Abortion

Abortion: Don't Believe All You Hear!

"Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother."

Daniel Augsburger, Ph.D., is professor of religion at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Viewpoint: Articles in this section do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the editors or the denomination. When quoting material from this section, this fact should be made clear. Comments and constructive criticisms made in a Christian spirit are invited. —The Editors

 

MINISTERS, more than ever, are being called on to answer many questions concerning the significance of the Biblical concept of the sacredness of human life. Abortion is one of these issues, and merely to ignore it won't cause it to go away. In order to be able to discuss this issue meaningfully we must clarify many of the confused notions that are accepted practically as legal tender in our society today. Among these are the following:

The 1973 Supreme Court decision has solved the moral issue of abor tion. Shortly after that famous decision a radio announcer began his broadcast by saying, "Now that the Supreme Court has solved the moral issue of abortion, what will be the next big moral issue?" Obviously he was con fusing a legal solution with a moral one. There are many things that are legal which ministers refuse to do because of moral principles. In many places prostitution and gambling are legalized, but such laws do not soften the Christian opposition to these acts. It is legal to kill in war, but many church members ask to be excused from bearing arms.

The state must make laws on pragmatic grounds, often as a compromise between an ideal and the stark realities of life in a society which is not governed by moral ideals. The distinction be tween legal and moral becomes greater and greater as countries that once claimed to be Christian surrender their religious inheritance. We cannot accept a court decision as a moral absolute.

A woman should be free to do what she wants with her own body. This seems to clinch the decision for many people. A woman should have the right to control the use of her body as she wishes. She should not be forced to have sexual intercourse with people who are repugnant to her. That is why rape is such a heinous crime. A woman should not be forced to conceive merely to gratify a husband's virile ego, as is the case in so many parts of the world. A woman's body should not be an object that can be handled, mutilated, purchased, or used as if it were a possession of someone who is stronger than she. This point will be readily granted by Christians, but the real issue with abortion is whether the fetus is the woman's body or not.

If it can be proved that the fetus is merely a bit of the woman's flesh, the problem can be solved rather readily. But it is very difficult to admit that a fetus is "the woman's body" in the same way that we say the head or the arms are "the woman's body." The fetus is implanted in a woman's uterus, but it has its own genes, its own DNA; it can not remain a part of its mother's body. In fact, to survive in the uterus the fetus has to induce important physiological changes without which it would be rejected as a foreign body.

There is no point here in arguing whether the burdens of bringing children into the world are equitably divided between father and mother. We know that pregnancy, like work, is quite different today from the original plan of the Creator. Motherhood involves discomfort, suffering, even danger of death. All this was suggested to Eve by God when the results of disobedience were made known to her, but we must believe that the burdens of pregnancy can be a blessing from a wise God just as the hardships of work are blessings for the laborer.

Abortion should be granted on de mand in order to be fair to the poor. This argument is used extensively. It is well known that where abortion is illegal rich women can have abortions under safe conditions while women with low economic resources must face butcher like, unsafe procedures. Where abortion is a crime there is no recourse for the patient who has not received proper care. Thus, for the sake of economic justice at least, many will argue, abortion should be legalized. We are obviously talking of legal considerations here rather than moral principles.

Besides, there is an amount of sophistry in playing up so much the plight of poor people when calling for abortion on demand, for abortion statistics show that abortion clinics do much of their business with well-to-do or middle-class women.

Actually, liberalization of abortion has done little to cut down the number of births among the poor. Ignorance must be taken into consideration, of course, but we must also recognize that family bonds among the poor are just as significant as among the rich, perhaps even greater. Beyond this, there are, of course, other ways to control the size of the family that are far less question able.

Unwanted children will be un loved children. This argument also touches a responsive chord in Christian hearts. We hear more and more about brutal child abuse in America and feel like supporting anything that might stop or at least lessen that social horror. It is, however, a fallacy to generalize and assert that "unwanted" children will be unloved children. All of us know cases of "unwanted" children who have been dearly loved. I know of a charming minister's wife, mother of five children, who has added much radiance to her husband's ministry. But she was an "unwanted" child if ever there was one. Her mother had been ad vised not to have any more children and had to stay in bed for the entire time of the pregnancy. On several occasions that mother's life seemed to be in peril, but no baby could have been loved more than the baby girl was when she was born. I know, because she is my own sister.

A fetus is a subhuman form of life. Consciously or unconsciously, this idea is held by all proponents of abortion on demand. Obviously the fetus cannot live independently from its mother for many months, but does that make it a subhuman being anymore than the person who must rely upon a pacemaker or a kidney machine? Can self-sufficiency become the criterion of human dignity? Besides, fetologists have learned that the fetus is a very remarkable being. A recognized New Zealand fetologist writes:

"Biologically, at no stage can we sub scribe to the view that the foetus is a mere appendage of the mother. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception. Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy, in command of his own environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose. . . .

"Most of our studies of foetal behavior have been made later in pregnancy, partly because we lack techniques for investigation earlier and partly because it is only the exigencies of late pregnancy which provide us with opportunities to invade the privacy of the foetus. We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort determines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened and less if it is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. . . .

"This then is the foetus we know and indeed each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for before and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient. This is also the foetus whose existence and identity must be so callously ignored or energetically denied by advocates of abortion." 1

Human Destiny Cannot Be Foretold

The Bible teaches clearly that a per son has significance for God before he is born. The Lord told Jeremiah: "'Be fore I formed you in the womb I knew you for my own; before you were born I consecrated you, I appointed you a prophet to the nations'" (Jer. 1:5, N.E.B.).* The author of Psalm 139 states clearly: "Thou knowest me through and through: my body is no mystery to thee, how I was secretly kneaded into shape and patterned in the depths of the earth. Thou didst see my limbs unformed in the womb, and in thy book they are all recorded" (Ps. 139:15, 16, N.E.B.). The deep mystery of human destiny, which can never be foretold with any accuracy on the basis of heredity or environment, is probably one of the major reasons why a Christian finds it so difficult to countenance abortion on demand. Some of the great est men of history came out of the worst circumstances, which might well have justified abortions.

Any denial that the fetus is a real life evades the basic issue, which is this: Are there certain circumstances in which a human life should be terminated? An editorial in the journal of the California Medical Association stated: "The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhor rent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected." 2 The editorial concludes with the prophecy that death selection and death control by the individual or society will inevitably follow.

This understanding that abortion is the destruction of a real life will, I believe, eliminate for Christians "convenience abortions" when lives are terminated because they interfere with plans for travel, education, business, or material desires. To destroy a human life because it causes inconvenience is sinful selfishness.

Neither, of course, can there be justification for abortions to terminate "blackmail pregnancies," pregnancies started to spite parents or try to trap a suitor into marriage. (Statistics from New York show that these grounds for requesting abortions are far more common than generally known.) One who realizes that abortion is the termination of life will have serious questions concerning abortions in cases of premarital pregnancies. Sexual activities involve the assumption of responsibilities that cannot be declined on demand. They call for the acceptance of a duty that is very close to the attitude of him who swears to his own hurt and does not change (Ps. 15:4).

In some cases, however, no "oath" has been given consciously or unconsciously, for instance, in cases of pregnancies due to rape. In God's plan conception should be the concrete expression of the total oneness of a man and a woman united by deep love and a strong sense of fidelity. When these conditions are totally absent and the presence of the fetus can only remind of violence and fear, one may justifiably hesitate to force a woman to bear and raise a child conceived under conditions so contrary to the will of God. In such cases society tends to place the burden of responsibility for the termination of life upon the woman, which is completely unfair. In a case of forcible rape, the man will have to face God's judgment for the life that was destroyed. We cannot say, as situationists do, that in this situation abortion is "right," but we must place the burden of guilt upon him who brought a life into existence for which he had no intention to show the least concern.

Finally, there are some circumstances where human wisdom seems too small to pronounce a general principle and where one must seek personal guidance from the Lord, and also forgiveness if a mistake is made. This would apply, for instance, to babies, which because of drugs or disease, will be born with severe handicaps. While one can justly admire the moral strength of the family willing to bestow their love upon a deformed child who will require so much extra care, one may hesitate to urge parents to accept a yoke which will be so much heavier than normal. At all times one should apply the counsel "In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control an other's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own convictions." The Desire of Ages, p. 550.

The role of the Christian minister is to try to clarify the issues, to make known what the Word of God has to say on certain problems, but never to try to replace the Holy Spirit in defining a duty for another person. In many circumstances, the pastor will be thankful that the Holy Spirit has reserved that function for Himself.

Notes:

* Texts credited to N.E.B. are from The New English Bible, The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press 1970. Reprinted by permission.

1 Congressional Record, 119 (May 31, 1973), No. 82, p. 17542.

2 Ibid., p. 17540.


Ministry reserves the right to approve, disapprove, and delete comments at our discretion and will not be able to respond to inquiries about these comments. Please ensure that your words are respectful, courteous, and relevant.

comments powered by Disqus

Daniel Augsburger, Ph.D., is professor of religion at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

September 1976

Download PDF
Ministry Cover

More Articles In This Issue

"Open Throttle or Just Idling"?

From One Leader to Another.

"Come Before Winter"— The Sermon with a History

An illustration of the effective use of motive appeals.

Managing the Comndttees— Before They Manage You

What can a leader do if the only thing on which a group agrees is that there is no agreement?

The Pastor and Postmarital Counseling

The base of every marital breakup is a spiritual problem.

"My Lord and My God"

Why Jehovah's Witnesses are Wrong About the Deity of Christ

Before You Say "Baloney"

Is it healthful to live on a meatless diet? Nutritionists say Yes——as long as you follow a few simple rules.

The Battle Over the Bible

The discussion over inerrancy.

"Let Us Leave to Him"

The health legacy of John Wesley

The Inspiration of the Scriptures

"God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible."

View All Issue Contents

Digital delivery

If you're a print subscriber, we'll complement your print copy of Ministry with an electronic version.

Sign up
Advertisement - SermonView - Medium Rect (300x250)

Recent issues

See All
Advertisement - SermonView - WideSkyscraper (160x600)