Abortion Paper

This is the first draft (completely unedited) of my ethics paper on abortion. I'm actually kind of interested to see if anyone cares to read it... I know it's not a popular opinion but I'm pretty passionate about it.

Ethics Essay Assignment: Abortion
Introduction
Few ethical issues in modernity incite the kind of enthusiastic support or rebuttal as abortion. To many, it is a hinge-pin issue that largely defines one’s political and religious affiliations. Unfortunately, in evangelical circles, it has often been a bandwagon that is thoughtlessly joined and created catastrophic results for the Christian witness in society. The grotesque and cruel displays and commentaries offered by many Christians - both leaders and laymen - have generated hostility and are more akin to a mob mentality that is anything but helpful. This issue deserves more thoughtful scrutiny, prayerful consideration, and social sensitivity.
Thesis
A pure, unbiased ethic that is based on Scripture necessitates the conclusion that abortion is a personal, subjective issue that should not be regulated or prohibited by either church or state. I will prove this in a number of ways: first, by distinguishing philosophical and theological ethical approaches as they generate guidelines for right and wrong thinking and decision-making; second, by glancing at the historical background of this practice in culture; third, through scriptural evidence regarding Christian liberty as well as scripture’s silence for a specific guideline or command regulating this practice; fourth, by a practical assessment of the motivations that drive radical anti-abortion groups and whether or not their arguments are legitimate; fifth, through cultural evidence that support of this practice is the preferable alternative. Abortion is an issue necessarily attached to many others: women’s reproductive self-determination, freewill, a definition of life, sexuality, rights, law, and many others. I will address these only as they are relevant in support of my thesis.
Approaches to ethics
While evangelical Christian theology has evolved into a helpful and informative discipline, its proponents have often blurred the line between it and other academic disciplines. Because theology deals with the most important issues in human life, it is often mistakenly set up as an authority for all subjects, as though from theology one can discover all truth on all topics. This is incorrect because scripture itself – the primary source of evangelical theology - does not claim to be a universal authority in subjects such as science or world history. While scripture generally prescribes right human behavior, the structure and terminology for ethical discussions lie in the field of philosophy.
Philosophy is a much broader field which certainly generates theological discussions but is not limited to the topic of God. Classically, historical persons such as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates forged a new way of considering and communicating the many dynamics of both physical and spiritual realities. Their initial statements spawned philosophical considerations in wide variety, not the least of which was the study of ethics. Arguably, ethics was one of the first and most popularly debated facets of philosophy. The Greeks engaged in moral philosophy, the main ethical category being virtue or right living. The sophists continued the traditions of philosophical thought and began to resemble professional teachers, not the least of their topics being virtue and ethics.
The basis of philosophical practice is dialogue. Most early philosophical writing was a transcript of a debate or discussion between two or more persons. This dynamism and exchange seems to be the most biblical method for establishing corporate and personal ethics. The Christian approaches ethics as a structure to be assimilated through biblically correct thinking into right living. This is done in the context of community. It would stand to reason, then, that the entire community – rather than just an isolated body of expert theologians – is involved in establishing the boundaries of Christian ethics. As such, a philosophical approach to ethics is the one that ought to be pursued by Christian communities. While scripture is the primary source informing this ethic, it is not the only source nor are areas outside of direct biblical command to be disregarded; rather, these areas of biblical silence are to be prayerfully considered by the community of ethical Christians.
Historicity of Abortion
From a basic knowledge of history, we know that fertility and childbearing have been feared, revered, worshiped, prized, used for political gain or manipulation, and necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Playing such an important role in the development of the species, it is easy to understand why humans (and especially women) early on realized their need for self-determination in reproduction. The first reference to induced abortion comes from an Egyptian papyrus.[1] The practice of abortion dates as early as the 5th century. There is record that the Stoics, considering the fetus to be plant-like and not an animal until it breathed air, performed even late-term abortions.[2] Chinese folklore claims that the Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury for abortions.[3] The Hippocratic Oath forbids vaginal suppositories (because they caused ulcers) and does not [4]prohibit abortion. Many crude methods were used to induce abortion, most of which were dangerous and even life-threatening for the woman. These included strenuous labor, fasting, heat or excessive pressure to the abdomen (“massage abortion”), insertion of sharp objects into the body, and various herbs. It is clear that the motivation that precipitates the decision to abort is not modern, nor is the act of abortion itself.
As mankind evolved in their thinking and began to consider the metaphysical components to humanity, the morality of controlling reproduction became relevant. As the church played the dominant role in education, it is natural that the church leaders became the primary voices of ethics and morality in society. The ancient church debated abortion on the grounds of the timing of ensoulment, or when a fetus received its soul. Augustine, for example, opposed abortion after the fetus had received a soul: 40 days for males and 90 days for females.[5] Other esteemed theologians of this and previous ages, including Tertullian and Origen, also opposed abortion on the basis of ensoulment. Unfortunately, these theologians also considered women, menstruation, and even the act of giving birth to be inherently evil. Tertullian even referred to women as the “gateway of the devil.”[6] While ensoulment or the timing of a fetus’s life and rights still remain central in the discussion of abortion, the obvious differences in the understanding of women both in the church and society require a cautious approach to these opinions of antiquity.
That being said, the larger body of church leaders have digressed very little from this opinion of the morality of abortion. The important distinction is that because of their understanding of women, the writers of antiquity aforementioned are not a good source for this discussion. The basis from which church leaders discuss the issue of abortion in the current era has shifted, and rightly so.
Fast forwarding to this century in this country, our most relevant vantage point, abortion has never ceased to be practiced regularly. In the late 19th century, abortion began to be increasingly criminalized, driving its practice underground. Into the early 20th century, abortion was a dangerous practice. For every 150,000 abortions performed annually in the US in the early 1990’s, one in six resulted in the woman’s death.[7] In 1973, Roe v. Wade thankfully put abortion back into the public sphere where women could choose this procedure in safe and hygienic environments.
Scripture’s Input and Silence
There are important qualifications to preface this discussion of scripture’s stance on abortion: the God of scripture is both loving and just and does not appear to prize individual human life the same way that modern society does (example: Joshua 7 and the punishment of Achan and his family); “an argument from silence” is not conclusive but it is a starting point for knowing whether an issue is morally mandated or neutral (example: there are no scripture verses on dating and yet Christians have formulated theories and methods for dating biblically); there is a hierarchy of virtues in scripture and where apparent inconsistencies exist, theologians are never shy to allow one precept to override another (example: Paul’s grace versus James’ faith). The most important qualification is that scripture neither encourages nor prohibits abortion.
Remote references to abortion in scripture are scant at best. One that is often referenced is Numbers 5:12-28. The scenario is an unfaithful wife who may become impregnated with another man’s child. The woman is brought by her husband before the priest, who pours on her “the water of bitterness.” This is meant to reveal whether or not the woman has become pregnant. If she has, the result will be that her “abdomen will swell and… thigh will waste away” (v. 22). The translation and apparent implication is that the child will not be born. This abortion would apparently be caused by the priest’s water and, ultimately, by God. There are some hermeneutical challenges with this interpretation but it may be an abortion reference in the Old Testament.
Scripture discusses birth, death, life, creation, pregnancy and pre-natal formation of the body; while abortion was apparently practiced in biblical times, scripture makes no statement concerning its ethicality for the church. This is perhaps the most convincing argument for the legality and practice of abortion. Every other sin and specific guideline for life was given to us in scripture, either ratified or reiterated by Jesus in the New Testament. We ought not add to nor subtract from the Word of God (Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18). Neither should we listen to those who provide stricter prohibitions for life than scripture itself (Col. 2:21).
All of that said, it must be remembered that God loves people and has created each one in his image. No Christian who aborts a fetus or allows that women deserve that right thinks otherwise. Scripture, while being pro-choice, does not encourage murder and that distinction is one that anti-abortion radicals don’t recognize – God prohibits murder (Hosea 13:16; Num. 31). Those anti-abortionists who destroy love and even life (through criminal acts against abortion doctors, etc.) are themselves the ones unraveling the reputation of godly persons seeking to build the kingdom.
The Life Debate
Those who morally or politically oppose the legalization and practice of abortion have labeled themselves “pro-life.” They consider themselves to be the defenders of unborn babies. This argument is based on the idea that there is a moment when a fetus becomes human in the fullest sense, both with spiritual dimensions and political rights. Those who oppose abortion run a spectrum of opinions within this basic framework, debating amongst themselves when life begins. The most extreme view pinpoints life at conception, the moment when the only physical reality indicating a foreign object in the uterus is a sperm. Other views, such as the historical ones previously reviewed, define life at a certain gestational term – usually four months. After this, they claim, the fetus is sensitive and formed enough (which seems to simply mean that, to the ultrasonically enhanced eye, it looks like a baby). There is also a continuum amongst those who allow for abortion. Some only allow for it during the first trimester and some espouse the allowance of partial-birth abortion, when the birthing process is already underway.
My broad objection to this debate is its internal dissent as well as its obsession with the physical minutiae of the process of procreation. Most Christians and self-proclaimed pro-lifers would allow for the use of contraception in a variety of forms. At what point does the prevention of impregnation differ from the termination of impregnation? It seems arbitrary at best.
Life, according to scriptural definition, is the pneuma, the spirit, or the breath. The first human is described as coming to life in Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”[8] Admittedly, Adam was uniquely formed, apart from sexual union, by God. The first man born from man and woman was Cain: “Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, ‘I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.[9]’” There is no definitive statement here regarding the breath of life. However, it would seem that the precedent has been set that to be human one must somehow be animated or set into living motion, in Adam’s case by God and subsequently through the breath of life upon birth. One of the oldest books in the Old Testament is Job. Job describes his status of being alive (as opposed to being dead), “as long as I have life within me, the breath of God in my nostrils….” Job was alive, in his self-description, because of the breath of God. A New Testament reference to this “breath” being something necessary to be truly alive is found in James 2:26, “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.”[10] To live is to breathe; to die is to breathe your last breath.
Cultural Dynamics
Unfortunately, this debate has escalated beyond a pursuit of truth and become twisted into something manipulative and often cruel. While the motivation is unclear, those who deem themselves “pro-life” employ emotionally-charged verbiage, grotesque descriptions, and weepy personal testimonies to provide a social shame for anyone who would think otherwise. This is a very politically-toned argument from both sides. “Pro-life” movements have been riddled with arson, bombings, vandalism, harassment, torture, threats, and even murder. This is not an exaggeration. In her book, Targets of Hatred, Patricia Baird-Windle highlights many of these acts. It is truly horrific to consider the atrocities that have been suffered by reproductive health-care professionals at the hands of those who claim to be evangelicals or pro-life.
Public Health – medical and social considerations
The medical risks of abortion are few. Abortion can either be done surgically or with a pill (RU-486 FDA approved in 2000) with the same amount of risk for either procedure.[11] There are occasions when a woman or fetus cannot both survive the gestational period. When a fetus will not survive, it is the only humane choice to abort. If a choice has to be made where either the woman or the fetus will survive the process, obviously the woman has rights as a human to make that decision.
There are some psychological elements to this procedure that must be addressed. Many of the psychological stressors originate from radical anti-abortion groups and their virile language regarding abortion. It causes women unnecessary guilt for making what is often a wise life-decision. This must be fought. To prey on the emotions of women in a fragile state of decision-making is truly sinister. To combat this, all abortion clinics and gynecologists, etc., who perform abortions provide counseling both before and after the procedure. As stewards of the earth and our bodies, God has given us means and reason to make good decisions and sometimes abortion is the decision of good stewardship.
The positive effect of the pro-choice movement
The aforementioned counseling offered by clinics which offer abortions is only a fraction of the influence that these clinics have in their respective communities across the world. One of the best-known organizations that promote sexual health is Planned Parenthood, which has been active in the US for 90 years. Other than just abortions, most Planned Parenthood locations offer sexual health counseling on STD’s, birth control, emergency contraception, health care reform, sexual education, HIV & AIDS support, family planning, and pregnancy. Socially, they have been one of the first and only refuges for women in crisis pregnancy who want to pragmatically consider all of their options.
What many evangelicals forget, in their quest for church structures and male headship, is that the feminist movement was widely beneficial to American society. Without it, women would have few rights at all and would be severely limited. Jesus himself extended a great deal of acceptance and dignity to women, as did his followers. It would be remiss to not acknowledge the good that the feminists have contributed to our society and churches. Women should always feel empowered to make responsible decisions regarding our sexual health.
Summary
Theologically, philosophically, ethically, socially, and biblically the legitimacy of abortion as a woman’s rightful choice for her own reproduction is inescapable. Both historically and in modernity this has been an issue both in the church and society. With our current access to historical documentation, theological reflection, and scientific studies, we can be certain that we are without error when we allow that abortion is a legitimate option for women. There is no biblical mandate that is being usurped and so we cannot say that this option renders any woman guilty. Before the throne of grace women are allowed this self-determining, reproductive freedom.
Conclusion
A pure, unbiased ethic that is based on Scripture necessitates the conclusion that abortion is a personal, subjective issue that should not be regulated or prohibited by either church or state. The key passage that comes to mind regarding every opposition to this conclusion is Matthew 7:15 and 16, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.” The self-righteous, judgmental, violent tendencies of anti-abortionists speak volumes concerning their hearts. Every woman has not only the right but the responsibility to be a steward of her body and reproductive health. And with respect to my body and my God-given freedom, I will not allow a field of white crosses to make me feel differently.
[1] “Gynecology and Obstetrics” Potts and Campbell
[2] Oxford Classical Dictionary
[3] “Abortion” in Scientific American
[4] John Riddle
[5] Augustine, “The Case of Abortive Contraceptives” in Philip Schaff
[6] Tertullian, “De Cultu Feminarum” section 1.1, part 2, trans. C.W. Marx
[7]Streitmatter, “Voices of Revolution”
[8] NAS
[9] Genesis 4:1
[10] ESV
[11] Robert W. Rebar, MD