The Sanctity of Life: Abortion

The issue of voluntary induced abortion is an issue that creates division, strong emotional responses, and calls to action (legal and civil). Many do not consider abortion a moral issue but see it rather as an issue of personal rights or civil liberties. Several issues are involved in the abortion debate besides the moral issue, there is also issues of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of supporting unwanted children that is placed upon the individual.

More central to the issue are the questions of the personhood of the unborn and the value of human life. Mountain View Community Church (MVCC) believes life begins at conception. Aspects pertinent to the issue of abortion include whether or not the act of abortion is murder and whether or not the personal freedom of the mother takes precedent over the personal freedom of the unborn to continue living.

The United States embraces the concepts of liberty, conscience, and personal freedom. Americans have worked, struggled, and fought to preserve these concepts. At MVCC we assert the issue of abortion, however, is not an issue of civil liberties nor of personal freedom. The basic function of government is protection. The government is to bring order to society, protect its citizens from foreign invaders, and to preserve law and order by protecting its citizenry against criminal elements (Romans 13:1-7). To accomplish this, the government issues and enforces laws.

In the course of issuing and enforcing laws to protect society, the liberties of citizens are often limited. For example, the government says that a person cannot do drugs that are not approved by proper government agencies. Other examples extend to the rights of both men and women such as the prohibition against operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

While some issues such as those examples cited above affect both men and women’s rights, there are some issues that are unique to women’s rights and abortion is perhaps the most volatile in the current political climate. Many fight any restriction on abortion on the grounds that any government curtailment of abortion is a curtailing of the woman’s right over her own body.

The government, however, already tells men and women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. The prohibition of prostitution and restrictions placed upon pornography are further examples of the government’s seeking to protect society by saying that women cannot sell their bodies for sexual purposes. These examples force one to concede that even in a free society, no one has an absolute right over their own body, whether man or woman, pregnant or not.

It is a reflection of God’s character and noble to defend the defenseless or help the helpless. In seeking to limit abortion-on-demand the government is defending the unborn baby who cannot defend itself and helping the helpless unborn from those who would seek to destroy them. Thus they are fulfilling the mandate to protect their citizenry.

There is also the issue of the burden unwanted pregnancies place on taxpayers and society. The following is often cited as a continuing reason for the legality of abortion: better to terminate a pregnancy than for that child to grow up in a horrible home life because the parents didn’t want the child, or to grow up in poverty because the parents couldn’t afford it, or to grow up and become part of the criminal element because the parents couldn’t provide it the nurture necessary to teach it how to become a functioning and contributing member of society.

While such reasoning has logic to it, there is another element we believe surpasses that logic.  It is the avoidance of personal responsibility. Rather than practicing reproductive responsibility, the proponents of this line of reasoning instead place the burden upon those who seek to curtail abortion when this is not where the burden should lie. While it is the responsibility of all of society, especially the church, to ensure that everyone has the most basic necessities of life, it is not the responsibility of society to perpetuate crimes against the unborn simply to allow some to avoid the consequences of their actions.

The burden does not rest on the pro-life advocate to explain why people in situations with unwanted pregnancies should not be allowed to terminate, instead, the burden rests upon those with unwanted pregnancies to explain why they should be allowed to terminate them. They must explain why their rights to supersede the rights of the unborn.

There is much recent talk in this debate about the issue of personhood with regard to the fetus. Some seek to define when life begins with the pro-life movement often coming down on the side of life’s beginning at conception (Psalm 139, Isaiah 49:1) and the pro-choice movement coming down on the side of life’s beginning at birth (or later).

But perhaps all of this obscures the real issue. The real issue is not “When does life begin?” so much as it is “What is the nature of the fetus?” Pro-choice advocates seem constantly to avoid  genetics, a fetus is fully human based on having the same genetic makeup as the mother and father, indeed all humans. They obscure the issue with questions of potentiality and consciousness and self-awareness and self-motivation and in the process seem to forget that they are talking about human beings. The fetus is human and abortion shows, not respect for the fundamental rights of humanity, but disrespect to humanity itself.

This issue is not one of personhood so much as it about the value of human life. A human fetus is just that, a human fetus. Because a fetus possesses all the characteristics that make a human being human, the human fetus doesn’t just represent the future of humanity; it is the future of humanity. Arguments about the personhood of the fetus miss the point that the fetus is human. Even if there is uncertainty about the personhood of the human fetus, we

must favor  life rather than sacrifice it.

Christians are guided in terms of ethics and morals by the declarations of God as revealed in the teachings of Scripture. Scripture not only informs but directs our position on this issue, as they should inform us concerning any ethical issue. Consider that in the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament value was placed on the unborn as well. In Exodus 21:22-25, the same legal ramifications are cited for the killing of an unborn fetus as for the killing of an already-born child. Some have tried to distort the issue by seeking to make these verses refer to an  accidental miscarriage, but the text does not support this conclusion since not only is the word for “miscarry” not used, but the death, even if accidental, was considered a criminal offense and was actionable under the law.

The Scriptures clearly place great value on human life, including the life of the unborn.

The Lord, speaking to his prophet, Jeremiah said:

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

The unborn has both value and dignity since the Lord is setting this one apart and commissioning him with a task. In the New Testament, John the Baptist is spoken of as:

 Luke 1:15 …for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.

When John’s pregnant mother meets the pregnant Mary, who is carry the Christ-child, the as yet unborn John the Baptist “leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41).

These verses demonstrate the position of the Scriptures with regard to the value of the unborn. They are valued with the full value of human beings even while in the womb.

Some wrongly argue that abortion ought to be allowed, as a right, if one’s body is viewed as one’s own property. Our bodies are not our own (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). At Mountain View Community Church (MVCC) we hold that as image bearers of God we belong first to God, then to one another to live in community as a testament to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31). As such, abortion stands in opposition to God’s express will and grieves those left behind, as well as producing guilt and strained relationships.

It is impossible to Biblically conclude that abortion is only a woman’s choice since her choice involves another human being. It is also not proper to say that the woman’s life and happiness takes priority over the rights of the fetus since both are equally human. Nor is it sufficient to say that the law of the land permits it therefore it is acceptable both legally and morally since the ultimate moral standard is not the laws of men, but the law of God.

What should be the Christian’s involvement in the abortion debate? How far should one go to defend the rights of the unborn? It is not permissible to harm another in the course of defending the rights of the unborn. The same God that teaches respect for the life of the unborn also teaches respect for the lives even of criminals. As far as civil disobedience is concerned, each Christian must decide for themselves how far to go in practicing civil disobedience, engaging in protests, and becoming involved in the legal process.

Followers of Christ must be careful not to become so firmly entrenched in their opposition to this issue that they fail to remember that there are people involved who may seek abortion because they are desperate and think that they have no other recourse and nowhere to turn for help and guidance. The church must seek to provide support for these women and demonstrate the love and mercy of God by providing a place for them to find acceptance and care for the various consequences of abortion which include the physical, emotional, psychological, relational, and spiritual aspects of life. With regard to those who have already had an abortion, the church must seek to extend the forgiveness of God to them, making it clear that there is forgiveness and mercy with God despite their past decisions. This will not win very many arguments, but it will help the church in her mandate to disciple the nations through the gospel.

For Further Reading Consider:

Alcorn, Randy. ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. Sisters: Multnomah, 2000.

Anderson, J. Kerby. Moral Dilemmas. Nashville: Word Publications, 1998.

Denison, Dr. Jim. The State of our Nation. Denison Forum, 2016

Kreeft, Peter. The Unaborted Socrates. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Nathanson, Bernard. The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind. Faithworks Publications, 2001.