Abortion is an issue that goes beyond faith and into simple ethics and morality. Note that these arguments can also be used in a debate with a Christian.
Arguments against abortion must be divided into two categories to insure usefulness in discussion.
The first category is made up of arguments that can be used against abortion with the non-believer.
The second category consists of arguments that can be used against abortion with the Christian. These include Biblical proofs that non-believers would not find convincing, but the believer must accept and submit to.
Arguments against abortion used when talking to non-believers include:
1. An unborn child is clearly a human
2. An unborn child must be defined as a “person,” for there is no clear line where personhood begins
3. Abortion leads logically to infanticide and beyond
4. Although abortion is seen as for women’s rights, it actually (ironically) is destroying women.
Arguments against abortion from a believer’s perspective:
1. Biblical Passages
2. Appeal to Christian Authorities
Before we delve more deeply into the arguments against abortion, let us observe some facts about abortion. In the United States, approximately one in every four pregnancies ends in an abortion (Feinberg, 47). Abortion is often seen as a method of birth control (47). Estimates in developing countries alone state that thirty million to forty-five million women have abortions every year. 125,000 to 250,000 of these women die from botched procedures (48). This is unacceptable. It is the holocaust of our time. Now, some facts of human development. Only 18 days into pregnancy, the baby’s heart is forming. 20 days into the pregnancy, the groundwork of the nervous system, including the brain and spinal cord is being laid. 43 days into pregnancy, the baby’s brain waves can be recorded (Feinberg, 54). That’s less than a month and a half. Can the baby feel pain? Is abortion really a simple procedure that does no harm to the fetus [note that the use of the word fetus is often used to dehumanize the subject, which again brings painful memories of the holocaust to mind]?
The conditions necessary for pain are known to exist in the fetus. These are “1) functioning neurological structures to sense pain; 2) overt behavior expressive of pain; and 3) a cause for pain [abortion] (Feinberg, 55).” Tests have been done that show a child in utero feels pain when pricked by a needle. “Contrary to what proponents of abortion claim, when a mother aborts her baby, most likely the baby feels pain (56).”
Now the arguments against abortion shall be explored in greater detail. The fundamental issue at hand is whether or not the fetus is a human. However, once the pro-choice individual has been persuaded of the fact that the fetus is a human [which we will find out shortly is much easier to prove than one might think], he/she often falls back on the term “personhood.” If the fetus is not a “person,” then it doesn’t have the rights that we “persons” have. These points must be made perfectly clear in order to overcome the evil of abortion.
It should first be noted that the idea of the fetus being human is quite ridiculous upon examination. The fertilized egg is not going to develop into a bird, a fish, or a railroad train. The only possibility this fertilized egg has as it grows is to become a human. This alone is enough evidence to show that the fetus is human, just an undeveloped one. But we must also delve into the scientific aspects here. Norman Ford states that “The union of male and female chromosomes at syngamy [fertilization] ‘gives rise to a single cell with a set of twenty-three pairs of maternal and paternal chromosomes into one genetically new individual cell.’ This process is completed approximately twenty-four hours after fertilization, and yields a cell that is ready to replicate itself (Feinberg, 57).” Thus, it is clear that this zygote is human in nature. Further, before these first 24 hours, there is no way for the fertilized egg to become anything else. Thus, throughout the entirety of pregnancy, a human life is indeed present. The question must then turn to whether or not this human is indeed a “person” with the rights granted to those who have “achieved” personhood.
First, note that the fetus within the mother is an independent organism. This directly refutes the biological view of personhood. The fetus is genetically unique from its mother (Craig, 116). Yes, it lives within its mother, but it is not indeed a vestigial organ or part of its mother. No one can accurately claim that a fetus is the same genetically as its mother (Feinberg, 61). Second, one view of pro-choice advocates is that personhood is something that a fetus only has potential for, it is not indeed a person yet. The most obvious problem with this view is that it begs the question of “What is the definition of a person?” What must one “achieve” in order to be a person? This makes the definition wholly subjective.
A pro-choice party may choose to define personhood to exclude unborn children, but a pro-life party would obviously define it as the opposite. This argument is subjective and cannot be used as grounds to destroy human life. Indeed, it leads to a horrifying slippery slope where personhood could be defined by the majority to destroy the minority—targets could include race, age, etc. Indeed, one of the definitions often used by pro-choice parties includes the “ability to interact with the environment in a meaningful way.” This would then mean that the severely mentally handicapped, babies, and even Joe Shmoe while he is asleep (and therefore unable to interact with the environment in a meaningful way), are not persons. One could kill any of these without any moral repercussions. Personhood is not something that should be determined by a subjective definition.
Thus we see that neither the biological nor the sociological view of personhood can suffice. Neither is a basis upon which one can rationally make a moral judgment. Further, where could one draw the line between person and non-person? A life is a smooth process that, if uninterrupted by unnatural means, will lead to a natural death. The development hypothesis used by those who are pro-choice when determining personhood could be applied at any stage along the path of life (Craig, 116). Infants are clearly not fully developed “persons.” Neither are adolescents or late teenagers. Is 30 years a good point to draw the line where a human has finally earned personhood? What about 50? Should any line like this really be arbitrarily drawn? In the same way, should the line be drawn simply because we cannot see the life?
A baby is clearly going to result from the pregnancy [this is obvious, given that this is the reason abortions are performed]. But if we choose to arbitrarily cut off life at 6 months into development, who says we can’t expand that into infanthood or childhood? How does expulsion through the birth canal magically transform an inhuman, impersonal fetus into a human person (Craig, 119)? There is no clear stage where a human immediately gains personhood, unless one accepts the proposal that each human life is a person.
Perhaps one of the most disturbing and ironic topics in abortion is the fact that with all their gusto to defend the rights of women, pro-choice individuals have contributed to the destruction of females around the world. It was previously stated that abortions in developing nations account for 125,000 to 250,000 deaths of women because of botched pregnancies. Further, in places like India and China where it is preferable to a family to have a male child than a female one, abortion is often used to control the gender of the child. This has lead to an ominous massacre of females across the globe. There is no feasible way that one could argue for women’s rights in order to advocate abortion when it [abortion] is used to destroy the rights for a woman to life.
Finally, there are arguments from a believer’s perspective. The most obvious argument against abortion for the Christian is to cite the Bible. No, there is no verse that states explicitly that one should not have an abortion, but the commandment “Thou shall not murder” combined with other verses leads to undeniable evidence against abortion. Psalm 139:13ff (ESV) “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made… My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your books were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.” The Christian can’t possibly argue against this with any validity. The most telling verse here is verse 16: “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your books were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.” Or, if one prefers NIV, “your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”God has plans laid out for our lives before we even came into existence. God clearly sees unborn life as having worth. Not only that, but He makes plans for each and every one of us before we are even in existence. There is no way for a believer to wriggle around that.
Another passage that can be offered in support is also from Psalms (51:5): “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” How can something that is not a human person be sinful? One cannot be sinful if one doesn’t exist.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer says of abortion, “Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder (Bonhoeffer, 174).”
Finally, we must examine a Bible passage that pro-choice Christians often use to attempt to back up their pro-choice stance, Exodus 21:22-25. “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Some believers use this passage to state that it shows the unborn fetus has a lesser status of personhood. They state that verse 22 shows that though the woman loses the child, she sustains no injury, and the penalty is but a fine. They say that this, then, shows that the fetus does not demand the same repercussions as hurting a fellow human (Feinberg 63). There are several problems with this interpretation, however. First, it must be stated that even if one is to concede this interpretation [which is incorrect], it does not authorize abortion. The baby is not intentionally harmed in any manner, but only unintentionally hurt. Second, just the fact that there is a penalty shows that there is wrongdoing here. If the fetus something that may be discarded at will, why is there even a fine for its destruction? Third, the reason the fetus’ death does not require the death penalty is in keeping with the Mosaic exception to the death penalty in cases of accidental death (Exodus 21:13-14, 20-21, Numbers 35:10-34, Deuteronomy 19:1-13). Thus, the fact that there is “merely” a fine does not show that the fetus is less valued. Finally, it absolutely must be noted that Exodus 21 states various penalties for the killing of individuals that cannot be explained away with personhood. For example, verses 20-21 show that one who kills a slave unintentionally has no penalty. No one could argue that the slave is not a “person” (Feinberg, 64).
Further, the correct interpretation of this passage must be seen as the woman giving premature live birth, not a miscarriage. Thus, the implication is quite clear. If the mother gives a premature live birth because of the fight, there is merely a fine (despite no serious injury to anyone), but if either the mother or the fetus is injured, the law of retaliation (eye for an eye) is invoked. Thus, if the fetus is killed, the man causing harm is to be killed. This is remarkable, because it is the only place in Scripture where death is required for accidental homicide. It shows the extreme value placed on the life of the fetus (Feinberg, 65). This interpretation is based on the Hebrew verbs and nouns used in this passage, but that would be tedious to explain here. For further exploration, note the citation.
From this discussion, it can be clear that there is no ground upon which the pro-choice individual can stand.He or she must concede that 1) the fetus is human, 2) the fetus is a person, 3) persons have intrinsic value, and 4) killing a person is murder.
The believer must stand on even shiftier sands, forced to grasp at straws in the face of Biblical and philosophical arguments against abortion. We must pray that God would use His power to overcome the evils of our time. We must pray that God will use us to fight against this atrocity. When we stand at the throne of Christ on judgment day, having fought for the lives of the unborn, those children we did not know and that “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me (Matthew 25:40).’”
Sources:
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York. Touchstone,1995.
Craig, William Lane. Hard Questions, Real Answers. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.
Feinberg, John. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
The arguments contained in this post were derived heavily from the sources cited. Of particular help was Feinberg’s Ethics for a Brave New World.
Hi, J.W. I’m saving your post to read tomorrow. It’s nearly 1am and I’ve got to get home and do laundry so I can go to Mass in the morning. I want to offer tomorrow’s, er, well, today’s Mass in reparation for the sins of pro-abortion politicians and “religious” leaders in our world who are leading their followers astray.
Thank you for writing about this. It will take all Christians and all people of goodwill to unite and pray and speak out about the horror and atrocity being committed in our towns and cities across our beloved land. It is a holocaust, a genocide, and it is being waged against the most helpless and defenseless victims imaginable. And with the support of elected politicians and by those who are alleged members of the clergy, responsible for leading their flocks in the ways of righteousness. Well, you know what Scripture has to say about false shepherds. I wouldn’t wanna be them when they stand before their Creator and answer for their betrayal of their sacred obligation.
Peace be with you, J.W.
Disciple
1. An unborn child is clearly a human
Point one and two are the same points re-worded.
2. An unborn child must be defined as a “person,” for there is no clear line where personhood begins
All of the above is your opinion. As I’ve stated before, it is my opinion that there is nothing of “human” or “person” status until nerves start to form. “Light microscopy revealed nerve fascicles as early as 12 Weeks”- science direct. Before that it is just a group of stem cells. Pain and consciousness requires nerves to transfer the electrical impulses.
3. Abortion leads logically to infanticide and beyond
What is this “and beyond” business, sounds like comic book science fiction. If your talking about eugenics every study i’ve looked has shown very small percentages for eugenic type reasons, 3%(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html). ~98% seem to be selfish reasons.
4. Although abortion is seen as for women’s rights, it actually (ironically) is destroying women.
What does this means exactly, and please don’t tell me you mean what the comment literally says? this is a compelling arguement?
Overall your arguements for non-believers are extemely weak, unsupported, and very hollow. You would have looked a lot better just not including them at all. Your responses are irresponsible (IMO) and take away credibility from other content you produce. I think quoting scripture to people who believe in scripture is circular and fine. In terms of arguing with non-belivers, who don’t perscribe to scripture, you are just not there. Four repetitive, thin sentences for non-believers compared to 7 pages for believers is proof of this. I’m not trying to flame you, I was just slightly offened by your irresponsibility. I hope you think about it.
I wish personhood and humanity were actually considered to be the same thing by some people, notably those who are arguing just the opposite in the field of bio”ethics” these days. But personhood was granted to rocks and trees, rivers and lakes back in the months preceding Roe v Wade, the decision that denied personhood to children in the womb at any age. Peter Singer would now like to deny personhood to children below the age of two years.
So just where does personhood or humanness or life begin? If we don’t know, we should play it safe and be willing to err on the side of caution and simply give the embryo the benefit of the doubt, refusing to kill it “just in case”. To say that it begins later is to say that there is a time when it alright to kill that embryo. And that’s really what the heart of the matter is: some don’t want to kill, some do, and those who do want to find a way to justify that killing.
Frankly, I prefer it when someone admits that they want to kill another and doesn’t try to hide behind dubious science and condescending rhetoric.
Peace, mateo. I hope you think about it.
Disicple
mateo, did you read my entire post? Those 4 points were not my arguments to use with the non-believer in their entirety, just a summing up. You didn’t address anything I said when I expanded the points whatsoever. The post is about half (the first half) directed towards people at large, and half towards believers in particular.
When you say that my first two points are the same, you ignored what I was saying about the difference between a human and person, as outlined rather specifically in the post itself.
I don’t actually cite scripture at all until the latter part of my post, which is intended to talk to believers exclusively.
But you failed to even discuss anything but the “Summing up” of my post! If you want to talk about being weak, unsupported, and hollow, you could at least point out the parts of my actual arguments that are so weak and shallow. I spend several paragraphs outlining them.
Sadly I must admit I did not read your whole post. You said it was broken between belivers and non. so after I read the non believer…I commented. I thought it was strange you would right so little towards non-belivers and is why I got annoyed. That would be mostly my fault.
My points/thoughts for question 2 and 3 stand though. But yes further reading eliminates my points on questions 1 and 4.
Also, I would like to comment on something you said:
“I think quoting scripture to people who believe in scripture is circular and fine.”
While I will try to prevent myself from jumping to the conclusion that this was nothing but a jab, I would like to point out that if you are actually attempting to assign any validity to this argument, there is quite a hole to be dug by doing so.
The argument posed by that statement is, basically:
If any argument x is made from a document, d which is considered reliable by persons A and B, the argument is circular.
Or, to put it in a different light, I could parody the argument as follows:
“I think quoting a physics textbook to people who believe in physics is circular and fine.”
or
“I think quoting Darwin to people who believe Darwin is circular and fine.”
What exactly is it supposed to mean to make such an argument? As I parodied the argument, I literally just took the same formula and plugged in different things: Darwin or physics. Did I do anything to discredit either Darwin or physics? Obviously not at all. In the same way, to say such a statement about Scripture can be nothing but an offhand remark that shows nothing but a predisposition against Scripture and those who believe in it.
It was a jab, sorry. I try not to offend.
I would like to make my point as short, simple, and to the point as possible because I think the core value is being overshadowed by longwindedness. But I guess that’s what a blog is for. Anyway…
On the subject of abortion: I believe that if you are going to define the fetus as a human life than perhaps you should think of the implications before adamently arguing that it is wrong to terminate the pregnancy. What if the mother is a crack addict? What if she is a single mother and cannot financially provide for the baby? Pushing aside the fact that she should not have been irresponsible in the first place by having unprotected sex (any sane person would agree with this), wouldn’t it be more responsible for her to abort the fetus than to knowingly bring it into a life of poverty? What about genetic disorders/illnesses? For example, adding on to the fact that the mother doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy, the baby will also be born with Sickle Cell. Should a life of pain and suffering be prevented, or should the mother give birth to this child so as to not look like she “murdered” her child? You could say there are medical treatments, but who is going to pay for them? Not the mother. And I certainly don’t want my tax dollars going to someone’s unwanted child that they cannot afford and could’ve prevented.
You could argue that they could be adopted or put into foster homes. What kind of life is it to bounce from foster home to foster home? And with the overpopulation of children waiting to be adopted, how nice would that be to push another one into a life of waiting and feeling unloved and unwanted? You could say this isn’t always the case, but in my humble assumption, it probably mostly is.
I think it is very selfish to say that abortions are murder. If you really are thinking about the life of the baby (instead of defined religious morals), the future of that child should be looked at. You can say “it’s murder” all day, but in all due respect, if you just want to make sure you are living your life according to a “manual” rather than what would actually be rationally and morally correct for the quality of human life (you seem to go by the rule of “quantity rather than quality”), then perhaps you need to re-examine your motives for the stance you’ve taken.
Thank you for sharing your input!
I would like to respond, of course, and I’ll probably be long-winded because that’s how I write
.
The problem with asking questions like “What about genetic disorders/illnesses?” or “wouldn’t it be more responsible for her to abort the fetus than to knowingly bring it into a life of poverty?” is that they miss several significant points.
First I respond with several questions. Are you arguing, somehow, that a life impoverished is worth less than a wealthy life? Are you also arguing that people with genetic disorders are illnesses are somehow worth less than those without such illness or disorder?
Is our willingness to pay for something or not pay for something a good enough reason to endorse abortion?
All of these things seem implied by your questions.
For example, when you ask, “wouldn’t it be more responsible for her to abort the fetus than to knowingly bring it into a life of poverty?” I don’t see anything here other than an implication that a life of poverty is somehow worth less on a scale of value than a life lived in luxury. How is one life worth more than another simply based on how much wealth is acquired? Further, if this is the case, then why should we support any kind of initiative to feed those who are starving to death or help anyone who is not as well-to-do as we are? Because if what you are implying is true, then my life as a middle class individual is worth more than the life of a lower class individual, or worth less than the life of Bill Gates. Is this true? How do we objectively measure the value of a life? Should it really be put on a scale of wealth?
The life of the fetus, be it a life of suffering, or a life of poverty, is a life that he or she has a right to have.
“What about genetic disorders/illnesses?” I have even more problems with this question than the previous one. Again it is here implicitly suggested that a life with disease or some kind of order is worth less than a life without. There are people who would agree with you, but they aren’t the kind of people I would ever look to for advice on an ethical issue. Why should we think that a child who is going to be born with sickle cell anemia is somehow worth less than a child without it?
Any suggestion that a life of poverty, of disease, etc. is worth less than one without those things, seems like the kind of justification to devalue persons.
Further, these questions seem to outline some kind of ability to predict the future. If a child is born into poverty, is it true that they will live a life of suffering? Who is to say that child may not end up wealthy? Who is to say that wealth is a measure of happiness to begin with? There are many impoverished people who are happier than many wealthy people.
How is it that we can somehow try to suggest that we know how much suffering a child is going to have before he or she is born?
You answered those all-too-common objections so well, J.W., that I can’t think of anything to add to it. But since I enjoy being long-winded, I shall force some words onto the page, or screen.
But I would like to point out that the amount of suffering that we imagine a person might have to undergo has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of that person’s life and has nothing to do with deciding whether or not they should be allowed to live.
Really, the arrogance of anyone thinking or saying or implying that they have a right to decide that one person should live while another should die is enough to boggle the mind. Once you start down that path, there is no end to it. It begins to snowball and soon you are deciding that those with crossed eyes or bad acne should be put out of their misery, or our misery, which would be more honest and accurate to say.
And lest someone say that this is unlikely to happen, it has happened on this globe before. And it can easily happen again.
As for the charge of being concerned for quantity over quality, I for one shall confess that I am guilty as charged. The quality of my life is not what it was when I was younger and in better health, if you want to judge it that way. I have less money too. So it looks to me like the argument for supposed “quality” is really an argument for “quantity” disguised. Quantity of money or health or prospects for employment and a return on a possible investment of dollars that might be spent on healthcare or some kind of care which a person would really prefer to spend on himself, needy or disabled folks be damned.
Let us at least be honest when we argue, King Nyform. Let us state that we don’t give a farthing about helping those who need help and not pretend that we are concerned with their quality of life; and we’d just as soon snuff out that life as shell out a single cent to help them when we could spend that cent on ourselves. Charity may begin at home, but God help Gramma when her money runs out and she becomes less of a profit and more of a loss. We can just toss her on the dung heap with the crack babies and the poor and the rest of the refuse.
God help us all at a time when so many people actually think this way and think of themselves as decent people.
Left out part of my reply.
To this thought: “As for the charge of being concerned for quantity over quality, I for one shall confess that I am guilty as charged. The quality of my life is not what it was when I was younger and in better health, if you want to judge it that way. I have less money too.”
Add this: So my “quality” of certain aspects of my life may be less according to this view, but I do not want to give up any of the quantity of my life because of it. And in many other aspects (spiritually, for example), I am much better off than I’ve ever been before, so for that reason, I also don’t want to give up any quantity of my life.
Here are some thoughts to add to your non-believer discussion, (they may be there, I just glanced on my way to class).
A separate life form is present when there is a distinguishable human genome other than mother’s… essentially saying conception. It can’t be the mother dealing with her body as she pleases if there is another genome present. (State of N. Dakota I believe is passing legislation on this one).
Same type of argument, further down the line is blood type. I don’t believe one human can have two different blood types yet many mothers give birth to children who do not have their blood type.
Very true. I’ve read these myself and I simply forgot to add them in there. Thanks!
Hi, Open2Truth (and I’m glad you are. Open to Truth, that is.) I’m glad you added those thoughts to the discussion. Yep, I’ll remember these the next time I discuss abortion…which seems to be daily (and several times a day) now, during the 40 Days for Life prayer vigil going on until Nov. 1.
Peace be with you and all who are pondering these matters. I pray that wisdom and light will guide all who have to make decisions that can profoundly affect lives, both their own lives and the lives of others. Forever.
Disciple
[...] Further Issues By J.W. Wartick I’ve written argumenst against abortion before, but I’ve come up with/read about some other ones and I wanted to bring them up as I think [...]
[...] of our day, abortion. I have written about it in the past. I’ve presented arguments against it here, and I attacked the institutionalized death again here. In this post, I will continue to make [...]