CANADIAN SOUTHERN BAPTIST SEMINIARY ABORTION A REQUIREMENT FOR BIBLICAL ETHICS AND PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE MASTERS OF DIVINITY PROGRAM SUBMITTED TO DR. ROB BLACKABY BY TYLER WALKDEN NOVEMBER 2010 2 The field of ethics is broad and varied, touching on subjects of philosophy, theology, economics and biology. It can range from lofty theoretical formulations to concrete and sometimes trivial practices. However, within this ethical spectrum there lies even a smaller area of study of sacred importance; these are the issues that deal with life. I am going to examine one such sacred topic that is literally a matter of life and death, abortion. We will explore the history of it in Canada and the church. We will look at the biblical argument for life and several ways people argue against it. Some of the philosophical underpinnings to the personhood debate will be examined and then we will end with some practical steps where we can make a difference. In 1869 a law was passed in Canada that made abortion illegal, unless it was a matter of life and death. Abortion was then punishable by life imprisonment. Those abortions that were carried out at hospitals in order to save the life of the mother usually had committees where a doctor’s approval was needed for the procedure. However, with the rise of feminism and liberal politicians, abortions where starting to be demanded as a right. With the help of Dr. Morgentaler, a Montréal physician and later a pro‐choice hero, abortion was decriminalized in 1969. Presently abortion is funded by the Federal government as long as it is done within hospitals. The Provincial government however is responsible for producing funds for aiding abortion clinics but some provinces do not. Quebec and Nova Scotia provide only partial funding and New Brunswick and Manitoba refuse to fund for these procedures in their clinics.1 The most recent statistics I could find on induced abortions in Canada is from Statistics Canada 2005 report.2 In Canada the induced abortion rate for hospitals and clinics have consistently dropped 1
All the information in this paragraph came from Joyce Arthur, “Abortion: History, Law and Access.” http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/canadabort.html 2
Induced Abortion Statistics 2005: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82‐223‐x/82‐223‐x2008000‐eng.pdf 3 from 111,456 in 1996 to 97, 254 in 2005.3 The age group with the highest number of abortions was between twenty and twenty‐four years of age, with 30,359 induced abortions, whereas the next highest group are those between twenty‐five and twenty‐nine years old which is significantly lower at 21,419. There are 13.7 women who receive an abortion for every thousand women in Canada that year, and for every hundred children born there is also 28.3 children aborted. Ontario has the greatest amount of abortions with 33, 546. In British Columbia there were 14,444 induced abortions in 2005 which is 34.5 children in every hundred born. Lastly, in Alberta there were 10,859 induced abortions, 14 out of every thousand women and 25.8 children for every hundred that were born there.4 The first incident of Abortion in recorded history can be traced back around 2700 B.C. where Chinese Emperor Shen Nung is documented as writing a prescription for abortifacient medication; there were also laws written like, “The Code of Hammaurabi” (1728 B.C) and the laws of Tiglath‐Pleser I (1200B.C) that forbid abortions.5 Even Hippocrates (460‐357 B.C) denounced abortion in his famous oath, stating “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”6 Abortion in the ancient world was also commonly practiced alongside infanticide which the Greeks were known for. Both were done as a form of population control, as suggested in Plato (427‐347 B.C) and Aristotle (427‐347 B.C) writings.7 The Stoics at that time “believed that the fetus is part of the mother and that life begins only with the fully developed infant’s taking its first breath,” (Gorman, 22). 3
In 2005, hospitals reported 50, 563 induced abortions whereas clinics reported 46,692. In the United States since Roe vs Wade in 1973 there has been estimated over 48 million abortions. In 2003 there were 3,500 abortions a day, one done in every 25 seconds. With the average cost of abortion being $372, it is an industry that makes $400 million annually. (National Right to Life: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/ abortionstats2.html). 5
Davis, Evangelical Ethics. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004. 138. 6
Davis, Evangelical Ethics. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004. 138. 7
Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982. 15. 4
4 One of the founders of Rome, Romulus, allowed for men to divorce their wives if they were using poisons in order to cause an abortion; Cicero (106 B.C – A.D 43) believed that capital punishment should be enacted on those women who deliberately aborted because it damaged the family name and inheritance, as well as undermined humanity and the state.8 Though many thought abortion to be wrong, by the time of Caesar Augustus (27 B.C) there was no law forbidding it, in fact “the Roman Republic was in disastrous moral and economic straits. The practice of abortion, which had reached an unprecedented height in the first century B.C, remained at a high rate throughout that century and the next,” (Gorman, 26). Abortions where sought by the wealthy in order to maintain their sex appeal, to hide illicit sexual activity or to prevent sharing one’s estate with their children. Among the poor, abortions were carried out in order to prevent the financial burden of additional children or by prostitutes because it interfered with their occupation. Any attempt to prevent abortion was out of preserving the estate of the husband who had full authority over his wife, children and servants. It wasn’t until the early church came on the scene that abortion was denounced because of concern for the fetus itself.9 The Christian view on abortion relied heavily on its Jewish roots which prohibited the practice. In an early church writing called the Didache10 it reads “do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new‐
born infant.”11 Another document written after the Didache, even considered canonical by Clements of Alexandria, was the Apocalypse of Peter. It is a graphic portrayal of the judgment due to those who abort or kill their child and is worth quoting at length: 8
Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982. This whole paragraph is indebted to Gorman. 9
Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982. None of these thoughts are originally mine only the wording. 10
This is also called “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles” written sometime between the middle of the first to the middle of the second century. The Epistle to Barnabas was also written around the same time and carries similar language in section 19.5. 11
Moody Bible Institute. The Apostolic Fathers. Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2009. 148. 5 And near that place I saw another gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. And there sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fires and smote the women on the eyes. And these were those who produced children outside marriage and who procured abortions.12 What is evident from this description is that there is a recompense one must face for their action of abortion. From this point forward the church continued to voice their disapproval of abortion. Clements (A.D 150‐215) spoke about how women must have to abort their own feelings while they abort their child.13 Athenagora (mid to late second century), while defending Christians from the common charge of cannibalism due to the nature of the Eucharist, reasoned that Christians wouldn’t condone murder and in fact they, unlike others, see destroying the fetus in the womb as murder. Tertullian (A.D 160‐240) believed that the soul of the child came into it at the time of conception therefore making the fetus a distinct person from the mother, stating “it is a human being and one who is to be a man, for the whole fruit is already present in the seed,” (Arner, 59)14. Interestingly, both Origen and Augustine (A.D 354‐430) struggled over when the soul was given and when human life actually began. They favoured one Jewish understanding that if the fetus had no appendages it was therefore unformed and not human compared to being formed with appendages making them human. 12
Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982. 51. 13
Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982.Thoughts in this paragraph are credited to Gorman, 47‐90. 14
Arner in, Consistently Pro‐Life: The Ethics of Bloodshed in Ancient Christianity, attempts to establish that early Christians before Constantine were pro‐life in every area, from disapproving of gladiator sports, abortion and suicide to not participating in wars or agreeing with capital punishment. 6 Nonetheless, while holding this position Augustine believed that the aborted unformed fetus might become fully formed and human on the day of resurrection. Chrysostom (A.D 347‐407) wasn’t as indecisive as those before him, and spoke strongly against abortion. In a rhetorical but condemning question he asked who “make[s] the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?” (Gorman, 72). Brevity prevents me from elaborating more on the early church’s views on abortion, but be sure that they grow in their passion and clarity on the issue. As helpful as the early church was, as Christians we are to look to scripture as the final authority. We know that God plans our lives (Jeremiah 1:5) and intimately knows and prepares each one of us (Psalm 139:13‐16) with a purpose (Ephesians 2:10).15 We are told that we are made in his image (Genesis 1:27, 2:7) and thus worthy of dignity and respect for who we are in essence. In fact the incarnation of Christ is a wonderful example to us of what it means to be created fully human. Christ came into this world not from the dirt of the ground like Adam or from a rib of a person, like Eve, but through the natural process of conception (Galatians 1:15‐16). He was conceived in Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), and spent nine months in her womb before being born. In this way we can say that Christ experienced every aspect of what it means to be fully human and therefore an appropriate representative for humanity.16 15
Paul Chappel, The Biblical Sanctity of Life: What the Bible says about Abortion. 13‐20. The wording is mine but the idea of planned, prepared and purposeful came from Paul Chappel. 16
This is not to deny Adam as a proper representation of humanity because he had not been naturally born. For until this time none had been naturally born therefore Adam’s representation is considered sufficient. 7 It is important to see from scripture that God considers those who are unborn as distinct persons.17 Psalm 139:13 states, “You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (italics added). The word “me” makes clear there is a distinction from the mother. Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Likewise we see that David saw himself with his own sinful nature, one that is morally accountable to God apart from his mother, while still in his mother. Observe that David acknowledged his personal nature from the time of his conception, not starting in a latter trimester. It could also be argued that when John the Baptist jumped in Elizabeth’s womb this could have been purposeful and deliberate action on the part of John (Luke 1:44).18 Both Greek and Hebrew language also makes clear that God doesn’t distinguish between a fetus and a new‐born child. In Greek the word brephos, was used in reference to John the Baptist in the womb and to the children killed by Pharaoh during Moses time (recorded in Acts 7:19).19 Similarly, the Hebrew word ben is used some 4900 times to refer to a “son” or “children” yet it also referred to both Jacob and Esau in Rebekah’s womb (Genesis 25:22).20 By far the most important but also most controversial verse in relation to abortion is Exodus 21:22‐55. We read: When men strive together and hit a pregnant women, 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, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there 17
Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010. 158‐160. The following breakdown is Grudems but my wording. 18
Stassen and Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2003. 219. Stassen kind of dismisses this interpretation as mere quickening in the womb. 19
Davis, Evangelical Ethics. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004. 156. 20
Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010. 159. 8 is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. According to the plain reading of this text, it teaches that if two men are struggling and unintentionally cause a women to prematurely give birth, yet no harm comes to the women or her child, the men are to be fined for negligence that created the possibility of harm. However if they do cause harm to the mother or the unborn child, they will be required to pay equal compensation, whether eye for eye or life for life. This text places both the mother and the unborn child on equal legal footing. This is a unique position considering the legal context of the day. If someone were to accidentally cause the death of another person, “life for life” was not required of them but rather under the Mosaic law they were to be sent to one of the “cities of refuge” (Numbers 35:9‐15). This is the equivalent to life imprisonment or lesser yet, house arrest. But to those who kill an unborn child or its mother, they were to be put to death.21 However some Christians are not so convinced of the clarity of this verse. Stassen and Gushee think that the above position would be too difficult to prove. They are unsure whether “there is no harm” refers to the mother or the child or to both. In addition, “come out” might be referring to a miscarriage, rather than causing the death of an unborn child. Therefore they believe that this text is “sufficiently murky to fail as a foundation for any particular position on abortion, other than the minimal claim that reckless behaviour causing a women to deliver a child prematurely (dead or alive) was punishable,” (Stassen, 218) by a fine. However it could equally be said that the two Hebrew words for 21
Grudem, Politics According to the Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010. 160. This paragraph is credited to Grudem. 9 miscarriage shakal (Genesis 31:38) and nephel (Job 3:16) are nowhere in this text,22 making the first interpretation more favourable than this one. The topic of abortion can seem difficult to navigate through. Pro‐choice advocates throw a plethora of arguments before pro‐lifers in order to cause bewilderment and confusion. Randy Alcorn in his book, Pro‐Life Answers to Pro‐Choice Arguments, helps summarize some of them. He states that some arguments from pro‐choice people are formed around rights and fairness. Such as don’t women have the right over their own bodies, the right to choose, the right to reproduce or not, a right for privacy and the right to be equal with men? Then there are pro‐choice arguments that deal with social issues, whether it is right to bring unwanted children into the world in case those children may be mistreated or abused. Prohibiting abortion may cause over population or may place unreasonable strains on the poor and disadvantaged groups. There are pro‐choice arguments concerning health and safety. They claim that abortion is an easy procedure, even easier than birth; that abortions help release psychological stress that people feel about the pregnancy and the future. Thousands of women would die if abortion is made illegal because of the dangers involved in back‐alley abortions. Then there are the arguments that are about life, humanity and personhood. No one knows when human life begins. The fetus is no more alive than sperm or eggs. The fetus is simply an appendage of a woman. A fetus is not an actual person but only a potential person. They are not human for they do not have consciousness. They are not persons because they are presently without meaning and value in life. With all these arguments before us where do we begin? One thing we can’t do is ignore these pro‐choice arguments but be willing to show we care by having responses for them. Some of these arguments are more difficult than others but some of these arguments are certainly more important 22
Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010. 160. See footnotes. 10 than others. As far as I am concerned the important issue to know is about humanity and personhood. Joyce Arthur writes that “in at least seven major court cases, Canadian courts have ruled that the fetus has no inherent right to life and no legal protection as a person, until it's born alive,” she goes on to say “under Canadian law, the woman and her fetus are one.…”23 Who determines that an unborn baby is a person with rights or not. Peter Kreeft helps us understand how arbitrary such legal decisions are.24 As a Catholic philosopher, he reasons that people know objective reality and govern their lives around it regularly. Their everyday moral decisions are based upon reality as they see and experience it. They know what a human being is and the rights it deserves as a human being compared to those of another species. Therefore people base their morality on reality, or to say it the way Kreeft does, morality on metaphysics. The only alternative to rights based on metaphysics or reality are rights based on might. In typical philosophical language Kreeft continues: Those are the only two possibilities: either might makes right or right makes might. To believe in a real moral law “higher” than man‐made positive law is to believe that might must be justified by right; to disbelieve in such a “higher” law is to believe that might makes right, that “right” is only a label attached to the laws by those who had the might to make them. 25 (Italics added). He goes on to say that legal decisions denying the right to life for the unborn is a form of soft totalitarianism exercised by the presiding government. Why is it that unborn children are not considered “persons” when everything seems to point to the contrary? Pro‐choice people argue that unless the unborn can rationalize or contribute to society they are not truly worth the right to protect. However if 23
Joyce Arthur, “Abortion: History, Law and Access.” http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/ canadabort.html 24
Peter Kreeft. Three Approaches to Abortion. 11‐41. 25
Peter Kreeft. Three Approaches to Abortion. 24. 11 unborn children are not actual contributing humans shouldn’t we considered them as potentially able to contribute at some point. This is sometimes referred to as the “potential‐actual” distinction,26 can’t we consider potential people as actual people but in the womb. The logic is similar to what Tertullian said about the fruit being in the seed, or as some say the oak tree is in the acorn. Pro‐life people rightfully argue that the smallest of human beings, the single cell zygote, has within it all the potential of a fully mature person thus should be treated with equal dignity. After all, this unborn child could be the next Mozart or Einstein. Some do not find this argument persuasive though. Chris Meyers, in his book The Fetal Position: A Rational Approach to the Abortion Issue, points out the difficulties with this “potential greatness” argument. First, why is value placed on people who may be great as opposed to not great or normal. Not all will be Mozart or Einstein, but Smiths and Jane’s. Do people who achieve greatness later in life be considered more valuable to those who don’t? Secondly, Meyers says it is “utilitarian,” meaning that the end is what justifies the means. If the end is that an unborn person will contribute to society in a meaningful way then it has value. However the same could be said if the child doesn’t contribute to society but rather causes sorrow and grief, then it wouldn’t be of value. The child could just as easily be the next Hitler or Mussolini. At this point Meyers goes on to define the value of the person in terms of future conscious experiences. He writes: It is the combination of future activities, enjoyments, and decisions – all the things we do and experience‐ that is valuable to us. And it is the loss of all of these future 26
Davis, Evangelical Ethics. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004. 162 12 conscious experiences that make death a bad thing and the killing of innocent people morally wrong.27 It is with such reasoning that Meyers goes on to deny the unborn child any present consciousness of future experience and therefore any real value in the womb. What was not evidently seen was how Meyers moved his argument from a potentiality and actuality argument to a dualist model of personhood. Robert P. George a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, points out that many pro‐choice advocates construct their arguments with a dualist notion of personhood, as we have just seen with Meyer.28 He states that philosophers over history have imposed dualistic models to human beings. Plato developed a soul‐body dualism that saw the soul as predating the body and continuing after it has died. Rene Dacarte constructed a mind‐body dualism that placed more importance on mind and little on the body, even going as far as to say that only the mind was uniquely human. John Locke held that self‐consciousness was what typifies personhood. In all these George says “the dualist attempt to show that the human being is, by contrast, two distinct realities, specifically, a ‘person’ and a subpersonal body,” (George, 76). George then continues to develop a model that is unified, seeing the soul, mind, and consciousness as united and inseparable to the body and that of personhood, he calls it “human animalism.” Though George’s case carries a little materialism to it, Christians could learn to be wary of dualistic approaches to human beings and look at people as whole individuals not just separate yet valuable parts of something bigger. Without doubt the issue of abortion can be complicated and even convoluted as the above example demonstrates. This may leave the average pro‐life person unaware of how to frame practical 27
Chris Meyers. The Fetal Position: A Rational Approach to the Abortion Issue. 127 George, Robert P. & Tollefsen, Christiopher. Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. New York: The Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2008. 57‐82. 28
13 arguments against abortion. In his book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture, Scott Klusendorf lays out a simple, consistent but powerfully compelling strategy for argumentation that anyone could use. Where many other arguments seem to get off track or go in circles Klusendorf places principles in our hands that will help one think for themselves. If there is one thing I would like my readers to walk away with, is a sense that they can do something that may actually save a life. The following reasoning will help them do just that. “Trot out the toddler” is a term Klusendor uses to simplify arguments and to expose presumptions of people. When someone argues that they are going to have an abortion because they cannot afford the cost of another child or that a new baby would hamper their education or career plans, we are to “trot out our toddler.” We are to do this by placing a toddler in each of the scenarios. Would I put to death my toddler because I am not able to afford that cost to raise him? Or would it be alright to take the life of my toddler in order to further my education or career plans. In both cases society as a whole would condemn us for this. Yet this is what takes place to the toddler less than ten months earlier while they are in the womb. Nearly every argument must succumb to the logic of the toddler. The “SLED” test is another strategy one can use that helps clarify the issues according to Klusendorf. SLED is an acronym that addresses types of discrimination in the world that all people would agree is wrong. The “S” stands for size. We know it is wrong to discriminate against a person because of their size. Would we prevent children from food because they are smaller than adults, or would we prevent women shelter because they are smaller than most men? A human should be given every intrinsic right not because of their size but because they are human. In the words of Horton, “a person is 14 a person regardless how small.”29 An unborn baby is no different, whether they are in their third trimester or a single cell zygote, they are still human. The “L” stands for Level of Development. Because someone is at a lower level of development than another wouldn’t be grounds to consider them less human. Five year olds are less developed than sixteen year olds but they are not less valuable. Likewise embryos are only less developed humans but yet we find that they are now not considered human or worthy of equal protection. The “E” stands for Environment. This is worth quoting: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non‐human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.30 The last letter, “D” stands for the Degree of Dependency. Throughout our lives we all have different and changing levels of dependency. Part of what it means to mature is to move away from being dependent on our parents and be more independent. In marriage we develop new dependencies and in old age we may return again to some level of needing others to care for us. There is no escaping dependency, yet people argue that because a fetus is dependent continually upon the mother it doesn’t deserve to be considered human, their logic clearly begins to break down. Abortion is an old problem that most likely will not find a new solution. One can only pray that present laws will change to criminalize it again. With new technologies it is getting more difficult for 29
Horton Hears a Who, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 2008. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009. 28. Klusendorf is here quoting Schwarz who originated the SLED acronym. 30
15 people to deny the humanity of unborn children. With advanced communications the atrocity of abortion is becoming more public and more intolerable. Yet this is not without the commitment and struggle of those who love all whom God has given to us in this world.31 31
Since this is a lengthy draft there is much more I wanted to say about the effects of abortion on women and men (and some practical steps one can take in helping expecting mothers) which I have left out. Perhaps in my final paper I will remove some of what I have said to make room for this, and other issues. It would benefit me to know what information was helpful and what was not, so I may know what I might remove. In an attempt to keep this seminary focused I shared much on the scriptures and church history, yet what might I share to keep it personable? 16 Bibliography Alcorn, Randy. Pro‐Life Answers to Pro‐Choice Arguments. Colorado: Multnomah Books, 1992. Arner, Rob. Consistently Pro‐Life: The Ethics of Bloodshed in Ancient Christianity. Oregon: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Chappell, Paul. The Biblical Sanctity of Life: What the Bible says about Abortion. California: Striving Together Publications, 2009. Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2004. George, Robert P. & Tollefsen, Christiopher. Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. New York: The Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, 2008. Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco‐
Roman World. Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998. Grudem, Wayne. Politics According to the Bible. Michigan: Zondervan, 2010. Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009. Kreeft, Peter. Three Approaches to Abortion: A Thoughtful and Compassionate Guide to Today’s most Controversial Issues. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002. Moody Bible Institute. The Apostolic Fathers. Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2009. Stassen, Glen H. & Gushee, David P. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2003.