1
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
Lesson 15—Abortion and Infanticide
I. Abortion and Infanticide
That the deliberate taking of the life of an infant is murder, was never questioned in
the church until recently. No matter how handicapped or unwanted an infant,
orthodox Christians regarded the deliberate killing directly or indirectly through
neglect as murder. Infants now, as well as fetuses, have entered the debate.
A. The Beginning of Life.
Recently, the scientific evidence has overwhelmingly shown that zygotes,
embryos and fetuses are individuals of the human race—i.e., human life begins at
conception.
B. The Value of Life.
This observation has led the Pro-Choice advocates to shift the debate to the
question of the value of various forms of human life; i.e., not all human being are
“persons” or not all human lives are “useful” (Justic Blackmun in Roe v. Wade).
“Quality of life” has been substituted for the traditional “sanctity of life.” If
human life is deficient in quality, it may—indeed, according to some, it must—be
terminated.
C. The Pro-Choice Advocates.
Pro-abortion advocates embrace a thoroughly naturalistic and relativistic ethic in
which the individual’s self-interest is made the center of all values. Since the
fetus is not a full human life but only a form of human life, then the woman
should have the absolute right to choose whether to terminate or bring a
pregnancy to term. She has an inviolate right to privacy, the right to economic,
emotional and physical well-being, and the right to have only a child that is
wanted.
D. Personhood.
If the moral issue turns on whether one is “fully human” or not, then how are we
to define “fully human” or “personhood”?
1. Psychological or sociological definitions such as “the ability to make selfdetermined conscious choices and to survive without dependence on others”
leaves infants, the severely handicapped and many aged without protection
and therefore expendable. A “useful life” definition was used to justify Nazi
extermination of the sick and those socially, racially or ideologically “substandard.” They were living less than fully “human” lives.
2. Similar definitions are now being used to justify aborting unborn children.
3. Scripture nowhere evaluates human life this way.
4. Such definitions are hopelessly elastic—embracing ever larger groups of
people who are expendable.
2
5. Many have abandoned psychological and sociological definitions and turned
instead to some form of biological definition.
E. Biological Evidence.
1. There is no significant biological distinction between the late-term fetus and the
newborn.
2. The time of fetal “viability” and even embryonic “viability” has been pushed
back to the moment of conception by the advent of the artificial uterus.
3. There is no clear-cut demarcation in the development of human life from
conception to adulthood.
4. Thus, Pro-Life advocates maintain that “fully human life” begins at conception
and that a zygote has the right to life over all rights of the mother except that
of her own right to life. As death is defined as the cessation of heart and brain
activity, so life begins with such. Brain waves occur 6 weeks after
conception, pain sensation is experienced also by then. Biological human
functions are present by 12 weeks.
5. Biologically, there is little difference between aborting a fetus and killing an
infant.
6. The burden of proof that a fetus is not human lies with the abortionist.
7. In such high-stakes uncertain issues, the benefit of the doubt certainly should
be given the fetus.
8. Any “quality of life” argument should give place to the “sanctity of life” ethic.
F. Biblical Evidence.
1. Scripture does not directly address the issue of abortion. But it certainly does
teach principles that bear on the subject. Human life is made in the image of
God (cf. Jas 2).
2. The command, “You shall not kill,” is the overarching principle that condemns
the taking of innocent human life.
3. This broad command is limited only by exceptions Scripture itself enjoins, such
as justifiable warfare, capital punishment and self-defense.
4. Ex 21:22-25—“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that
her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be
fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him ... But if there is harm,
then you shall pay life for life, etc.”
Recompense must be made for causing a miscarriage. It is unclear whether
the “harm” in view is that to the mother or to the fetus. Most interpreters say
it is the mother. But Luther and Calvin and many Jewish scholars today say
the fetus is also included and that the “eye for an eye” punishment applied if
the fetus was killed. But the interpretation is controversial.
5. Ps 139:13-16—The fetus before birth is viewed by God as a person (“You
formed my inward parts; you knotted me together in my mother’s
womb...etc.”). But it is possible that this is poetic hindsight from the
perspective of the fully developed person that the fetus would become.
6. Luke 1:44—“... when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in
my womb leaped for joy.” As a fetus of 6 months, John the Baptist leaps for
3
joy. In v. 43, Elizabeth addresses Mary as “mother of my Lord” and not as
“the future mother of my potential Lord.” Also, was Jesus in Mary’s womb at
this time simply a potential human being or the eternal Son of God?
7. The several instances in Scripture where God calls people while still in their
mother’s wombs—i.e., they are fully human persons as fetuses. But this is
offset by passages like Jer 1:5 where the same is said of a person before
conception and Eph 1:4 where such is said of persons before the foundation of
the world.
8. In both Hebrew and Greek, the same word is used for both fetus and child
suggesting the identity of pre-natal and post-natal life (Ex 21:22, Hebrew
Yeled; Acts 7:19 and Luke 1:41, 44, Greek Brephos).
9. Nothing in Scripture speaks against the humanness of the fetus and several
passages seem to speak for it. Thus, just as we must presume an unconscious
person to be alive until proof is certain that he is dead, so with the unborn
child. Fetal life should be treated as infant life.
G. Abortion As Murder.
Should capital punishment be required of those guilty of aborting a fetus?
1. It is impossible to prove conclusively from Scripture that the zygote or embryo
is an immortal soul.
2. Scripture does not expressly prescribe such punishment for abortion.
3. Scripture prescribes lesser penalties for other forms of taking human life
(through criminal neglect or reckless behavior).
4. The abortion of a zygote or embryo is a sin of reckless violence, a possible
homicide.
5. The abortion of a fetus is a crime, almost certainly a homicide deserving of
severe punishment but not capital punishment.
II. Response to Pro-Abortion Arguments.
A. The Right to Choose.
Pro-abortionists argue that each woman alone has the right to choose what is done
to and in her body. But rights to self-determination are limited by the rights of
others and a pregnant woman has made a prior choice to have intercourse which
has brought another person into her life whose rights now limit hers.
B. Economic and Social Well-Being.
The most common reason for aborting a fetus is the convenience of the mother—
the desire for freedom from the limitations of parenting and for an affluent lifestyle. But this is the most trivial and selfish of reasons. It is a great moral
impoverishment to “decide that a child must die that you may live as you wish”
(Mother Theresa).
C. The Mental Health of the Mother.
But can the potential psychological damage to the mother really be compared to
the certain loss of the life of a child and even its possible agony of a violent,
painful and protracted dying. Moreover, studies indicate a far higher incidence of
psychological damage to mothers who choose abortion (e.g., threats of suicide).
D. The Life of the Mother.
4
Abortion on these grounds may be justified as self-defense or the lesser of two
evils. But this dilemma is very rare.
E. Unwanted Children.
It is claimed by some that “No one should be forced to bring an unwanted child
into the world.”
1. But many unwanted children become very much wanted at birth.
2. Given the limitless desire to adopt in the USA, there really are no unwanted
children.
3. The same logic applies to children who have been birthed—do we dare say “No
parent should be forced to raise an unwanted child”?
4. To abort an unwanted fetus because of an unhappy future it would otherwise
face, should logically require that we terminate the lives of children and adults
who may face possibly unpleasant futures.
5. Abortion has not lessened cases of child-abuse as promised. In reality, childabuse has increased nearly 400% since Roe v. Wade.
6. Abortion is the ultimate child-abuse and seems to lessen the abhorrence to
violence toward the already born.
7. It is hypocritical and irresponsible to claim one does not want what one has
brought into existence. It is more honorable to face the consequences of one’s
past choices and make the child wanted either by raising it with love or seeing
it is adopted by a loving family.
8. Given that female fetuses are aborted out of all proportion to males in situations
where sex determinations are made, it is ironic that women wish to support
this ghastly business. It is a perverse form of genocide against women.
9. Anti-abortionists have a responsibility to provide alternatives to mothers with
unwanted pregnancies (counseling, shelters, adoption options, medical and
financial help).
F. Rape, Incest, and the Handicapped.
1. It is difficult to justify an exception to the rule against abortion.
2. Pregnancy following rape is rare (Yugoslavia: 20,000 rapes resulted in no
pregnancies; Minneapolis/St. Paul: 3,500; Congo rebellion in which nurses
were repeated raped for months resulted in to pregnancies).
3. Medical treatment to prevent pregnancy is available for rape cases.
4. If a fetus is a human being, it is wrong to destroy it even in cases of rape. A
second act of violence doesn’t correct the first.
5. The unborn child of rape has an inalienable right to life; he does not deserve
capital punishment for his father’s crime.
6. Permitting abortion for rape or incest trivializes these crimes for they will be
used as loopholes in the law to secure abortions when no rape or incest has in
reality occurred.
7. Prompt reporting of rape or incest can secure contraceptive medical aid so there
need be no abortion.
8. Aborting a handicapped fetus has validity only if the fetus is not a human
being. If it is human, it has a right to life like the handicapped child or adult.
5
9. Physical handicap does not, except in the most extreme cases, need to mean a
life not worth living. The suicide rate among the handicapped is virtually
zero.
10. Parents and society can experience joy and moral freedom in caring and
providing for the handicapped.
G. Abortion Law.
1. If abortion is wrong, it should be made illegal.
2. Abortion is not a private matter but involves others: the unborn child, the
father, and society.
3. It is foolish to say that morals cannot be legislated. Most of what is legislated
involves moral beliefs; e.g., private religious convictions regarding the
rightness of slavery, polygamy, discrimination against blacks, mutilation of
Asians, etc., would not be tolerated by liberal defenders of private personal
rights and freedoms.
4. Christians should work to get as much legal protection for innocent life that
they can, even if it is not a total prohibition of abortion in all circumstances.
Prohibition of first term abortions is the ideal for it is here that 90% occur.
But second and third term prohibitions are certainly better than nothing.
5. The argument that to legally prohibit abortions will return us to the back-alley
butchers of illegal abortionists is overblown. The number of deaths which
allegedly occurred through illegal abortions has been greatly inflated. In 1971
(2 years prior to Roe v. Wade) only 68 deaths in the entire USA resulted from
illegal abortions (15 million unborn baby deaths by abortion have followed
since liberalization).
6 Neither a pluralist society, nor a free should allow people to follow their own
consciences nor their right to privacy if this leads to the killing of an innocent
human being made in the image of God. Both a just society and a merciful
one may well pass laws resulting in fairness to some and burdens to others if
not to do so will encourage or legalize killing innocent unborn children. A
wise society will protect the sanctity of life.