We don't kill whales, elephants, seals or sequoias any more. Nor do we kill whooping cranes, pup fish or snail darters. The only exception to our commitment to non-killing is our attitude toward unborn children. Here our rationale shifts from the sanctity of life to the quality of life and one's constitutional rights to privacy and the freedom to choose. But that's an evasion of reality. In the debate over abortion, the sanctity of life-specifically the sanctity of human life-is the issue and the one that must be thoroughly debated.
If it can be established that the fetus is only a piece of human tissue, then abortion is no more immoral than an appendectomy. But if an unborn child is a person, then abortion is an assault against the dignity of a human being, a dignity that our legal system was set up to defend. The emphasis then shifts from concern with one's personal rights to the morality and legality of asserting one's rights when another's rights are at stake. Therefore, the fundamental question in the abortion issue is not a mother's inalienable right to privacy and a woman's constitutional right to choose what she will do with her own body. Those rights are conditioned by the nature of the child in her womb.
But that solution is unworkable: It amounts to making complex moral decisions on the basis of what every individual wants and that would inevitably lead society into moral anarchy. Everyone would simply do what is right in his or her own eyes (cf., Judges 17:6; 21:25).
If the definition of human life is what every person wants it to be, what would prevent us from legalizing infanticide. Joseph Fletcher, of situational ethics fame, has rightly observed that it's illogical to give ethical approval to ending "sub-human" fetal life by abortion but refuse to give that same approval to ending a "sub-human" infant life by positive euthanasia (killing a terminally ill or defective child).
Francis Krick, a renowned scientist and Nobel Laureate, has proposed that babies be declared non-human for three days after birth so parents may decide whether they want to keep them, such things as sex and deformity being determinants. According to former Surgeon-General, C. Everett Koop, medical journals in the United states are already reporting cases of infanticide and the law is apparently turning its back.
And what would prevent us from deciding that the elderly, the chronically sick or the mentally retarded are unwanted and thus sub-human and eliminating them? Krick has also proposed compulsory death for everyone at age 80, and there are reports that patients in HEW approved nursing homes are now being permitted to die because they are considered "unworthy to live."
Picture yourself as an elderly, infirmed grandmother or grandfather in the care of a family that would profit by your demise. Calculate your chances of survival in a society that regards the elderly as a liability and where active euthanasia is legal. It's a worst-possible scenario, but it is not merely a theoretical picture: It happened in 1930 in Hitler's Germany when 276,000 "useless eaters" were put to death.
Leo Alexander, who was the psychiatric consultant for the Nuremburg Trials, said that in his opinion the Holocaust occurred because someone decided that there was a human life not worthy to be lived. We're on the slippery slope to that opinion today.
The slope was greased for us in 1973 with Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision. At the time the Court ignored the long-standing tradition in America that fetal life is sacred. The Court also ignored the time-honored Hippocratic Oath, taken by every physician, which prohibits abortion. And it ignored the sentiments of the majority of American citizens. In states where referenda on abortion were held before the Court's action, the overwhelming majority of voters were opposed to the practice.
In 1976, when it was hoped that public sentiment would force the Supreme Court to pull back from its extreme view, the Court instead reaffirmed its position. lt further stipulated that parents have no right in the decisions of their minor children to have abortions, nor did husbands have a say in their wives' decisions to have abortions, even though such a decision was grounds for divorce by the husband.
Abortion-on-demand has resulted in a fundamental shift in attitude in that human life is being cheapened and we no longer care. As Jesus' predicted, "the love of many has grown cold" (Matt. 24:12).
Therefore, we Christians who presumably are "known by our love" and who believe in biblical absolutes must know where we stand on this matter, which means we must grapple with the complexities of the subject. Only then can we reason persuasively with those who advocate abortion and only then can we recommend a course of responsible action.
But in this text Paul is using the term symbolically, either with reference to his unusual spiritual birth-his being "extruded" into the kingdom-or he is "taking up an insult hurled at him by his opponents" (Arndt and Gingrich). The term is clearly symbolic in this text and therefore doesn't help us in the present discussion.
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.This passage is notoriously difficult to interpret, as all Old Testament students will attest. The crux is the expression, "further injury": To whom does it refer: the mother or the child?
The ancient rabbis almost unanimously took the phrase to refer to the mother, in which case the death of the mother required the death of the man who struck her. The death of the fetus, on the other hand, was punishable only by compensation paid to the father. If we interpret the passage in this way, the life of the mother is worth a life, while the life of the fetus is of considerably less value.
Others, however have taken the phrase to refer to the fetus, in which case the fetus is reckoned to be human and abortion is equivalent to murder. Another possibility is that "further injury" refers to both mother and child, in which case the death of either was punished by death. But an even more difficult problem in this text is the matter of premeditation. Clearly the abortion or miscarriage is accidentally induced in which case there should be no death penalty at all since manslaughter was not a capital crime in Israel.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the passage is so enigmatic that it's unsuitable for our purposes and we are left with our original problem: The scriptures do not seem to contain an explicit teaching on the absolute morality or immorality of abortion.
Against this backdrop, the silence of the Bible seems odd. It may be, however, that laws proscribing abortion were unnecessary because the fetus was assumed to be a human being, in which case abortion would fall under the general edict, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall be put to death" (Ex. 21:12) Because of this assumption, there may have been a consensus in Israel that made specific abortion laws unnecessary. (For example, in the United States, as far as I know, there are no specific laws against child sacrifice because the laws proscribing homicide apply.) I am convinced that this consensus did exist in Israel. The Biblical writers did not argue the humanity of unborn children for the same reason that they did not argue the existence of God: Both were taken for granted.
But their assumption poses a problem for us. Since the writers did not spell out their presupposition about fetal life, how can we know what they actually believed? In instances like this, we must draw conclusions from inference, but the nature of that method poses yet another problem: Christians may then vary widely in the positions they take. Because of this we must hold our beliefs with humility, and correct and challenge one another with gentleness. It is in this spirit that I make the following observations.
The problem, then, becomes one of arriving at a definition of human. And here we must go back to the beginning, to the Book of Genesis. The basic text for disclosing man's unique origin and nature is Genesis 1:26-28:
Then God said, 'let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.' So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him.According to this text, what distinguishes man from animals and makes him unique-more like God than any other creature-is that he is created in God's image, or, as the author goes on to say, "according to his likeness," i.e., somewhat like God.
But how shall we interpret this crucial phrase? Theologians agree that the image of God does not refer to man's physical make-up, since God is pure spirit, but rather to his immaterial being. David Cairn's writes with respect to the "image" that man's being, though not divine and of a different order than God's own being is "akin" to it, which means that men and women are more like God than any other creature in the universe (Cf. Psalm 8).
God is revealed in scripture as a living person and as a spiritual, moral being and it is in this likeness that man is created. In contrast to animals, said to be created "after their kind," and who behave instinctively and mechanically, mankind is unique in that each individual is made after God's "kind," made for personal and endless fellowship with God. Men and women, boys and girls, therefore, have infinite dignity and worth and their personalities are sacred.
The writers certainly knew of the cause-effect relationship between sexual intercourse and conception, but they did not believe that the effect was necessarily inevitable or that the parents had the capacity to ensure it. Eve, we are told, "received a man from the Lord" (Gen. 4:1), the Lord "opened" Leah's womb (29:31), and later Rachel's womb was similarly opened (39:22). The Lord "gave conception" to Ruth (Ruth 4:13). These texts suggest that from the moment of conception, unborn children are special, unique creations of God.
But the question remains: Does God create unborn children in his image? Again, the biblical writers suggest that he does. He is said to be intimately involved in the process of shaping and forming not only the material part of the fetus but also the immaterial part of the unborn infant throughout the period of gestation. And most importantly, he "knows" each individual from conception on.
Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness. And in your providence watched over my spirit (Job 10:8-10).At this point in his life, Job was in peril of falling into unbelief and despair. But in this creation poem he affirms God's purposes for him by reminding himself of God's pre-natal plan. He was conceived by God: "Did you not cause me to be poured out like milk."e; God effected Job's development from fertilized egg to blastocyst and embryo: "You caused me to thicken or congeal like cheese." God controlled the development of skeletal structure and interlocking mechanisms-Job's bones and sinews-and clothed him with skin: "(You) clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews." Then while still in the womb, God gave Job life and showed him "kindness"-the covenant love that God has for all his people-and cared for Job's spirit. Job understands that he was a living, spiritual being while still in an embryo, capable of being known and loved by God, and thus fully human before he was born.
You may object, at this point, to the use of poetic material as a basis for deriving theology. It's entirely appropriate, however, to do so. The apostles certainly did, as we can judge from their writings in the New Testament. Students must take into account the symbolic nature of poetry and interpret it as we would interpret poetry-in the manner in which the author intended: Symbolic language must be understood as symbolic. We are not to understand from Job's poem that little children are made of green cheese. Cheese is used here as in a symbolic way referring, I would suppose, to the cheesy appearance of the embryo, or simply to the fact that the embryo forms much as cheese congeals. However, the plain statements of God's creative acts, his loving, protective intervention, his involvement in the process of development from conception to birth, and his knowledge of and love for pre-natal Job, can be taken as plain fact. That's a legitimate way to interpret conventional poetry, and it's appropriate here.
Observe how he develops his argument: "O Lord, you have searched me and you know me." I would take the latter phrase to be a result clause: "You have searched me (with the result that) you know me." God misses nothing; he captures everything. He knows David inside out.
"You know when I sit and when I rise." "Sit/rise" is a figure of speech which grammarians describe as a merism-stating opposites to indicate totality, much like our idiom, "The rich and the poor were there," which is taken to mean that all economic classes were in attendance at some occasion. David is aware that God knows everywhere he goes and everything he does. He is not lost in the crowd.
"You perceive my thoughts from afar." The Hebrew word "thoughts," suggests intentions, longings, desires. God knew not only the external affairs of David's life but his inward reality-his hopes and his fears.
"You discern (winnow all the way to the bottom) my going out and my lying down (another merism); you are familiar with all my ways." God cares about the intimate details of David's life.
"Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely." God knew David's thoughts, what he meant to say before he said it, and what he meant to say even when he mis-spoke himself.
"You hem me in, behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knowledge (of me) is too wonderful [miraculous] for me, too lofty for me to attain." David was a mass of contradictions; he never understood himself well. God knew David better than he knew himself!
"Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Thy hand will lead me, And thy right hand will lay hold of me." Note again the merisms-heavens/depths, wings of dawn (east)/far side of sea (west). David cannot get away from his Maker's knowledge and love; God is the hound of heaven, relentless in loving pursuit.
"If I say, `surely the darkness will overwhelm me, and the light around me will be night,' Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee." The night terrifies David, but he knows that God sees him, knows him and is with him, even in the darkness.
Please follow the argument: God sees and knows David in his dark hour. How does David know? Because ("For," vs. 13), in the darkest place, in his mother's womb, he was known and loved by God: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. ("Knit" here is the same word found in Job 10:11.) I praise you because I am awesomely and wonderfully ("uniquely" from the Hebrew, "a particular one")made: your works are wonderful (miraculous); I know that full well. My frame (skeleton) was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place (darkness). When I was woven together in the depths of the earth (his mother's womb), your eyes saw my unformed body" (golem," the Hebrew word for embryo).
David was "uniquely made"-distinct as an embryo, bearing in utero those characteristics that made him uniquely "David" and set him apart from other individuals. The verb "woven together" refers to a weaver placing colors in his tapestry strand by strand, suggesting that while David was in his mother's womb God wove into his little body all the strands of intelligence, humor, physical type, athletic ability that made him a distinct personality.
David continues: "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be," This is a difficult verse, which actually reads in Hebrew, "In your book all of them were written. Day after day they were formed, when there was not one of them." I understand David to be referring to a symbolic book-like the manual one gets with an item that has to be assembled. This is the manual that went with David-a blueprint with step-by step directions for his development in the womb. (The pronoun "them" refers to the parts to be assembled, according to this pre-conceived plan.)
"How precious to me are your thoughts, O God. How vast is the sum of them!" The word translated "thoughts" here is the same word translated "thoughts" in verse 2. David has hidden desires and longings for himself, but God's desires for David far outstrip those yearnings. "Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake (Hebrew: "awoke") I am still with you." When David "awoke," or was born, God was still with him, implying unbroken fellowship with God from conception to birth and on.
And so David allays his "anxious thoughts" (139:23), stating a truth about God: He could never get away from God's "knowing." He was known and loved at conception. But more important for our study he stated a truth about himself: He was a "self" even before he was conscious of it!
Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time that my mother conceived me. Surely you desired truth in the inner parts (Hebrew: "closed over place") You taught me wisdom in the inmost place (Hebrew: "bottled up place").David's adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah-the sins about which this psalm was written-were not freak happenings. They were in character. David came from faulty stock; he was in a state of sin when his mother conceived him (vs. 5). Furthermore, he was a morally responsible being even then (vs. 6): God desired that David know truth and so "taught" him wisdom when he was conceived.
The Hebrew terms translated "inner parts," and "inmost place" do not describe David's body, as one might think from almost all translations, but rather refer to his mother's womb. This interpretation is sustained by the close connection of verse 5 with verse 6, and from the Hebrew words, which more aptly describe his mother's womb than his own body. Dalglish writes:
"The psalmist knows full well the divine desire for truth to be a moral imperative, even in the formative stages of his being within his mother's womb, and is conscious that even there, wisdom was taught him; the moral law was inscribed within his being" (Edward Dalglish, Psalm Fifty One in the Light of Near Eastern Patternism, p 121.)If this exegesis of Psalm 51 is correct, and I believe it is, then it seems inescapable that one's moral nature is established at conception, and that the image of God is present in the fetus.
What little reading I've done in the field of genetics convinced me that we're human from conception. When sperm and ovum unite they form a small human, programmed to develop eventually into an adult. All the genetic stuff that makes us uniquely "us" is there from the beginning. Nothing is added but time.
My conviction has deepened as I meditated on the above texts, and become aware that all the elements that make us human are ascribed to us while still in the womb, and that God knows us as individuals and loves us before we are born. I'm therefore convinced that unborn children (and not mothers only), are fully human-beings made in the image of God-and therefore have human rights which must be protected.
I regard abortion-on-demand as a violation of those rights. That's why I fervently oppose all abortions, except on those rare occasions when a tragic choice must be made between the life of the mother and that of the unborn child, and that's why I support the thousands of people in this valley who are pro-life. And though I occasionally question some of the methods employed by Operation Rescue, I admire the commitment of those who are willing to be arrested and go to jail for the sake of these little ones who cannot speak for themselves.
An inspired Apostle said we must, "refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord's bond-servants must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness, correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them to repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape form the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:23-26).
We must make ourselves heard on this matter, but we must remember that even those who advocate choice, and who, in our opinion, are responsible for the deaths of millions of little human beings, are also human beings created in the image of God. Human life is sacred-all human life. It is sinful and wrong to violate the sanctity of other human beings by demeaning them, no matter how much we disagree with their thinking. Jesus said that bitter rage and insult is as sinful as murder, because both are attacks upon the worth of one made in the image of God. Therefore, in our defense of the high regard with which scripture views humanity we must maintain that high view of all men and women in our hearts, and act and speak accordingly.
Furthermore, in discussing this issue with non-Christians we should keep to our common ground. Since most unbelievers do not accept the authority of scripture it's meaningless to argue as though they do accept it. In fact to do so may only reinforce the idea that abortion is a religious issue rather than a human rights issue. We should know what scripture teaches with respect to abortion since the Bible is the basis of Christian belief and practice, and we should use scripture in our discussions with fellow-believers since it is our common ground. But in discussing the abortion issue with non-Christians it's far wiser to argue on the basis of those inalienable rights that men and women generally assume. Human rights movements here in the West, for example, assume human dignity and worth, though participants rarely consider the intellectual or spiritual basis from which those beliefs are derived. Not all truths are self-evident apart from revelation, yet many assume them to be so and these assumptions can become common ground between believers and unbelievers.
I can say it no better than Paul: "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12). Therefore, we must take up the armor of God so that when days of confrontation comes, we may stand our ground (Ephesians 6:13). The battle is spiritual, so we must not lay aside the mighty weapons of the spirit with which such battles are fought and won. Prayer, love, obedience, and the proclamation of truth are the weapons which we must wield. It is utter folly to venture into the arena without them.
And then we must be engaged in the struggle, speaking out for these little ones who cannot speak for themselves, "seeking both to rescue the perishing and to pierce the callous conscience of a nation that has chosen to allow the killing" (Charles Colson). Theologian Harold O. J. Brown has expressed the view that if the concept of abortion-on-demand is not sufficient to engage the consciences of evangelicals, it is hard to know what would raise their indignation. This is an issue on which all of us who take human life seriously must take a stand and make our convictions plain: Abortion is a violation of the sanctity of human life. Silence, on this issue, is not golden; it is sinful.
We must engage our pro-choice friends in vigorous but kindly debate over the sanctity of human life and seek to dissuade them from the awful choice of abortion. I understand women's anguish over this issue and their reluctance to talk about the humanness of discarded fetuses. Any gathering these days is bound to have present one or two women who have had abortions and for whom this issue is especially painful. I also understand the frustration felt by those who believe they're being second-guessed by men who never faced their dilemma. And because of the reckless way in which the issue is sometimes treated these days, we may have partially lost the right to be heard. News footage of men and women screaming and waving their Bibles, faces twisted with hate and anger, making up dirty names for other human beings, has hardly endeared us to those who are intent on honest discussion.
But on the other hand, neither should anyone equate compassionate pro-lifers with members of the Ku Klux Klan, Adolf Hitler, Nicolai Ceausescu and other monsters of history. That's mean-spirited and ignoble and has no place in honest, straightforward debate.
Intelligent, morally serious people will not bury their heads in the sand. They will not evade any discussion that bears directly on the issue of abortion. And for me, the central issue in the debate is not one's constitutional right to privacy and freedom of choice, but rather the fundamental nature of the emerging child. We must talk about the origin of human life, even though the topic is emotionally charged and intellectually challenging, and then we must face the moral implications of our conclusions. There is only one choice-the choice of life-which means choosing to value and care for the developing human child growing in the mother's womb rather than choosing to destroy that life for any reason.
And, then, for the unmarried mother who chooses to keep her child, there is more that can be done. Perhaps we can heal a young unwed woman's disrupted home by helping her reconcile to her parents. We can open our own homes to provide foster care and a sequestered environment while she carries the baby to term. We can help with babysitting while she finishes school or goes back to work. We can assist in adoption proceedings for those who see the advantage of placing the child with a family. We can lay down our homes, our energy, our money and our time to provide support for those who would choose life. The times are evil, but we can and can redeem them (Eph. 5:16). Through it all may God use us in creative, saving ways.
A: Catholics believe that abortion is the "direct murder of the innocent," so in that regard we are in agreement. I would only differ in that Catholics normally believe there are never sufficient grounds for abortion, even when the mother's life is at stake. Only indirect abortion is permissible.
As I understand their position, medical measures may be taken for purposes other than the killing of the fetus-tubal pregnancies being the most cited example-even if it is certain the fetus will not survive. But in any other case, even if the mother's life is endangered, she is required to carry the baby to full term. The argument is that the mother, because she has the right of choice (the fetus being merely the object of "hostile manipulation"), has the obligation to lay down her life.
It's difficult to find fault with this idea. There is a grandeur in tragic moral choices. The Bible even commends laying down one's life for another. But it is not mandated. It seems to me that when we demand the sacrifice of the mother the sacrifice is emptied of much of it's meaning.
But Catholics clearly see the issue: If there is even a remote possibility that the fetus is a human being, abortion would then be termination of a human life. So the debate over maternal rights versus fetal rights would actually pit one human life against another. The issue, then, is not who will be inconvenienced, but who will die.
Q: Is it appropriate for Christians to work for legislation to make abortion illegal? Isn't that legislating righteousness?
A: Of course it is. Laws, in effect, are attempts to legislate righteousness to those who will not seek it. As Paul puts it, "a law is not made for a righteous man but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers… kidnappers, liars, perjurers…" (1 Timothy 1:9).
I see every reason why we should advocate laws based on the character of God, the moral governor of the universe. The danger lies in going beyond scripture. Blue laws, prohibition, etc., are examples of this sort of mistaken zeal for righteousness. But anti-abortion laws are appropriate because the issue is the taking of human life, a criminal act clearly proscribed by both the Bible and secular law.
Q: But doesn't legalized abortion reduce the incidence of illegal abortions?
A: The evidence both in the United States and in Europe and Japan is that when abortion is legalized not only do legal abortions increase, but the frequency of illegal abortions may also increase. The reason given is that legal procedures offer relative lack of privacy.
But more importantly, if the human fetus is a human being then abortion is felonious. It's an odd sort of logic that insists that we legalize criminal acts to reduce the incident of crime.
Q: Aren't restrictive abortion laws are unfair to the poor?
A: Perhaps, but to make abortion legal for that reason makes inability to pay a bottom-line-basis for morality. Would we legalize heroin because the poor can't buy it?
Q: Isn't it cruel to bring handicapped children into the world?
A: Cruel to whom? I personally have not found that handicapped people are necessarily unhappy. Furthermore, from a Biblical perspective, handicaps are often the means God uses to perfect and beautify character. Besides, aren't we all handicapped in some way? Who will decide which handicaps make one less than human?
Q: Why bring unwanted babies into the world?
A: Unwanted by whom? Many couples desperately want children and who would accept them and love them if given the chance. Why not place unwanted children in wanting families?
Q: What about abortion in cases of rape or incest?
A: I have been told that pregnancy from rape is so rare as to be virtually non- existent. One study in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area revealed no cases of pregnancy out of 3,500 cases of rape. I think the question is largely theoretical. But if pregnancy occurs, why would we want to punish the innocent child? It can be carried to term and fully loved, either in the mother's home or in an adoptive home, thus redeeming an otherwise tragic circumstance.
David Roper
June 2, 1996