Abortion and Christian principles

Joan was about six weeks into her first quarter of college when she learned that she was pregnant. ¹ After her graduation from boarding academy, she had spent two years living on her own, during which time her relationship with her parents and with the church became strained. Considering her parents too "legalistic," she rebelled, becoming involved with an older married man whose family included three children. Eventually Joan concluded that the relationship was leading nowhere and ended it.

About the same time, Joan returned to church and to a renewed religious experience. She decided to accept her parents' offer to assist with school expenses, and entered college. Her plan was to take the pre-professional course for dentistry.

Though Joan began to worry about pregnancy even before she began her college work, when the first indications that she was pregnant appeared, she refused to believe that it could have happened to her. But there is a limit to how long pregnancy can remain unacknowledged. The test results from the local clinic verified her fear. By her own uncertain calculation, conception must have occurred nearly three months earlier.

From Joan's perspective, her alternatives were very limited. She did not want to contact the man who shared responsibility for her pregnancy, and she had no hope that her parents would be sympathetic toward her plight. She had considered continuing the pregnancy and put ting the baby up for adoption, but she saw no way of finding a place to live, supporting herself, and explaining her actions to her family and friends. She considered her options to be either committing suicide, getting an abortion, or dropping out of school and "disappearing." Compounding her emotional distress were her mixed feelings about the morality of abortion.

As with most cases in which abortion is contemplated, Joan's story elicits feelings of both compassion and perplexity. Experience has convinced me that even those with prefabricated answers are likely to feel the tension of conflicting values if they become involved person ally. The complexities of such cases bring us to the edge of our moral reasoning and demonstrate how impossible perfect solutions may be in a world broken by sin.

Abortion cases often present us with genuine moral dilemmas because they introduce conflicts between values we hold. The only easy way to resolve these conflicts is to deny, or at least underplay, one or more of our values. But the way of moral maturity would rather allow the conflict of values to deepen our understanding of our own firmly held moral convictions. This way is generally more complex and sometimes more painful, but it leads to a clearer enunciation of those Christian principles that should inform our decisions.

Of course, our work on abortion ethics would probably seem a lot simpler if only God had chosen to inspire at least one of His messengers with an explicit teaching on the matter. But in no passage does the Bible directly and clearly either prescribe or proscribe abortion. Its lack of specificity offers at least one benefit: the impetus for principled moral thought. It means that we must draw from the inspired sources those broad moral principles that will give us the guidance we need. ² Rather than telling us exactly what to do in a few specific situations, such principles provide moral guidance in a wide variety of cases.

It would be inaccurate, of course, to say that we can arrive at Christian decisions simply by consulting a set of principles. Moral responsibility also requires such virtues as insight, sensitivity, courage, and humility. And throughout the decision-making process, we must ac knowledge and accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who came to guide us into all truth, including moral truth (John 16:1-15).*

It is entirely probable that developments in both law and medicine will provide pregnant women with even more control over the decision to abort than they now have. New drugs, for example, may eventually make abortion a matter about which only the pregnant woman need know. But the arrival of that day will not make all discussion of the morality of abortion obsolete. Indeed, the increased responsibility should be accompanied by increased attention to the relevant moral principles. I believe four principles should figure significantly in any Christian discussion of dilemmas such as Joan's.

1. The principle of forgiveness. God's grace composes the essential context for all Christian decision-making. God has "transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:13, 14). The assurance of God's forgiveness should precede all discussion of moral principles. Separated from grace, ethics tends to degenerate into some brand of legalism. But with the acceptance of God's grace, it becomes the response of gratitude to God's forgiving love.

The principle of forgiveness calls for us to respond to God's love by forgiving others as He has forgiven us (see Matthew 5-7). As much as any other moral problem in this world, abortion reveals the need for such forgiveness. That abortion is ever considered in itself witnesses to the brokenness of human life under the reign of sin. No woman ever becomes pregnant in order to have an abortion; somehow the meeting of human needs has gone awry. So a person like Joan needs first of all to have God's forgiveness made real through the forgiving attitudes and actions of those who take the name of Christ.

But it is not for Joan's sins alone that forgiveness is needed. Indeed, from God's perspective, it may be clear that Joan is more victim than victimizer. The father of the fetus is also in need of forgiveness. And so are Joan's parents, who must share some responsibility for her alienation.

Doubtless, the circle encompasses others as well. In the extended web of human relationships, the fact that any one contemplates abortion indicates, to some extent, a failure of community. Social and economic deprivation and the lack of adequate helping institutions speak of social injustices in which we all participate. Those who mouth slogans on both extremes of this issue often over look this fact.

Many who consider themselves pro-life have neglected to consider what it really means to be for life. What sort of educational and health provisions might be necessary? Similarly, many who align themselves with the pro-choice forces leave the impression that the one condition necessary for freedom is the removal of restrictions on the procurement of abortion. But to have real freedom means to have real alternatives, including whatever is necessary to make feasible the option of completing the pregnancy.

Christians must never tire of asking what a community that knows forgiveness should be doing in the service of freedom and life.

2. The principle of respect for human life. Most systems of morality rank the duty to preserve human life high on the list of moral obligations. But the reasons for this ranking differ among the systems. For example, the right to life may be viewed as the result of a social compact. Or it may be thought to derive from some special capacity that distinguishes human beings. Among these systems, rationality, variously described, is often made the justifying trait.

But from a biblical perspective, human life is not respected because of some human agreement or some human capacity. Rather, it is respected and preserved because it is the gift of the Creator, because in His love He has given it value. We love because He loved us first (see 1 John 4:17-20). The right to life and the duty to preserve it are secured first of all by His love. Human contracts can always be broken or ignored, but God's love is steadfast. Human traits wax and wane, but God's love is unconditional.

We must ask, however, whether or not this love extends to prenatal life. Does the life of a human embryo or fetus deserve respect?

While Scripture neither explicitly permits or forbids abortion, it is not devoid of a perspective on prenatal life. Through its symbols, stories, and poetry, it informs our sense of values in ways even deeper than mere commands can. The biblical imagery leads us to value prenatal life and to think of the fetus as one whom God has called by name. Scripture often portrays God's providence as being revealed in the conception of a child. 3 Moreover, it poetically pictures God as a participant in prenatal development, when fetal life is knit together (see Ps. 139:13). In one instance, prenatal movements were interpreted as an earnest of later service (Luke 1:39-45). And more than once, divinely mandated naming, symbolic of God's power and care, took place prenatally (see verse 13). None of these biblical indicators of God's intentions leads straightway to a specific position on abortion. But in view of them, it can hardly be denied that the God pictured in Scripture cares about fetal life.

There is one text, however, that is often cited as an exception: "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life" (Ex. 21:22, 23).

One reading of this text would appear to give a relatively low value to the life of the fetus. On this view, the "harm" that follows refers only to injury sustained by the pregnant woman. If the life of the fetus is lost, the punishment is merely a fine. If the woman dies, the punishment is death.

But this interpretation is debatable. A plausible case can be made for applying the provision about the "harm" to the fetus. On this alternative view, injury resulting in the death of the fetus is cause for capital punishment. The Septuagint offers yet a third interpretation, that the matter of capital punishment for causing a miscarriage depends on whether or not the fetus was fully formed.

We may not be able to determine which interpretation of this passage is correct, but certain facts are quite obvious. First, no interpretation of the pas sage leads to the conclusion that the fetus is entirely without value. And second, the text is not about intentional abortion at all; it is about an accidentally caused miscarriage. Jewish interpretation of the passage has been far from unanimous, but the argument has been over the appropriate penalties for accidentally causing a miscarriage. All schools of Jewish thought, regardless of their view of the disputed passage, "condemned deliberate abortion as disrespect for life and as bloodshed." ⁴

Ellen White's works show that she also held a high regard for prenatal life. Numerous passages tell of the importance of proper parental action during the prenatal period so as to protect the life and health of the "child." ⁵ Pregnant women who possess principle "will consider that another life is dependent upon them, and will be careful in all their habits, and especially in diet." ⁶ Irresponsibility toward the developing life of the fetus is considered a sin against the Creator. ⁷ The fact that Ellen White never mentions abortion should not cause us to miss the clear thrust of her counsel. It is hard to imagine that teachings that enjoin the careful safeguarding of prenatal life to enhance later life would allow the conclusion that abortion is a matter of small consequence.

The principle of respect for human life calls into question the frequent attempts to determine when human life "really" begins. Ever since the Creator breathed life into Adam, human life has been the gift of earlier life. When conception occurs, human life is transmitted to a unique new form, a new genotype. To seek a time when this new individual life may be destroyed without regret is to miss the point of respect for the gift of human life.

Indeed, what takes place at each of the specific times that have been suggested as the real beginning of human life reminds us that something important is happening: the unique form of human life initiated at conception is becoming personal. Implantation of the embryo represents a significant shift in the probability that the life will go on to maturity. As the transition from embryo to fetus takes place during the first few weeks, the human body that is forming becomes apparent. The beginning of brain waves, by the seventh or eighth week of gestation, is the promise of future thought. "Quickening," the time when fetal movement is first detected, is an important social event that informs at least the mother that a little someone is really alive. Viability, the time when the fetus could live outside the womb, is also significant. The intentional destruction of a fetus after this time raises perplexing questions about whether there are morally relevant differences between the abortus and a premature baby. Finally, at birth, we are certain that we have a new member of the human community.

It is obvious, of course, that this new member does not yet function as a person, in the fullest sense of the word. Nor will he or she do so for some considerable time after birth. The infant is unable to make plans, to say no, or to deliberate rationally. There is no doubt that most of what we value about human life is dependent on such traits, which make a human being a person. But we must never forget that we are all in search of our full personhood, that in this life complete personhood is always a quest, never an achievement. We must be extremely cautious about letting our respect for human life vary according to our perception of the level of personhood achieved. True, in tragic cases of conflict, prepersonal human life may have to yield to already established personal life. But such decisions should never be made without regret.

The principle of respect for human life establishes a strong moral presumption in favor of preserving life, including prenatal life. Exceptions such as abortion must always bear a heavy burden of proof. To people such as Joan who are faced with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies this means that the decision to abort cannot be made lightly. We cannot agree, for example, with the physician who once characterized abortion simply as the "removal of some unwanted cells." To trivialize human life in this manner is to belittle the costly endowment of the Lifegiver.

3. The principle of respect for personal autonomy. If human life were the only value at stake in our consideration of abortion, little more would need to be said. Abortion would be wrong in all but those very rare cases in which the life of the fetus threatens the physical life of the mother. But abortion is more complicated than this. Christians know that life itself is not the only human good. Nor does it always take priority over all other values, such as loyalty to God, justice, integrity, and freedom.

Christian faith has fostered a high regard for personal autonomy. God's people are liberated from all types of worldly bondage so that they may serve their Lord in a relationship of true freedom. 8 When we value personal autonomy, we imitate God. "In matters of conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another'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." Indeed, God valued freedom so much that He chose to accept the consequences of its misuse rather than reduce human beings to robots. ¹⁰ Generally, when we say that we respect a person, we are implying that we are unwilling to restrict that person's freedom by imposing our own values on him or her.

It is fundamental to the concept of personal autonomy that a person be free to decide what happens to his or her own body. One side of the abortion debate has focused on this aspect of freedom: the right of the pregnant woman to deter mine what she does with her own body; Even if a fetus is accorded full human rights, we may still argue that the decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy properly belongs to the pregnant woman. Ordinarily, we do not force a person to use his or her body for the good of another, even if that good is life. We have not drafted kidney donors, for ex ample, even though the lives of many people could thus be saved. We do not even insist that people agree to the donation of their organs following death. Nor do we consider it permissible to force people to be subjects of experimentation without their consent. We do not even require anyone to give a pint of blood in order to save the life of another. While we may encourage such actions, because of our high regard for personal autonomy we do not make them mandatory. So important in our culture is this sense of the inviolability of a person's body that even unconsented touching is a legal offense.

On what grounds, then, should a woman be enjoined to provide her body to preserve the life of another? One possible answer is that she chose to initiate the incipient human life through the act of procreation. But this answer generally lacks force. Most women who consider having an abortion did not choose pregnancy in the meaningful sense of the word. In most instances, they were probably hoping to avoid pregnancy.

Of course, we may wish that all pregnant women would always value prenatal life and accept the obligation to protect that life unless there were sufficiently strong reasons not to do so. But hoping for such a conviction and insisting on it are two different matters.

The principle of respect for personal autonomy establishes a moral presumption in favor of the pregnant woman's rights to determine whether or not to continue pregnancy. The principle calls into question all paternalistic attempts to make continuation of the pregnancy mandatory. We should encourage people like Joan to consult with those whose convictions they respect--we are all members of communities and our autonomy is very largely the gift of personal interaction. But in the end, one of the chief purposes of community should be to empower individuals to make their own truly personal decisions.

4. The principle of justice. Everyone concerned with abortion needs to re member that at least two lives must be considered. When human lives and interests are in conflict, the moral decision-maker generally must make some appeal to the concept of justice.

According to Scripture, God loves His children impartially. Everyone counts. God gives the dignity with which He endows human life without gradation or qualification. God loves those who, from a human standpoint, appear unworthy as well as those who seem worthy (Matt. 5:43-48). His love is not influenced by what humans call excellence, nor can His favor be purchased. He is a God of fairness: "For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner" (Deut. 10:17, 18).

Biblical justice reflects God's impartial love. It establishes a presumption in favor of treating all of God's children impartially, on the basis of their needs. It requires that the weak and the vulnerable be given special attention not as a denial of impartiality but precisely because they are most in need and least likely to be treated fairly. Justice is thus the instrument of love in the social setting.

If we seek justice of this sort, we must be prepared to relate to human conflicts by relinquishing personal biases and adopting the perspective of impartiality. In the case of abortion, we must be willing to imagine ourselves in the position of all those, including the fetus, who are substantially affected by the decision. And we must ask what we would consider a just or fair decision.

Obviously, we will have the most difficult time adopting this impartial perspective when we are among those who will be substantially affected by the issue involved. This difficulty reveals the importance of the balancing guidance of a community of faith and virtue. Moreover, this difficulty should emphasize to us the importance of carefully thinking through moral dilemmas such as abortion before we have to face those dilemmas ourselves.

Some conclusions

Neither the principle of justice nor any of the others I have discussed will eliminate what James Londis has called the "agony of decision." ¹¹ The nature of the Christian values at stake in abortion--grace, life, freedom, and justice--and the depth of our convictions about them preclude easy solutions. We should be unwilling to relinquish or diminish our commitment to any of these values; but we should also realize that in the case of difficult moral problems such as abortion neither these values nor the principles that grow from them can fully erase our sense of conflict and loss. Cases like Joan's should make this obvious.

Still, the principles I have stated do lead to some reasonably clear conclusions:

1. The reasons of convenience and expedience that appear to characterize many abortion decisions could be deemed adequate only if a very low value were attached to prenatal life. Such abortions are morally unacceptable.

2. As much as we respect the developing human life of the fetus, the claims and interests of the established personal life of the pregnant woman, including the likelihood of responsibility to other persons, must be given priority in cases of conflict. The most obvious of such cases occurs when the physical life or health of the mother is seriously threatened. Another obvious example is a pregnancy resulting from rape. We must also realize that an unwanted pregnancy may jeopardize the personhood of the woman in many ways, some evident and some hid den.

3. We should forgo the paternalism of the past that insisted that others knew better than the pregnant woman how to assess the many factors affecting the abortion decision. We may encourage her to seek the counsel of her community and we may offer our own perspective, but attempting to coerce her to make what we consider an acceptable decision in a matter so deeply personal would be a wrongful restriction of her autonomy. The church should not support efforts aimed at restricting the personal autonomy of the pregnant woman.

4. The principle of autonomy should also be extended to medical care providers. No one should be required to participate in an abortion that is contrary to his or her convictions.

5. The community of faith that respects human life should support those social changes that would lessen the need for abortion. We should seek ways to assist those women who elect to continue their pregnancies, making that choice an achievable option. Doing so is one of the clearest instances in which work for social justice serves the cause of life.

There is no nice way to end an article on abortion. The conclusion to Joan's story will not help--her story has no fairy tale ending. After much indecision, Joan finally elected to leave school and confront her parents with her problem. She also decided to continue the pregnancy and relinquish the infant for adoption. But when the baby was born, she changed her mind and chose to keep it. She felt so little understanding or acceptance by her parents and her church that she sought public assistance and now lives alone with her child. She has not returned to college and has no hope of doing so at this time. She, her child, and all whose lives touch theirs will continue to need a special measure of God's forgiving and redeeming love.