The pastor preached a sermon on abortion. Afterwards, the group gathered to discuss the topic. I was taken aback at the wide range of responses from a group of people whose first premise is "Scripture first." It appears that we don't know what we're talking about. So I thought I'd try to do this carefully.
First, then, some definitions. By "abortion" we mean the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. I have to say that because the term is also the medical term for any termination of a pregnancy. That would include miscarriage. When we talk about "pro-life" and "abortion," it's not about "spontaneous abortion." It is not even about the removal of a dead baby from the womb. Remember ... "life." It's about the choice to kill an unborn, living child. Which takes us to "pro-life." By "life" we don't mean "all life of all kinds." It is specifically human life. We aren't concerned about terminating a cow's pregnancy. We won't be protesting eating meat. "Pro-life" is a positive stance on the value of human life. Which takes us to "Why? What makes human life so important?" Scripture tells us, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). And it was serious. One of His first laws was "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). The image of God in humans is sacred in the sense of "set apart for God." God has placed special value on human life. Thus, it is that life that we are "pro" -- in favor of and in defense of. Now, add to the mix the fact that Scripture teaches that God "opens" and "closes" the womb (e.g., Gen 29:31; 30:22; Isa 66:9). No child is conceived without God's express permission and intervention. And Psalm 127 tells us they are "a reward from God" (Psa 127:3). So the unborn child is God's choice; a gift from God.
So, where are we? We're not concerned about natural loss of a pregnancy; it's the intentional termination of a life which we call "abortion." Since God made humans in His image, human life is especially precious. It's the reason there has been a death penalty for murder, but not for slaughtering a cow. And all conception is God's work. Thus, to intentionally end the life of the child in the womb is an assault on God. That would include cases such as rape or incest, since God opens and closes the womb. But, since human life is the precious thing here, a woman whose pregnancy will kill her should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy to save her life. We'd conclude the same in the case of a home invasion (for instance). We shouldn't be killing people, but it is "justifiable homicide" if a person is intent on killing you or your family. Saving a life is the only exception ... because "pro-life" is concerned about human life and God's valuation of His creation -- human beings. So when we waffle about "women's choice," we stand in stark contrast to God's instructions. When we dither on "rape or incest," we deny God's Sovereignty and grace. And when we nitpick on "It's not a person," we're simply drawing arbitrary lines that neither Scripture nor science demarcate. Instead, we hearken back to the days when women were deemed "not persons" or black people were considered "not persons." I'd think that would be something we'd all want to avoid.
13 comments:
Although you only hint at this, it's eerie how the arguments for slavery and abortion are almost identical.
I wonder at the "to save the life of the mother" need for an abortion, by the definition you present of abortion. I don't think the intentional medical practice should be to kill the baby to save the mother, because as we've seen, we just say it might kill her and that "justifies" it. However, if in the process of trying to save the life of the mother, the unfortunate side effect is the death of the child, then that would not be an abortion. When we give people loopholes for sin, they will make every effort to take it. Just like now, in Canada, they are allowing euthanasia for simply being depressed.
Craig, not "almost." "They are human, but they're not what we deem a 'person' by our arbitrary means, so they are without rights."
David, statistically less than 2% of abortions are to save the life of the mother. There are pregnancy conditions that will kill a mother (like ectopic pregnancies, severe kidney disease, or lethal fetal anomalies). I know they twist that "life of the mother" exception to include "she doesn't think she'll live a happy life" and the like (and that's not an exaggeration -- they do that), but I'm talking about genuine "she will die if we don't" situations. But, given your concern about "loopholes for sin," would you say that shooting an intruder intent on killing your wife is such a loophole?
Stan,
OK, maybe it's more than almost.
Part of the problem with the whole rape/incest/life of mother exceptions is that they are exceedingly rare. If I remember right, all three of those exceptions account for less than 2% of abortions. Obviously, the pro abortion folks will try to use that tiny minority to justify all sorts of things. I agree with Stan that in those very few instances where it is genuinely a risk to the mother's life that we should lean towards saving the mother.
I also think that we need to keep in mind the difference between something being legalized and being sinful.
Not sure the correlation since the purpose of the intruder is to kill, but the purpose of the child is life. That aside, of those 2%, how many truly will guarantee king the mother and how many just might? And I didn't say I'm against the position, just that I become highly suspect of it because people use it so loosely. I'm dubious that the intentional killing of the child should be the goal, but should be a sad outcome of trying to save both.
Yes, David, we can be sure that the world will work carefully to circumvent what's right. Now, if you and I were co-emperors and we wanted to make the best rule here, all things considered, would we need to conclude that "Since someone might possibly (even likely) misuse this 'save the woman's life' clause, we must exclude all possibilities" or would you conclude that we should rule to save the woman's life even if, at times, someone could abuse the rule?
I appreciate how today's post so clearly presents the Bible’s teaching on the sanctity of human life. Nothing has arisen in the past 51 years since Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion-on-demand to change the position that God’s Word leads the believer to hold. All the debate going on in our culture--and the legislation that seeks to accommodate it--simply reveals the selfishness, irresponsibility, and callous disregard of the human heart towards God and His rightful authority over His creation. It is very alarming to imagine where this rebellious spirit will lead our nation in coming generations, so I pray for the tide to be turned and for men and women to grasp the gravity of their attitudes and actions towards innocent human beings. And yes, as you intimated, lets carry this respect for life through to praying for an end to not only elective abortion but other related evils such as slavery, racism, human trafficking, sexual abuse, pornography, and more.
I would allow it, but it would have to be very narrow and like peer reviewed or something.
David,
I think you make a good point. When we say we're pro life we clearly believe that life begins at conception, and that all human life is sacred. The problem is that we live in a secular society that runs on laws. As a Christian I could support a law that banned 98% of abortions with no problem. If for no other reason than that it would allow us to focus on a much smaller number of women, in more effective ways. While it wouldn't be perfect, such a ban on 98% of abortion would absolutely be a step in the right direction, but it would be the first step not the last.
Stan,
Your premise, which I agree with, seems in line with "Better 10 guilty man goes free, than 1 innocent man goes to jail", it seems wrong somehow to not protect those in real need because others might abuse that protection.
Late to the party, but I will add and reiterate what I've read from specialists in difficult pregnancies who insist there is never a legit reason to terminate the life of the child. Ectopic pregnancies almost always involve a dead child when the problem is discovered. (Another source asserted that abortion leads to a higher potential of ectopic pregnancies, so there's that) The issue then becomes one of determining whether the woman is really at risk of death to an extent that only terminating the life of the unborn can save her. I would insist that the problem pregnancy isn't the result of the child's presence, not the fault of the child and the child is just as much threatened by the difficult pregnancy as is the mother...maybe more so given its vulnerable condition being so small.
But with all that aside, the most glaring aspect overlooked (intentionally I would argue) is that not nearly enough attention is on the attitude that sexual intercourse is intended for bringing into existence a new human being and thus must not be indulged with no thought or regard for the potential it might so result. It's gotten to the point that it's now simply regarded as a given that people will indulge so there's no point addressing it. We fail as Christians to take that attitude, and with a reduction of sex-for-fun incidents, so too will there be a reduction in those both seeking and pretending to need an abortion.
Marshal Art, You make some good points here. As I also understand it, abortion is rarely necessary for medical purposes; rather, it seems to be viewed by “pro-choice” advocates as a valid form of “birth control.” But abortion is not a legitimate method of “contraceptive,” since it is not preventative--i.e. pre-coital. While abortion does “control” (i.e. avert) a birth, of course, it does not prevent conception--which should be the appropriate objective for couples not wishing to incur pregnancy. Once conception has occurred--whether intentionally or inadvertently--it is too late to exercise one’s “reproductive freedoms”--that couple has already initiated reproduction. That is the reality that “pro-life” advocates promote and irresponsible abortion-on-demand advocates just won’t accept.
Art,
I don't think that anyone is disputing that the instances in which the mother's life might be at risk are incredibly rare. I'd argue that that's the point. If allowing a potential exemption for something that might only be a factor in 1% of abortions, seems like a worthwhile compromise to deal with the other 99%. Obviously, the problem with including ectopic pregnancies in this conversation is that they're not really pregnancies in the sense that there will ever be a live child born. I'd argue that this is a pro abortion tactic to increase the number of exceptions and to generate false sympathy. Ectopic pregnancies virtually always end in the natural death of the fetus, which means that the only risk is infection if it doesn't get expelled quickly.
I am unaware of anyone on the pro-life side that is ignoring the fact that sex causes pregnancy, it's something I hear pointed out regularly.
Post a Comment