In a recent discussion on this blog (see “Is your ‘pro-life’ ethic internally consistent?”) some people were a bit upset that I would compare abortion to killing during war or the capital punishment of a criminal. I found this a bit odd since part of the “pro-life” argument is the full personhood of the unborn. In other words, I asked how these three were different or similar based on the notion that it is possible to discuss the unborn as having rights similar to those who have been born.
Someone asked whether or not abortion in the United States is the same thing as the Holocaust of World War II. In hasty response I proposed that it isn’t, though I confess I didn’t spend much time reasoning as to why. This post will be an effort to examine my own thinking on the matter and I welcome dialogue. I know this is a touchy subject, but I think we can navigate it.
First, I don’t know if it is intuition or cultural conditioning, but when I imagine myself observing a Nazi soldier grabbing a Jewish man in order to drag him toward assassination it seems quite different that watching a teenage girl step into an abortion clinic. Obviously, this hasn’t been the case for everyone as we’ve seen exemplified by those who commit terrorist style acts toward such clinics. Nevertheless, most anti-abortion advocates are not willing to violently protest either the woman having the abortion (more understandable since to harm her would be to harm the unborn child) or the people performing the abortion.
Why is this? Is it as evil to abort a child as it is for a Nazi soldier to kill a Jew or a gypsie? If so, why is our instinct to think we’d do something about saving the Jew, but not the child?
Second, I wonder aloud if we talk of doing what we find morally responsible in situations where we are not confronted with the actual event. In other words, we may say we’d fight the Nazi to save the Jew, but many people did live as by-standers out of their own self-preservation. So it may be that the difference is merely that one is hypothetical (I’d save the Jewish man) while the other is actual (I could save an unborn child).
Third, I wrestle with how I’d handle being told by my teenage daughter (let’s say sixteen so she is a bit older, but under my authority) that she was pregnant and that she intended to have an abortion in comparison with if the same daughter had the child and then called me on the phone when the child was six months old to tell me she planned on killing it. My instinct tells me there is a difference, but it could be that I am culturally conditioned. It could be that my sense of morality is shaped by crime-and-punishment. I know that she is protected under the law in case of abortion, but six months outside the womb changes everything legally. Is there an actual difference or merely a difference of consequence that informs my emotions?
Fourth, there is a very interesting “Philosophy Experiment” called “Whose Body Is It Anyway?” that proposes you wake up one day attached to another person’s body. Their life depends on using you as a source for nine months. If you refuse, they die. It is your body, do you have the right to deny sustaining life even if this person was attached to you without permission? Of course, there are obvious “how did we get here” differences between this scenario and pregnancy, but it is something we must consider. One of the “pro-choice” arguments says that it is a woman’s body and her right to choose whether she uses it to sustain another life. What are we to make of the “sustainer” argument (i.e. the other person doesn’t have life on their own without being granted support from another). For those who advocate abortion rights is the key factor the use of the body? Could a mother of a six month old child stop feeding it because she doesn’t feel the obligation to “sustain” the child (I speak of morality, not law)?
Fifth, personhood is a difficult thing to understand. Many “conservatives” say at conception while many “liberals” say at birth. Those who defend the life of the unborn note that in the womb you see hands, feet, eyes, a heartbeat, and all the signs of humanity though not fully developed (which raises the question of how developed must a human be to be a human?) and this is reason enough to enact laws that precaution to protect as early as possible. Those who defend abortion rights note that arguments for “potentiality” can go quite a ways back if one isn’t careful. Is using contraceptives “murder” since it hinders potential life (as Roman Catholics teach)? What about the first clump of cells?
Others say that life begins at that first breath outside the womb (some Christians quote God breathing into Adam to give him personhood). This seems to be what out laws support now, but it appears quite contradictory when we charge someone with murder who harms a mother causing the death of the unborn or when we will do all that we can to save a child born of premature birth suggesting that we realize some real personhood even if the baby hasn’t had the opportunity to fully develop.
Finally, let’s imagine that Roe v. Wade was reversed and abortion was criminalized. What happens? Do women cease to abort their babies? If our real concern is life then we must not be satisfied with enacting legislation that criminalizes an act. We must ask how we could preserve life. Do we know what to do if some reject the law and continue with illegal abortions? What is our aim?
These are the questions running through my mind on this matter. What are your thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian, thanks for expanding your view on abortion. I don’t have a simple answer that addresses every point you cover, but I think you have raised good questions.
It seems to me that the most critical of your questions is the fifth one: that is, when does human life begin? Practically everyone chooses either conception or birth. That leaves nine months in no-man’s land – nine months during which we lack the single societal view as to what protections are appropriate for the being within the womb. Solutions would seem to be either 1) get the “conception” people to change to “birth,” or 2) get the “birth” people to change to “conception,” or 3) get both to agree to some point in between. That’s a huge – seemingly impossible – task. But given the advances in ultrasound technology and the increasing survival rate of premature babies it seems that to maintain the position of “birth” must be harder than it ever has been before.
LePort,
I must say, as someone who has recently become a father, I have come to see that what we call “abortion” is really a euphemism for the murder of the unborn and an abomination in the sight of God if there ever was one. Moreover, there can be no moral equivalence between killing the unborn in this manner and either sentencing a convicted criminal to death or killing an enemy combatant in an act of war.
The problem with the “It’s my body and therefore my choice” argument is that it’s first premise (i.e. our bodies belong to ourselves) not only goes undefended but also is manifestly false from a Christian perspective for “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” (Ps 24:1; 1 Cor 10:26). To wit, our bodies do not belong to ourselves but to the God who created them, and therefore we should not think that we can do whatever want with them with moral impunity. Of course, this defeater won’t impress a liberal atheist who denies the truth of Ps 24:1, but it should be decisive for a Christian in my opinion.
You should read Moreland’s (who I’m not a follower of in general) and Rae’s book “Body and Soul”, it would help you negotiate your questions. I’m with NW.
I don’t think I am qualified to talk about most of these questions, but my instinct has been a more conservative view of abortion. However, more recently I think each case should be looked at situationally. There are so many variables in every abortion case. I think politicians on both sides and their mass following like to ignore many of those variables. Many conservatives want to make a blanket statement on who can and cannot have an abortion (most would say NO ONE). So in a case where the likelihood of both the mother and the baby dying are a very high percentage, they would struggle allowing her to have that abortion (a case that is probably rare, but does indeed happen). The liberal side tends to think all abortion cases are a struggle and not an easy decision, so choice seems to be the route. This seems reasonable, but then I remember the people I grew up with and the culture I find myself in. Abortion in many cases is a flippant thing, especially for younger girls. It’s something that happens. For others it is indeed the hardest decision they have reached thus far. But I’ve watched comedians make jokes about it, people laugh, cheer, and clap in agreement.
So I think general blanket statements are difficult. I tend to lean towards the conservative argument, but I think the variables in the situation must be considered. My own conviction is that it should not happen unless in the case of a verrrry high likely hood of death of both mother and child, then the choice be left to the mother and her family.
But the last question is the one I struggle the most with. Is the overturning of Roe vs Wade the answer? It seems as though making abortion illegal would do more harm than good and put more risk. I could be wrong, but if a woman wants an abortion bad enough, she’ll do what she needs to. I think the best approach is to put our resources in organizations that are making the moves to limit the number of abortions, spread education to make the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions smaller, making counseling available, and increase the commitments to adoptions rather than abortions.
@Mike: I agree that the most critical question is when we define the beginning of life and whether it is possible in the public square to get people to agree upon the terms. Even if we do get a majority to agree (what really matters in a Democracy) what needs to be done to bring change and what kind of change is needed (i.e. is mere legislation enough)?
@NW: Let’s assume abortion is murder, plain and simple. Why do we respond differently? If we knew there was a place where every day an innocent by-stander was brought to a room to be injected until dead wouldn’t we do more to stop it? What I am asking is whether or not our theoretical beliefs correspond to our acted upon beliefs?
Also, I’d like to know more about how you think we should address this in the public square.
@Bobby: Thank you for the recommendation.
@Cris: I think we share a similar outlook on this matter. I think when the life of the mother is threatened an abortion should be allowed. Of course, this shows that I am thinking that an aware, independent human life at least in this moment is higher on my taxonomy of life than an unaware, dependent human life. I have reservations regarding incest and rape, though I understand the argument and I don’t feel like I can judge those types of situations. These are complicated matters indeed and I don’t know that reversing Roe v. Wade would alleviate Christian responsibility in this matter.
LePort,
With respect to how abortion should be handled in the public square, I would say that it should be prohibited for the sake of the unborn except for those exceptional circumstances in which the life of the mother would be compromised by allowing the pregnancy to continue. The other exceptions that are usually bandied about among anti-abortion types leave me uneasy.
As to the question of whether my (our) actions correspond to my (our) theoretical beliefs in this regard (e.g. should I be bombing abortion clinics if I truly consider them to be places of murder?), I would hesitantly say, “Yes.” What I mean is this, I find myself on a regular basis surrounded by all kinds of evil, some more serious than others, both within and without, at which point the question becomes this, as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ what am I supposed to do about it? My answer right now is to follow the leading of the Spirit to do what I can with the talents and gifts that are given to me and not to go out on my own and combat every evil that I can identify. God is not calling me to right every wrong and thereby heal the world (contra Wright) but to be faithful to him in my efforts to shine the light he’s given me in the world.
Whoops, the first sentence of the second paragraph of my last comment was awkwardly worded. Just to be clear, I did not mean to give the impression that I support the bombing of abortion clinics or any such thing.
NW, which Wright are you referring to? If you mean N. T. Wright, I don’t think it’s his view that we should “right every wrong and thereby heal the world”; rather, he would contend that God has vested us with the gift and the responsibility of participating in the process of new creation that has begun in Jesus Christ. (The church is, in some sense or another, the Body of Christ, after all.)
I think the debate, at least philosophically, is focused around whether the human fetus is a ‘person’ in the sense that adults, children, and infants are ‘persons;’ and if so, when does this occur (as you’ve stated) — Of course the problem here is that no one has a stable answer to what it means to be a person (most ideas that are suggested tend to come with a counterexample we would still regard as a person). Also, from what I’ve read, no one doubts whether the fetus is a ‘human being’—it all boils down to the question of person-hood. I tend to like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics approach—You’re held responsible for your actions even if you were ignorant of them. And then from my understanding of Church history, abortion was considered ‘wrong’ (and then of course a possible example of it in I think Exodus). But I agree, it is difficult to say 100%, or at which stage of pregnancy; but what I do know is the Christian approach is completely wrong here in America.
NW, our bodies may belong to the Lord, but not under US law. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, thankfully, so not everything that is sinful is illegal.
And if we go by the Bible, really, there is nothing directly said about the subject. Presumably, there were many fetuses killed in the name of the Lord on the quest to occupy Jersusalem. There are many hints in the OT that child sacrifice was not uncommon and Jepthath was considered a hero of the faith for sacrificing his (very live) daughter. If an Israelite man suspected his wife of infidelity, he could perform a test that would kill the fetus. I could go on, but …
This is another one of the many issues in which ancient writings do not translate well with modern sensibilities. It doesn’t seem the survival of offspring was as crucial to the world view of ancients as it is to us today, which makes sense because the natural rate of child mortality then was far, far higher than it is today.