Defending Life in the Public Square
By Jonathan Morrow
Few topics can cause more intense emotions (on both sides) than the ‘pro-life / pro-choice’ debate. As a result, it can become easy to hold a position without thinking through that position very carefully. We simply have an emotional reaction, one way or the other, and then adopt that as our default. In this short handout, I simply want to lay out some of the reasoning behind the pro-life position. This will include scientific, philosophical, and biblical evidence for us to consider.
Regardless of the view that one holds, if we are to make progress in this area of moral concern, then we must find common ground where it exists and learn to treat others with respect—even though we may passionately disagree at the end of the day. We do this because truth matters and truth doesn’t evaporate simply because people disagree.
Before exploring the evidence, I want to acknowledge that there are many deeply personal and social issues wrapped up in the topic of abortion. My intention is not to dismiss or minimize the pain, shame, or regret that women and men feel when the topic of abortion is raised. So as we look objectively at the moral status of the unborn, please remember that in Christ there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1) and that God is in the business of redeeming and healing broken and wounded people—and all of us are in need of that.
In what follows I have tried to clarify the main biblical, scientific, and philosophical issues so that when these things come up in conversation or you try to think through them on your own you will have some helpful information to process.
I. Biblical Principle: Every human is valuable, has dignity, and was created with the capacity for relationship with God for His glory (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; 9:6, Ex. 20:13, Isa. 43:7; Ps. 139; Acts 17:28).
In light of this biblical principle, Christians should be pro-life. Now most of us when we hear that phrase, think only of the unborn or the issue of abortion. But this principle is much broader. We are called to care for, respect, and protect all human life for all of life. This includes the elderly, those with special needs, the homeless, the hungry, the orphan, the abused, and the forgotten—as well as the unborn. They are all precious in God’s eyes and we are to be their advocate (Jer. 22:15-16 cf. James 1:27). It also can’t be repeated enough that Christians’ reasons for being ‘pro-all-of-life’ are not attached to a political platform or ideology; they are grounded in solid philosophical, scientific, and biblical evidence.
II. Scientifically, there is no debate about when human life begins or whether it is a distinct genetic entity.
While many leading authorities and embryology textbooks could be cited, Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician, at the Mayo Clinic clearly summarizes the consensus:
“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception….”[1]
Moreover, the unborn human person is genetically distinct from both mother and father at conception. The growing human person is dependent on the mother in the womb, but is not part of the woman’s body. The main point here is that a woman may make choices regarding her own body; but the growing fetus (Latin for “little one”) is not technically part of her body. The relationship is more like a parent / child relationship. Parents act in the interest of or on behalf of their child — who is dependent on them — at various stages of development.
III. Philosophically, there is no relevant difference between an unborn and a newborn human person.
Using the S.L.E.D. acrostic, we can clearly see the four differences between the unborn and the newborn:
Size: We protect the basic rights of small people just the same as bigger people. 7’7” basketball player Yao Ming is not more valuable than someone who is 4 feet tall.
Level of development: An elderly human is a human, an adult human is human, a child human is human, a newborn human is human, and an unborn human is human. We protect human rights independently from stage of development.
Environment: Our human rights are unaffected by our changes of location. Where one is irrelevant to Who one is.
Dependency: Toddlers, people in nursing homes, people with pacemakers or artificial organs, people in need of blood transfusions to stay alive…are all dependent on something or someone else for life. Human beings are intrinsically valuable—regardless of their level of dependency. Viability does not determine value.
These differences are insignificant, and apart from these differences, a newborn and an unborn child are identical beings.
At the end of the day, there really is only one issue when it comes to abortion: What is the unborn? If the unborn is human, a full-fledged member of the human community, then they have all the rights you and I have. If the unborn is not human then abortion is simply the removal of body tissue. This is fundamentally a human rights question, not a religious question. There is no such thing as being ‘potentially a human.’ One either is or isn’t.
Q: What about the tragic circumstances of rape, incest, back-alley abortions, unwanted children, extreme poverty etc.?
A: First we need to acknowledge that these are tragic situations and they need to be addressed first and foremost in a spirit of love, compassion, and empathy. Too often, pro-life advocates jump to a “right answer” before seeking to understand and becoming part of a solution. In looking at these difficult situations, we need to revisit the only question that ultimately matters. What is the unborn? How we answer this question simplifies the debate—though it does not remove the hardship of these life situations.
In the situation of rape or incest: A great injustice has been done and the woman has been violated. But does that injustice justify the further injustice of having the baby’s life ended which is a violation of her rights? While this is a tragic circumstance, the number of pregnancies that actually result from rape or incest is very small (1 out of 100,000 cases).
Similarly, someone’s ability or desire to care for, provide for, or love the unborn does not change, confer, or remove the rights of the unborn. If a toddler was unloved, couldn’t be provided for, or might be abused we would think it absurd to suggest he could be killed. Why? Because he is a full-fledged member of the human race and has inherent value.
Regarding back-alley abortions by untrained people if ‘abortion on demand’ were limited by the law: It is always tragic when a woman loses her life or suffers permanent damage from an abortion. But this is not the fundamental issue. If the unborn are fully human, then this argument basically reduces to saying that “because people die or are harmed while killing other people (i.e., unborn people), the state should make it safe for them to do so.” When put like this, the fundamental issue becomes clear.
The Best Resources for Learning to Defend Life with Compassion and Clear Thinking:
· Klusendorf, Scott. The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009. (If you read just one book, read this one—it is clear and easy to read)
· Wagner, Stephen. Common Ground without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Signal Hill, CA: Stand to Reason, 2008. (learn where you can meet people in the middle and actually advance the conversation)
· Beckwith, Francis. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case against Abortion Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. (This is the most sophisticated of the books and deals with the latest legal, philosophical, scientific arguments—it is excellent).
· Pro Life Training – www.prolifetraining.com
· Stand to Reason – www.str.org
· Abortion Changes You – www.abortionchangesyou.com (a pathway to healing)
[1] Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case against Abortion Choice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 68. For the SLED approach, see Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009).