her parents she may not be disowned the way she would be if they knew she was pregnant. Perhaps a boyfriend would abandon his girlfriend in horrible straits if she were pregnant and would not abort. Quantifying 'harm' to women in these cases is very difficult, and the final verdict will be rendered on the basis of one's worldview.

One last critique of prudential arguments in general will suffice. In the end it gives the person a choice. The person may be foolish to choose a certain way, but there is still no authoritative ground to deny the legitimacy of the choice. What does one do if a woman decides an abortion is worth the risk, fully aware of the potential dangers?^[43]

 

Abortion Will Result in God's Judgment

Whether or not anyone outside of evangelical circles will actually treat this point seriously, it is incumbent upon God's people to proclaim this truth (and to prayerfully intercede for the nation that is threatened by his judgment). Yet I cannot help but think that this truth is often put in the wrong framework. While one would certainly expect judgment to fall upon those who put children to death (e.g. those who sacrificed their children to Molech, Jer. 32:35), it seems to me that perhaps abortion in itself represents a terrible judgment from God. Romans chapter one teaches that when man rejects God he becomes animalistic, and there comes a point when God gives him over to the unfettered expression of his wickedness. What is more wicked and unnatural than a woman aborting her child, and society approving of those who commit such acts, and even paying for the expenses incurred?

In the Old Testament there was nothing more tragic than a woman devouring her child, and yet these occurrences were all correlated with the judgment of God. I wish to pursue this point tentatively, but I think it may be worthy of reflection. In II Kings chapter 6 Samaria is besieged, and a woman eats her son (v. 29). Even the wicked king responds with the most profound sense of horror that such a terrible thing should ever occur. In II Kings 8:12 Elisha weeps because he foresees the unspeakable atrocity of Hazael ripping open pregnant women. This brutal atrocity is uniquely awful because ripping open the pregnant women preys upon the most vulnerable (women and children), in the most vulnerable combination. Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10 indicate that women in Jerusalem ate their children during the great judgment of the Babylonian siege in 587/586 B.C. Immediately after 4:10 we read: "The Lord has given full vent to his wrath; he has poured out his fierce anger. He kindled a fire in Zion that consumed her foundations."

Although it is not recorded in the Scriptures, an identical event took place in the Roman siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. One of the ways to see how shocking this event was to the first century Jewish community is to see the prevalence of its depiction in later Jewish iconography.^[44] A woman named Maria was reduced to eating her baby, an event which is known as the Teknophagia.^[45] While I am well aware that abortion is not identical with consuming one's baby, the destruction of babies by the hands of their mothers brings judgment and is part of judgment. How much of this principle applies to the current state of abortion in our society I am not sure.

 

When Does Life Begin?

Theologians, dichotomists or trichotomists notwithstanding, differ in their views of exactly how a biological being is given the eternal immaterial part of their being (what in the remainder of this paper will be termed a 'soul'). The competing positions are traducianism and soul creationism. Representative creationists include Calvin,^[46] Berkhof,^[47] Hodge,^[48] and Grudem.^[49] Representative traducianists include Strong,^[50] Chafer,^[51] Reymond,^[52] and Ryrie.^[53] It is also worth noting that almost the entire Lutheran church is traducian because of Luther's stance.

Nothing could be further from my intention than a survey of the theological points in favour of either a traducianist or creationist position. The traducianist claim is that in the same way the parents' biological genetic material is joined to create a new biological entity, there is an analogous joining of an offshoot (tradux) from the souls of both parents to immediately create a new soul. Thus for the traducianist there is never a time in which there is biological fertilization without there also being the production of a soul.^[54] A traducianist therefore cannot help but logically conclude that full life begins at the moment of conception.

Historically creationists have maintained that God instantly creates and unites the soul with its biological body at the exact moment of fertilization. Yet, if one does not accept a traducianist position, it is possible to argue that God creates and unites the soul to the conceived sometime after fertilization has occurred. The following time frames have all been suggested as alternative times for the joining of the soul with the body: at quickening, at viability outside of the womb, and at the newborn baby's first breath. Against the idea that ensoulment occurs at quickening is the rather obvious fact that quickening by definition depends on the subjective experience of the mother feeling the baby's movements. This is surely not a reliable guide.^[55] Against the idea of viability outside of the womb is the insuperable problem that such a criterion changes depending on medical technology, and will continue to change into the future. In fact, even many pro-abortionists deny that viability is an acceptable method for determining when abortions can be performed (nobody denies that partial-birth abortions are performed only on the viable), largely because of the fact that as the field of fetal medicine improves, almost any conception may be viable. Poly Toynbee wonders plaintively (almost in a Slippery Slope fashion), "if soon fetuses can be kept alive at any stage, will we ban abortion altogether?"^[56]

While these two positions are easily dispensed with, the third time frame (i.e. the baby's first breath outside the womb) is more theologically complicated, and more along the lines of what many people apart from Christian circles think in actuality. Without being overly simplistic the theological case for life beginning at first breath is based on God's breathing into Adam in Genesis 2:7, and Adam at this point becoming a living being.^[57] What should be fairly clear is that the animation of Adam is a singularly unique event in the history of the human race. It should also be fairly clear that the text does not indicate that a human being is defined as a human being because it breathes^[58] (even animals have the 'breath of life'). Another objection to this interpretation is that the fetus does breathe, although its respiration process is different in the womb than outside of it; "birth simply changes the method for receiving food and oxygen."^[59]

Embryologists can catalogue the exact progression of biological changes that occur during the course of a pregnancy. It is easy to locate published material that details the formation of blood, major systems, organs, feet, etc.,. What is most impressive in the gradual formation of the infant in the womb is that there is no clear break at all in the progression, no leap of punctuated equilibrium proportions that magically morphs a non-living being into a living one. The only massive development in the entire process occurs when the ovum and sperm are joined. From this moment on cellular activity begins in earnest, and all of the requisite chromosomes are in place. At this point the genotype is irrevocably established.^[60] On a purely molecular level, it is impossible to argue that life can possibly begin at any time other than conception.

 

The Quality of Life Debate

A general survey of the discussions surrounding ethical issues such as euthanasia, suicide, and abortion yields the conclusion that those in opposing camps often divide upon the presupposition of whether quality of life or sanctity of life is the trump issue. Pinning down the parameters for 'quality of life' is intrinsically identical to the proverbial struggle of nailing Jell-O to a wall. Such vague expressions which are devoid of all meaningful content, however, fit comfortably into our pluralistic, postmodern society. Qualitative considerations are invariably preferential, and therefore can never be forced upon anyone else. Due to a painful inability to define what quality of life means, examples abound. One such example is that a woman carrying a fetus that will develop Tay Sach's disease and die at two years of age is allowed to abort the fetus-that-is in order to preserve the quality of life of the child-to-be^[61] (although the 'child-to-be' won't 'be'). Another example is put forth in this way: "A friend of mine recently had to sacrifice a Down's Syndrome child in the hope of having a normal healthy child.... The sacrifice was worth it."^[62] Without the authority of Scripture there is really no point in engaging this discussion very far since no definition for quality of life will ever be forthcoming or agreeable to all people, but what is downright maddening is the flippant remark with no substantiation that; "while the Scriptures establish the sanctity of life, the stress of Scripture is on the quality of life."^[63]

It is axiomatic in biblical studies about abortion that since the Scriptures contain no apodictic formulations concerning abortion, the case can only be made by establishing that the unborn child is a human being, and therefore falls under the protection of the apodictic law which forbids killing innocent humans.^[64] This is a logical construct. What is lacking entirely is any cogent construct that can reasonably set forth the view that the Scriptures encourage abortion or any other kind of killing in order to preserve quality of life.

As with many other positions, the quality of life argument, if it proves anything, proves far more than most of its proponents would desire. When is quality of life so compromised that death is the preferable option? Who makes this decision?^[65] If amniocentesis can determine that a child is going to develop Tay Sach's disease and this gives sufficient grounds for abortion, can a child diagnosed with this condition weeks after delivery be put to death? If a mother can decide to abort a baby with Down's Syndrome, why is it not permissible for an adult with Down's Syndrome to be mercifully put to death? If economic hardship is grounds for abortion, why is it wrong to kill older infants (or children) if the mother loses her job?

 

The Definition of Personhood that Requires Self-Consciousness

This new definition of personhood denies that being biologically human is the same as being a person. It argues that until a human has self-consciousness, the human is not an actual person. Since the fetus in the womb has no self-consciousness, the fetus is not a person, and therefore has no rights. At least some proponents of this position, such as Michael Tooley, are rigorously logical enough to fully admit that this makes infanticide morally permissible.^[66]

Besides the obvious difficulty this position encounters when it is compared to the teaching of the Scriptures (where no such modern metaphysical distinction can be found for being 'human' but not a 'person'^[67]), there are other difficulties that arise when it is considered. For starters it is painfully subjective. There can be no objective test that can determine when the human enters into the realm of personhood. Secondly, one could argue that when an individual is asleep they are not properly self-conscious at that time. Does this mean that they are temporarily non-persons? If they are not persons, can they be put to death? Third, it is questionable as to whether or not some people with mental deficiencies can be properly seen as being self-conscious. Is it morally permissible to put them to death? What about a mental patient, who believes they are someone else? What about someone with amnesia? What about an elderly person in the late stages of Alzheimer's Disease? What about an uneducated person who is painfully dull? What about an educated person who is even duller? In the end 'self-consciousness' as a criterion seems as useless as 'quality of life.'

Popular Arguments

1. Often pro-life advocates detail the normative methods used for aborting babies in all of their horrific details (which includes among other things cutting the baby to pieces in the womb, or poisoning the fetus). After such awful details are given, it is generally stated that babies feel pain at x number of weeks^[68] so these procedures are clearly barbaric and inhumane and need to be dispensed with. There is then an emotive appeal that we do not even allow for such cruelty to animals.^[69]

While there is merit in presenting the cruelty of common abortion procedures, and while this tactic may in fact convince many women not to abort their babies, it ultimately brushes up against the cusp of a false dichotomy. The implication seems to be left unstated that there are only two options: abortion by torture, or no abortion. Unfortunately, there may be a tertium quid which will provide for the abortion of babies in a painless manner (perhaps by the administration of a fetal anesthetic). This argument is mildly useful for the abortion situation as it is currently, but it does not provide proper ammunition for the abortion debate at the root level.

 

2. Prolifers are not alone in their appeal to emotive arguments. A common argument amongst the pro-abortion lobby is that it would be intolerably cruel to force a woman impregnated by rape or incest to carry the baby to term. Yet it is difficult to see how the circumstances surrounding impregnation are determinative for the right to life of the baby conceived.^[70] One is tempted to press at this point the homespun adage that two wrongs don't make a right. Turning a rape victim into an abortionist is not the correct way to handle a tragic situation.

 

3. Another emotive appeal from the pro-choice field is that unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted babies, and this leads to child abuse. This is as fine an example as one could wish to ever come across as to why the Slippery Slope argument is generally looked down upon. First, is it truly the case that unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted babies? Perhaps, but surely there are many women who were unhappy to discover that they were pregnant, and who now consider their child to be the most precious thing in their life. Second, does the parent's level of desire for the child lead to abuse? According to some studies, over 90% of abused children were 'wanted.'^[71] This argument as a whole also falls into the logical fallacy of distraction. As Geisler remarks;

"The argument for preventing child abuse as a rationale for abortion takes the focus off the issue of whether the unborn child is human. If the unborn is human, then abortion does not avoid child abuse. Rather, abortion is child abuse of the worst kind - abuse by a cruel death."^[72]

 

4. One more Slippery Slope argument based on emotion from the pro-choice lobby is that if abortion is made illegal, women will be harmed by procuring the procedure in back alleys and unregulated black-market clinics. The reductio ad absurdum of this position is that; "if the unborn are fully human, this argument is saying that because people die while killing other persons, the state should make it safe for them to do so."^[73] Additionally, it is obvious that regulated abortions, far from saving lives, end over one million lives in North America every year. Every time there is any kind of successful abortion procedure there is a death. If the concern is genuinely for the protection of women, it is also a painful irony that when abortion is chosen on the basis of the sex of the fetus, far more females are aborted than males.^[74]

 

5. An ad hominem fallacy is often committed by proabortionists who maintain that unless the prolifer is willing to take full responsibility for the care of the child when it is born, they have no right to stop a pregnant woman from getting an abortion. There are several problems with this line of reasoning, not least of which is the fact that proabortionists know perfectly well that even if every child would be adopted into a loving home they would still argue for a woman's right to abort.

Francis Beckwith does a masterful job in responding to this argument. He notes that this objection again begs the question as to whether or not the child in the womb is a human being. Next, Beckwith poses a counter-case. If nobody would be willing to take care of your twelve year old son, would you be morally justified in killing him? Beckwith then applies this principle to other areas of life. If you are not willing to marry your neighbour's wife, does that mean you cannot tell him not to abuse her? If you are not able to take care of your neighbour's slaves, does that mean you have no right to tell him that he cannot have them? One can only agree with Beckwith's statement that: "this is a bizarre principle on which to base moral action."^[75]

It does not follow from this discussion, however, that the community has no obligation when it comes to providing assistance to the poor and those in distress. Dietrich Bonhoeffer never understated anything, and his comment on abortion is characteristically thought provoking:

"A great many different motives may lead to an action of this kind; indeed in cases where it is human or economic destitution and misery, the guilt may often lie rather with the community than with the individual."^[76]

 

Christians should be leaders in the community when it comes to social action and mercy. The misguided thrust of this whole argument by the pro-choice crowd is that prolifers have in reality done tremendous work to help pregnant women and their children, both before and after birth.

 

6. An argument which is gleefully pulled out in many ethical issues is the fact that religious groups have no right to impose their beliefs on anyone else. In the abortion context, this argument is applied so that any attempt to ban abortion is construed as an attempt to enforce certain religious ideals on others, and is therefore out of order. By way of response it can be pointed out that this is patently absurd. Murder is generally condemned in religious circles, and therefore to forbid murder in society becomes an indefensible foisting of religious beliefs on others.

 

7. In a similar vein to popular argument #6, it is argued in theological circles that since God gave man a freewill to allow him to be a moral agent, using freewill to have abortions is not to be prevented, or else God's design of man being a free moral agent will be interrupted. At the risk of sounding less than charitable, this comes across as a theological joke. Regrettably, the argument is both serious and popular. Before interacting with this position, Beckwith helpfully presents it in the following fashion:

"Mollenkott argues that because God created mankind as free moral agents, to use public policy to make abortion illegal would be to rob the pregnant woman of the opportunity to be a responsible moral agent. Mollenkott's argument can be stated as follows:

1. God created humans as free moral agents.

2. Any public policy that limits free moral agency is against God's will.

3. Public policy forbidding abortion would limit the free moral agency of the pregnant woman.

4. Therefore forbidding abortion is against God's will."^[77]

 

Beckwith goes right for the jugular by attacking premise #2. This premise would mean that limiting murder, rape, torture, or anything else is against God's will.^[78] It makes one more than a little curious to know who gave the law to Moses on Sinai that limited so much free moral agency and therefore was clearly in violation of the will of God. It also makes a free moral agent furious that his free moral agency is being limited when he wants to assert his free moral agency by limiting the agency of others. It also makes one glad to be a Calvinist.

 

The Violinist Analogy

The following paragraph will represent a very brief summary of J.J. Thomson's oft-repeated violinist analogy, which is ostensibly designed to depict any pregnancy, but which most closely parallels conception by rape.^[79] You are asked to imagine that you wake up in a hospital bed, with an unconscious violinist plugged into machines that utilize your kidneys. You find out that you have been kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers because you are the only person who has the requisite blood type. You are then told that it is impossible for you to be unplugged from the violinist, because this will result in his death. It may be that you will be able to be unplugged in nine months; it may be nine years. No matter what, the violinist has a right to life, and since his life is literally plugged into yours, you cannot ever leave the hospital room until the violinist is capable of surviving without you. It is even possible that you are told that the violinist's relying on the functions of your kidneys will cause you to lose years off your life expectancy, but that nothing can be done because the violinist's right to life cannot be compromised by direct action (i.e. unplugging).

A few comments about this analogy will suffice. In the first place, perhaps the overlooked response is that, if this were your experience, you would have to stay plugged in to the violinist. In the second place, the role of analogies in moral reasoning must be understood. Analogies help keep us consistent, but in order to be valid it must be demonstrable that x is sufficiently like y, so that whatever is concluded in one case must be concluded in the other.^[80]

It is precisely at this point that I think Thomson's analogy comes up empty. It sets forth heroic medical intervention (dependent on medical technology), as analogous to the embryo growing in the womb. The former is transparently unnatural, the latter is how every human being in the history of the world has been carried, formed, and birthed. Thomson engages too many moral issues at once and obscures the issue by introducing the heavily debated ethical dimension of the place of heroic medical intervention. The placenta is not a plug and the mother is not a machine.

This type of fallacious false analogy is brilliantly portrayed by C.S. Lewis in his allegory The Pilgrim's Regress. The protagonist John has been placed in jail, and whenever he is fed the jailor describes for him the reality of how disgusting the food products really are (in like manner there is always someone who will spoil a barbecue by talking about what hot-dogs are actually composed of). One day in the jail there is nothing but milk, and the jailor says:

"Our relations with the cow are not delicate - as you can easily see if you imagine eating any of her other secretions."

Now John had been in the pit a shorter time than any of the others: and at these words something seemed to snap in his head and he gave a great sigh and suddenly spoke out in a loud, clear voice: "Thank heaven! Now at last I know that you are talking nonsense."

"What do you mean?" said the jailor, wheeling around upon him.

"You are trying to pretend that unlike things are like. You are trying to make us think that milk is the same sort of thing as sweat or dung."

"And pray, what difference is there except by custom?"

"Are you a liar or only a fool, that you see no difference between that which Nature casts out as refuse and that which she stores up as food?.... I am talking about what happens. Milk does feed calves and dung does not."^[81]

 

Perhaps one of the most damning indictments of our society is that we have rejected the natural. Of course there is nothing wrong with rejecting what is currently "natural" if life is explainable in purely naturalistic terms, since nature is purposeless.^[82] But if we live in God's universe, then we must not be quick to jettison his designs.

 

CONCLUSION

While it is obvious that this paper represents only a scratching of the surface when it comes to the exegetical and ethical issues surveyed, it seems permissible to draw certain conclusions. First, there is nothing in the Scriptures that indicates abortion is morally acceptable, and a strong case can be constructed that the child in the womb is considered a human being, with the clear inference being that the unborn child therefore falls under the protection of the laws forbidding the killing of innocents. Second, if a theistic worldview is rejected, all categories of morality are nothing more than make-believe, and so to speak of rights (either a child's right to life or a woman's right to sovereignty over her body) is absurd. Third, it is a terribly sad state of affairs when a society rejects God's obvious natural order, particularly when it comes to something so basic and important as a woman's desire to bear children and to nurture them. Our society stands in desperate need of a fresh outpouring of the Spirit of God.