This is one of those topics that is primarily a moral issue, but has been twisted in the public discourse into a political and “civil rights” issue by the prevailing media narrative.
While to deny that the issue is predominately presented by those advocating the practice as political would be silly, I often have to remind people that prominence does not in any way necessitate primacy.
In the current public discussion, the advocates of legal, mostly or entirely unrestricted abortion have cleverly defined the issue with euphemistic language and concentrated their arguments in such a way to either dismiss, twist, and sometimes outright lie about the medical and moral implications of their stand.
But before we examine some of the more popular euphemistic arguments, we need to have a clear understanding of what abortion is and is not from a medical standpoint.
First, and contrary to many abortion advocates claims, abortion is NOT synonymous with a preterm delivery procedure. There is one very important difference between the two, and this difference defines the purpose of an abortion procedure.
A preterm delivery is a procedure in which an unborn baby is removed from the mother’s womb for the purpose of preserving the life of both the mother and the baby if possible. Many “Preemies” are born every year, and medical science and practice has advanced so far that many babies are saved every year that there would have been no hope for even ten or twenty years ago. In a successful preterm delivery, the baby survives.
An abortion is a procedure in which the baby is removed from the mother’s womb for the express purpose of killing the baby. In a successful abortion, there is at least one death (usually the baby).
So, what justification, other than the rare cases when an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, do abortion advocates give for supporting the intentional taking of an innocent human life?
One contention is that since the unborn baby is not capable of surviving outside of the womb without medical intervention and constant medical supervision, the baby is not “viable” and therefore, killing it is acceptable since it would die anyway.
There are two major problems with this argument: First, barring medical factors which would require a premature delivery, if the baby is left as is, it would be just as “viable” as any other baby. A person’s innocence (and therefore ineligibility for execution) is not changed based on whether that person can survive without medical support. Second, If this concept is taken to its logical conclusion, any person who requires medical intervention would be a candidate for killing simply because they require help to survive. People on dialysis, diabetics, or anyone else who has a chronic medical condition would be at risk.
The other, and arguably the most popular assertion, is that banning abortion somehow infringes on women’s “reproductive rights”.
This ties in with the “my body, my choice” mantra.
While on the surface, this seems to be a straightforward argument for individual freedom, when examined closely, it is actually an argument for allowing women to ignore the rights and freedoms of innocent and extremely vulnerable human beings.
Every human being has “reproductive rights”. Those rights are violated when they are forced to participate in an act that normally results in reproduction (r*ape). Granting a woman the privilege of killing an innocent human just because it happens to be in her womb is not recognizing a right, it is denying the right of life to the unborn baby who has no choice in the matter.
Again, well over 95% of pregnancies are NOT a result of rape – which means that if the woman had exercised her “reproductive right” to refrain from making a baby, she would not have to make the decision to kill it or carry it to term. There are options other than killing the child and many hard choices – but keep in mind that just because a body is presently inside your body doesn’t make it yours. It is a distinct body of another human distinct from your own.
In short, instead of sacrificing infants at the altar of Ba’al, modern women sacrifice their unborn children upon the altar of convenience.
The last argument for abortion on demand that I’ll address in this article is that of quality of life. While it ultimately falls under the “abortion for convenience” umbrella, there are some concerns that need to be examined. This argument is that since the probable quality of life (which is a constantly moving target) for either the mother or the child will be so very bad that it is better if the child is killed rather than to be sentenced to a hard life. Again, while couched in terms of the”quality of life” of the child, the focus is really that of the mother.
Let’s grant that the mother and child will have a very low, maybe even horrible standard of living. Sadly, this is actually true in many cases, but far less than even 1/4 (at least in the USA). There are valid options to address this without killing an innocent child.
The majority of pro-life organizations offer a range of programs and services to help mothers facing an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, either directly or by helping the mother contact other agencies who offer needed services. Adoption, childcare training, and financial assistance are just a few. In addition, many churches offer such help to members of their immediate community in addition to supporting other organizations.
Are there perfect solutions to the hardships of an unwanted pregnancy? NO, but abortion is by far the worst offered; it is a procedure in which whether successful or not, someone dies. In addition there are real dangers to the health and mental well being of the mother in any case, which are sadly greatly minimized by the pro-death activists and often exaggerated by the pro-life advocates.
Additionally, the adoption laws in the U.S. have become so outrageously burdensome both for adoption agencies and parents wishing to adopt that many just give up on the process. This is not the fault of the pro-birth agencies; it is the fault of an overreaching bureaucracy and a society that values convenience and “quality of life” over life itself.
So what is a proper Christian attitude toward abortion? I submit that it should be the same as it has been since the beginning of Christianity; protect innocent life, care for those in need, and with firmness, grace, and mercy encourage others to do the same. In the words of the first century A.D. writer to Diogentus in which he states at the end of a description of Christians, “They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring”.
Curly