ABORTION FROM A BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW
__________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Evan Lenow
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for ETHIC 4323 A
__________________
by
Jeffrey A. Manning
November 10, 2012
Introduction
The issue of abortion has been and remains the most divisive issue in the United
States for the past forty years. Since the legislation of abortion stemming from Roe v.
Wade there have been approximately 55 million abortions executed. Particularly
speaking this is primary issue for Christians but more generally for conservatives across
the country. For Christians, this is an issue concerning children who are made in the
image of God being wrongfully murdered against the commandment of God. This paper
will give a brief synopsis with some critiques of this contentious ethical issue, some
further criticisms to pro-abortion logic, and a defense based on Scripture for a biblical
worldview on the issue of abortion.
Brief Synopsis and Critique of the Issue
In describing the culture of Europe, the citizens giving full acceptance to abortion,
euthanasia, assisted suicides, and homosexuality, Pope John Paul II called it a “culture of
death”. Specifically, he had spoken that people should call it what it is: murder.1 And
although the United States has seen all such things, the difference between the two
sections of the world is that the United States has still shown open disagreement and
resistance against such a culture.2 Ever since 1973 there has still been a great divide
1
Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”. In Biomedical
Ethics, 6th ed. Thomas A. Mappes and David Degrazia. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006),
457. He is quoted as saying that we must “call things by their proper name”.
2
Malik, Habib C. Craig, “The Two Tasks Revisited”. In The Two Tasks of a
Christian Scholar: Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind, ed. William Lane Craig
1
within the country over the issue, but there has not been a point in time where the
legislation has even been close to being overturned. According to some pro-abortionists
the “right-to-life” advocates use an argumentation that is unique to them and an
imposition to those opposed.3 However, the argument is not unique and is equally
oppositional. While those who are more conservative are trying to more simplify the
issue, those who lean more liberally conflate the issue by bringing into question the moral
and legal status of a “fetus”. While this section cannot exhaustively discuss the questions
that are raised, there are some that can be mentioned to frame the liberal argument at
hand.4 Mary Anne Warren, whose understanding of the issue brings her to use two
distinct views of the term “human”, that of genetic and moral sense, basically asks what
defines a human, its moral community, and its development and potential personhood as
it relates to the right to life.5 While she claims to acknowledge the fetus as a human
being, she does not include the human fetus within the moral community as a person. She
denies the conservative presupposition that human genetics are necessary for personhood
and Paul M. Gould. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007), 72.
3
Mappes and Degrazia, Biomedical Ethics, 453. They write, “In (the right-tolife) view, any effort to achieve the legal prohibition of abortion represents an illicit
attempt by one group – conservatives on abortion – to impose their moral views on those
who have different views.”
4
Terms such as conservative and liberal are more difficult to assign since some
Republicans lean more liberal on certain issues and vice versa. However, here, the author
of the following quoted text has assigned the term “liberal”.
5
Mappes and Degrazia, Biomedical Ethics, 460-464. Her analysis is a reprint
from vol. 57, no.1, of The Monist, LaSalle, Illinois 61301.
2
yet includes her own assumptions within a hypothetical scenario.6 Moreover, her five
requirements for identifying personhood suggest that the “fetus” must behave as an adult
in order to be considered a moral being.7 By her logic, and many others who would agree,
they begin to slide down the slippery slope towards infanticide and genocide. Using such
arguments, who is to draw the line and where is it to be drawn? Even Warren, using her
prophetic voice, says that robots will have moral rights in the future over genetically
endowed human beings.8 With the backing of legislation, influential voices in United
States universities, coupled with a demeaning rhetoric towards those opposed, it is no
wonder the effects of Roe v. Wade have remained and brought ill feelings to those who
strongly oppose. Although believing they have not erred, one could say that they have
chosen to err on the side of denying life.
6
This student believes that she is committing a form of hypothetical fallacy
(Reification) since the scenario she employs has never existed even in hypothetical terms.
In her scenario, a space traveler lands on another planet and meets another race. The
space traveler must conclude whether they are people and have inalienable moral rights.
She recognizes such factors as religion, art, and weapons as better indicators of
personhood than genetics and considers the absence of such things as being “overly
anthropocentric”.
7
Mappes and Degrazia, Biomedical Ethics, 461. 1. Consciousness (of objects &
events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular to feel pain; 2. Reasoning
(the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. Self-motivated
activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external
control); 4. The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite
variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on
indefinitely many possible topics; 5. The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness,
either individual or racial, or both.
8
Mappes and Degrazia, Biomedical Ethics, 462. She writes, “Citizens of the
next century should be prepared to recognize highly advanced, self-aware robots or
computers, should such be developed, and intelligent inhabitants of other worlds, and to
respect their moral rights.” She also says elsewhere that an average mammal, even the
average fish, has more personhood than a “fetus”.
3
Other Criticisms Against Abortion
As stated earlier, the issue over abortion is not simply a matter between Christians
and non-Christians. In a sense it is bigger than that since on both sides of the issue seem
to have believers and participants in both political parties. Therefore, the third section
will be reserved for a biblical analysis and a Christian worldview. So, what arguments
can and are being used against abortion whether philosophical or otherwise? Within the
philosophical realm, many from both sides have employed natural law to make their case.
Dependent upon one’s understanding of natural law, the result will determine how one
decides about abortion. As a recent example, Senator Joe Biden, an identifying Roman
Catholic, once articulated that there is good and bad natural law and that good natural law
is subject to the Constitution (protecting individual freedom) while bad natural law offers
an unchanging moral code (restricting individual freedom).9 Biden, now Vice President,
has even more recently stated his viewpoint that, again, shows a separation of belief and
practice.10 Harking back to our previous discussion, those who are pro-choice and are in
9
Johnson, Phillip E. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in
Science, Law and Education. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 134. Biden also
says that it is good natural law that has the task of “giving meaning to the Constitution’s
great, but sometimes ambiguous, phrases.”
10
In the 2012 Vice Presidential debates, Vice President Biden said concerning
abortion, “My religion defines who I am,” he said, “and I’ve been a practicing Catholic
my whole life….With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion…life
begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse
to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. I do not believe that we
have a right to tell other people that – women – they can’t control their body. It’s a
decision between them and their doctor. In my view, and in the Supreme Court, I’m not
going to interfere with that.”
4
agreement with the current legislation counter themselves when they say that they have
no right to assume nor the right to impose morality on anyone and yet display that they
do exercise their right to assume and impose the very thing by their rhetoric and law.
Concerning legislation, Biden, like many others, believe that is impermissible to legislate
morality. Yet, the United States government, being led by individual representatives, has
passed legislation that prohibits certain behavior. Someone cannot drive while intoxicated
because they may heart someone. It would not be reasonable to say that one supports
being intoxicated while driving but does not support laws prohibiting such a thing. The
argument is illogical. In the case of abortion, as stated earlier, the arguments are conflated
much more than any other similar issue. Philosophically, the pro-choice position
concerning legislation is inconsistent.
From a sociological standpoint, the argument can be made that many people are
missing the real problem. If the supposed issue is whether to abort or not and the number
of daily abortions is already staggeringly high at about 3,500 a day, then it might be
determined by someone that an unusually large number of women are becoming pregnant
with no desire to carry the child to term. Is the issue then about whether to permit
abortions or not or is it about a declining morality in society that is the problem? Jim
Wallis states in his book that he believes this is the case and that the number is too high
for any society to be considered healthy.11 In one regard, Wallis makes a good point, that
there is a larger expanse to the issue. However, he still misses the central point of the
discussion. In a discussion over abortion, no one has run a political platform stating that
11
Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left
Doesn’t Get It. (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 299-300.
5
they will reduce the number of abortions. Neither side of the discussion has and probably
would not agree to those terms. It has always been about whether abortion should or
should not be allowed, not simply reduced. At the same time, to highlight the complexity
of the issue, why has there not been some resolve to both save the life of a preborn child
and provide care for those whose primary consideration for abortion is financial?
Instead, what the United States is seeing is not only rampant federal spending, leading the
nation further into debt, but also a portion of available funding going towards groups
such as Planned Parenthood as well as receiving federally mandated taxes from religious
organizations, whether directly or indirectly through insurance premiums, for the
provision of “free” contraceptives. To carry it even further, the United States has not only
allowed such freedom to choose abortion on the part of the mother but the has denied
doctors and other medical employees the choice to refuse.12 If this is the standard, then it
can be assumed that a pure “right-to-choice” does not exist with the issue of abortion.
This further continues an enforcement of a particular legislated morality upon those who
disagree. All in all, none of these things creates a truly free or healthy society. The irony
in all of this is that those who champion “pro-choice” give very little choice to those
whose consciences are violated in every way by abortion and related legislation. These
are only a sample of the problems found within this issue. So, outside of these kinds of
reasons, what else do Christians believe and why do they oppose abortion? Should it be
the only thing they oppose or should they positively speak of other views?
12
Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource
for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2010), 171.
6
A Biblical Case for Life
As a preliminary understanding, the Bible does not have an explicit statement on
abortion. In either the Hebrew or the Greek, there is not a term that is an English
equivalent for abortion. There is also not a specific story explicitly describing a situation
in which a woman decided to have an abortion and a council determined whether it was
lawful or not. In both of these points, liberal scholars are quick to point this out to make a
favorable argument for abortion. For both parties, neither one trusts the other to formulate
accurate conclusions in fields that they are specialized. Liberal medical and philosophical
ethicists do not want the conservative Bible scholar interpreting their data and the Bible
scholar does not want the liberal ethicists interpreting the Bible. The hermeneutic used by
liberal scholarship for the Biblical text is one that is often not used of any other literature.
So, clarity could be useful on both ends. What does Christianity say about abortion? The
Scriptures address the reverence for life.13
Worldview
Everyone has a worldview. To understand the world it has been determined that
one must answer the questions of theology, anthropology, metaphysics, epistemology,
and ethics. Depending upon the way one answers the questions that these categories
13
John E. Smith, “Abortion.” In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian
Ethics, ed. James F. Childress and John Macquarrie. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1967.), 2. The reverence for life can be found in Gen.4:1, Job 31:15, Isa. 44:24, 49:1, 5,
Jer. 1:5 and the importance of descendents in Gen. 15:5, Deut. 7:13-14, Psa. 127:3, and
128:1-3.
7
address, the answers will determine which worldview with which one aligns. Generally
speaking, there are five major worldviews: Naturalism, Pantheism, Theism, Polytheism,
and Postmodernism. For the Christian, it is a Theistic worldview. This means that
orthodox Christians believe in an eternally existing God who is both three and one as
well as transcendent and immanent. All things came in existence by the Word of His
mouth and He called it good. Man was the unique crown of His creation and made in His
image. He called it “very good”. God has spoken and revealed Himself to His creation
both directly and by His written word, the Bible. Morality is based on the absolute truth
of God’s character and being. Because of man’s disobedience to God, sin came into the
world and the evil that this world experiences comes from man’s sinful desires. The
image of God in man was distorted and man’s moral capability was perverted. The
solution to such evil is to radically change the heart of those who would believe that God
sent His Son into the world to save sinners. By the work of His Spirit, He is making all
things new. This is the basic Christian worldview and it is from this view where the
Christian begins to understand the world and the issues it faces. Contra to this, many who
support abortion, especially in the academy, begin with a methodological naturalism.
Old Testament
One of the first locations in Scripture that is mentioned is Exodus 21:22-25. It is
here that one finds a situation in which a woman is struck during a fight between two
men. The result, based on the text in the Hebrew, indicates a miscarriage.14 This results in
14
ָ‫“ – וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יה‬her children come out”
8
the man who struck her paying a fine. In a resulting death, there is to be a payment of
“life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,
would for wound, strip for stripe.” The text is indefinite as to who the harm is attributed.
Because of this it can be applied to one or the other or both. Even if the harm is in terms
of miscarriage, the child has still been killed and it is clear from the text that it must be
punished. In either case, the mother and the child were to be protected.15 As a note of
liberal interpretation, a British church historian has noted that the text does not indicate
that the loss of the child resulted in harm. This exhibits a disregard for the Biblical
languages as well as the plain observation that the child could have been either harmed or
killed regardless of the effect it ad on the mother.16
Additionally, Christians believe in the importance of life far before conception
because of the descriptions one finds in Psalm 139. This is David’s reflection on his own
life, even pondering it to before his actual birth. He is speaking personally here and
elsewhere in the Bible where the unborn are mentioned, they are referred to as being
people. Concerning God’s involvement, He created him under His great omniscience and
wisdom. God formed David’s deepest being. Additionally, on the issue of personhood,
David acknowledges that he was born in iniquity, a sinner from conception (Ps. 51:5). It
can be agreed that this is personhood since only people can sin.17
15
Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship.
(Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), 720.
16
Pence, Gregory E. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases that
Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds, 4th
ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2004), 124.
17
Wayne Grudem, Daniel Heimbach, C. Ben Mitchell, and Craig Mitchell.
9
New Testament
While it is generally understood that the Bible does not condone abortion,
Scripture specifically speaks of the blessing of children. Jesus, in Mark 10:13-16, tells the
children to come to him because they belong to the kingdom. While these children would
be considered people based on the personhood categories listed earlier, it is still
established on the greater teaching of Scripture that God is over their creation from the
beginning, thereby giving their life importance from conception. Scripture also teaches in
Matthew 2:16-18 and Acts 7:19 that the killing of children is a horrible thing. The New
Testament also describes the creative process of human procreation by identifying it as an
event between a man, woman, and God.18 Elizabeth and Zechariah were blessed with a
child from God and when Mary entered the house, the baby leapt. Additionally, the word
used to describe the unborn child is the same used of Christ as well as the children Jesus
told to come to Him. This shows that there is no real distinction in the Bible recognizing
a being in the womb of a mother and a being after it is born. Many would like to point out
that Jesus never mentioned anything about abortion. Again, this is employing a
hermeneutic that is not biblical or satisfactory with any interpreting any other kind of
text. Because Christians believe in the canon of Scripture and that it is inspired by God,
the New Testament is consistent with the Old Testament. In each case, both represent a
view of life that is inconsistent with abortion.
“Biblical Ethics: An Overview.” In ESV Study Bible. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007),
2538.
18
Köstenberger, Andreas J. and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family:
Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010), 118.
10
Conclusion
The teachings of the Bible have a greater, more defined, view than what is simply
mentioned in explicatory language. Because the Bible does not read like an owner’s
manual in certain portions does not mean that the narratives, poetry, epistles, and
apocalyptic writings do not tend to the issue of life and death as it relates to all people,
including children. Without the more explicit references in Judges, Psalms, Matthew, and
Acts, the Christian can find a solid ground to stand for answering the basic questions of
life such as those of origin and meaning. The question is not whether to defend life but
over whose life to defend. Conservatives have fought for the life of the unborn but a true
biblical worldview holds that all people at every stage are made in the image of God,
should be dear to us, and should be responsible for upholding the life of those who cannot
protect themselves. The opposite could possibly said of more liberal parties. In a time
when most of the rhetoric centers on selfish individualism, the Christian must act on the
authority of God rather than man for the concern of other men.19 The issue over life,
whether in the womb or on the shores of New Jersey after a hurricane, cannot be
understood in terms of bipartisanship but nonpartisanship. The issue of abortion is a
gospel issue and must be addressed from Scripture. The gospel radically changes hearts
and it is only then that ethics are properly aligned with theology. This is the battle of the
current generation and Christians must learn to not only stand on biblical principles but
biblical authority as well.
19
Mark Rooker, “The Ten Commandments.” In The NAC Studies in Bible and
Theology, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 131.
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship. (Phillipsburg:
P&R Publishing, 2008)
Grudem, Wayne, Daniel Heimbach, C. Ben Mitchell, and Craig Mitchell “Biblical Ethics:
An Overview.” In ESV Study Bible. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007)
-
Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for
Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2010)
John E. Smith, “Abortion.” In The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. James
F. Childress and John Macquarrie. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967)
Johnson, Phillip E. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law
and Education. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995)
Köstenberger, Andreas J. and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding
the Biblical Foundation, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010)
Malik, Habib C. Craig, “The Two Tasks Revisited”. In The Two Tasks of a Christian
Scholar: Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind, ed. William Lane Craig and
Paul M. Gould. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007)
Mark Rooker, “The Ten Commandments.” In The NAC Studies in Bible and Theology,
ed. E. Ray Clendenen. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010)
Pence, Gregory E. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases that Have Shaped
Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds, 4th ed.
12
(New York: McGraw Hill, 2004),
Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”. In Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed.
Thomas A. Mappes and David Degrazia. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2006)
Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It.
(New York: Harper San Francisco, 2005)
13