OK. Let’s get some things straight. I’ve heard this debate for years and there is an awful lot of fuzzy thinking and ignorance being exposed. Let’s clear some groundwork first.
(1) "When does life begin?" is an invalid question since it is predicated upon an invalid supposition. The supposition is that a baby's life comes from non-life. This, as anyone knows about basic human biology, is simply untrue. Nothing DIED for babies to develop. The egg and sperm (even though the tail of the sperm does "die" when it detaches) are not floating, dead things that happen to meet and spark new life into each other. No, the entire process only occurs because two LIVE people come together in one LIVELY moment and share two ALIVE things (sperm and egg), which begins a LIVE human. Life is a torch that is passed on at the microscopic level.
Final few thoughts (assuming that every sane person assumes killing someone [in most cases] is evil, or at least not conducive to an orderly society):
(1) I've heard the phrase for years now, "unwanted pregnancy," and I am appalled. What in the world does my DESIRE not to have a baby have anything to do with the unethical decision to kill a person? Good lord! Imagine our judicial system allowing us to KILL anyone we didn't want! Wow. What a chaotic, killing machine we would be. No more obnoxious, froward co-workers, just dead people lying everywhere. No more criminals, just dead people spread out in our court rooms. I can't imagine the amount of suicides that would occur since so many people already feel like they are "unwanted." No more enemies in Church, just dead people in our pews (if you’re old-school) or chairs (if you’re “contemporary”). Baptists should oppose this mindset alone because it would really hurt “our numbers.”
(2) "OK, David, but a fetus is not fully human yet." Huh?! What does it take to be "fully human"? What is the criteria? Is it development? Should all little people be decimated because they're short and not fully developed like me? Why not kill me, since I'm not as developed as a 50-year-old? What does development have to do with what is genetically indefatigable: a fetus is a HUMAN fetus. If a person doesn't see it, I ask the question: "How many trees would be left in the world in 50 years if we got all the acorns in the world and killed them?" "But, David, acorns are not trees. . ." she says. "Ah, they are not 'trees,' no. But, they are of the genetic/biological make-up of that which is arboreous. Kill the acorns and no more trees." (I know some trees germinate by other means, but the analogy still works) So I reiterate: the issue is not what you call it in its stage of development, the issue is it that it is genetically human.
As a side note, is it not one of the dumbest things you've heard when people say that because a fetus is shaped like it has a "tail" it is evidence that we evolved? It is utterly amazing how ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is used as evidence for evolution. Having something shaped "like" a tail has nothing to do with having a rear appendage used for balancing (or whatever). I'm also tall and thin. Why am I not from trees?
Now, the remaining reflections are for Christians, since I'm appealing to what we consider to be the authority source for living, the Bible. (Christians, don't ever forget: non-believers don't care if "it's in the Bible," since they don't concede the authority of the Bible). First, let's put the ancient Jews and Christians in context.
The Greeks and Romans also debated whether or not the fetus/womb-baby was a person. In Roman custom, the baby was not declared a legal person until the father declared it. This is how they got around "exposing" (i.e., abandoning) babies. But, the issue was not settled.
This is an excerpt from "Marriage" in Porter, Stanley E., and Craig A. Evans. Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. electronic ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.:
Not everyone wanted more children; some resisted the new emphasis on childbearing (see Dixon, 22–23). Some resorted to magical contraceptives (PGM LXIII.24–28) or other contraceptive means they thought were medically sounder (e.g. , b. Nid. 45a; contraception and abortion were not as widespread as some have argued [see Frier]). Child abandonment was frequent (e.g. , Quintilian Inst. Orat. 8.1.14; Juvenal Sat. 6.602–9). Nevertheless, the debate over such practices appears to have been heated. Stoics (Malherbe, 99), Egyptians (Diodorus Siculus Bib. Hist. 1.80.3) and Jews (e.g. , Sib. Or. 3.765–66) condemned child abandonment; Judaism also condemned abortions (e.g. , Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.25 § 202 ; Pseud,-Phoc. 184–85; in early Christianity, see Lindemann). Many philosophers (e.g. , Heraclitus Ep. 7; Den Boer, 272), physicians (see Gorman 19–32), and others (e.g. , Chariton Chaer. 2.8.6–9.11) disliked abortion; ancients debated whether the embryo was a person and therefore whether or not abortion should be legal (Theon Progymn. 2.96–99).
For Jews and Christians, however, the issue was not contested among themselves (which is striking considering the milieu in which they lived. . .sounds familiar to our situation, doesn't it?)
(3) Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."
This text is often used in this discussion. Of course, it says nothing about abortion, but about the authenticity of Jeremiah's call to be a prophet at a young age. Is it true that Jews believe God develops humans in the womb? Yes. Is this text talking about that? No. Is it assuming that God is involved? Yes. I understand this text to be relevant because it ASSUMES God works in the womb, not because it argues it at all.
In the Pentateuch, abortion is condemned (Ex 21:22-25: if a baby is killed in the womb, then the person who kills the baby is supposed to be killed!!) and so is, perhaps with qualification, birth control (Gen 38:8-10: God killed Onin because Onin wasted his LIFE-GIVING semen). This is not the space or time to unpack how Christians are to apply these texts to today. My point here is only this: for centuries, Jews believed that abortion and (perhaps) what we call, "birth control" to be against what God wanted. For all you crazy Christians, stop blowing up abortion clinics because you think Ex. 21:22-25 is immediately applicable to your murdering.
The New Testament doesn't speak on the issue, but the early church sure did. In the earliest known "church manual," the Didache (probably written at the end of the first century), there are strong prohibitions toward abortion (Greek: phthoros) and infanticide (Didache 2; also see Barnabas 19:5; Letter to Diognetus 5, 6).
It's funny (and gross!) --Paul uses an abortion metaphor for his own calling: "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." (1 Corinthians 15:8) "Untimely born" is an ancient euphemism for a dead fetus, either by miscarriage or abortion. Paul, unlike the original disciples, was "born" too late into the Christian faith, and he laments it.
It seems to me that abortion is all-too-often just the facile way out. It's an attempt at avoiding the consequences of a stupid decision weeks prior. Boy, if we could ever get the value God places on human life into the hearts/minds of people, rampant sex would be more rare, I think. Amazing isn't it? When things happen OUTSIDE the way God intended it (in heterosexual marriage), then all kinds of things go wrong. (No, I'm not assuming only non-married people have abortions).
If I had to choose between the life of my wife or a child who is killing her from the inside? Then I choose my wife. Not because the baby is not human, or not alive, or because it doesn't matter, but because I swore to God in marriage to always protect her. I'd still beg God's forgiveness. . .and need it. If my wife was raped, and I was not given the gas chamber after killing the person who did it, I would also choose not to kill the baby. I would grieve; it wouldn't be easy in the least bit; but the baby is not to blame for the sin committed. The baby should not pay the ultimate sacrifice for that sin, or any "mistake" when adults are consenting. "David, you've never carried a baby before. You don't know what it's like." What does my experience have to do with whether or not something is right or wrong? I've never murdered a person before, but can I not be opposed to it on moral grounds alone? "Oh, but David, you've never felt the heat of passion and how much you can hate someone . . ." Come on. Let us be clear: Our experience does not change the veracity of our ethical position, even if it changes our emotional response to that decision.
Abortion is killing a human. Jews and Christians believe that God is the author of life, and this is one area where we are explicitly told that we do not have the right to take life.
So, Church, listen up! Let's give people a safe place to fall and a warm hug, and let us empty all of our pockets of stones. People would make wiser decisions if they felt like they could have help, emotional support, and most of all, grace.
Lord knows; I sure need help, emotional support, and grace, too.
**For more reading on this issue in the ancient world, see M. J. Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church: Pagan, Jewish and Christian Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982); and Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament.
Comments (2)
I must agree with you. Your right no one can justify why they get an abortion. God made life and He is the only one that should take it away.
In His Love,
Jaime
Praise the Lord!!! This is the best argument I have heard. I agree with you!