I have been a Christian for most of my adult life. Prior to coming to Christ, I held to the view that a woman should have the right to choose. I had rejected Christian views and did not understand why they were against a woman having a right to choose to do with her body as she wished. I was vehement in my arguments supporting a woman’s right to choose. However, I did not study nor was I informed the ‘reasons’ behind both sides of the issue. I simply believed that as a woman, I had a right and it should not be taken away from me. I also held to and followed the traditional argument that the child was not human until after a certain point in its development. My worldview on abortion was what I heard from others. While an abortion was not one of the rights that I availed myself of, certainly I did not want to lose a right much like I never availed myself the right to an attorney but certainly I did not want to lose that right.
Today, as a Christian, there are many rights that I do not avail myself of but I surely do not wish to have them taken away. But do I have the right to choose to terminate the life of an unborn? In our society, certainly I do. Do I have that right given to me by God?
After I came to Christ, I held a different view. The child was not ‘non human’ until a certain point as I so passionately argued. The child was a human being at conception, albeit undeveloped. To terminate the pregnancy was murder of an unborn child, albeit legal. If questioned why I held to that view, I would parrot the arguments that I heard from Christians much like I would parrot the arguments that I heard from the ‘pro-choice’ folks. If I am to hold to the view that the terminating the life of an unborn is inherently wrong, I need to be able to understand why and not simply parrot back what I have been taught as a Christian. On and off, for the past couple of years, I have looked at this issue and at times, I have been surprised and dismayed at what I have learned.
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade case legalized abortion. In order to do so, the court had to declare that the unborn child was not afforded protection under the constitution. Surprisingly, the court never declared that an unborn was not a person, it simply declared that it was not afforded constitutional protection. The court introduced a new legal concept – fetal viability — and ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of a pregnant woman UNTIL the fetus is ‘viable.’ Viable was defined by the court to mean capable of prolonged life outside the womb and this included fetuses that doctors expected to be sustained by respirators.
The court did not base its ruling on whether or not the unborn was a ‘person.’ In fact, it stated “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
I have researched the dilemma that mankind have taken upon themselves to define when life began. Prior to our more modern medical technology, a child was deemed to possess life being at quickening. Quickening was defined as when the movements of the unborn were made “manifestly apparent.” In the early years of our nation, abortion was governed by English common law which established the beginning of life began at the moment when the unborn was first perceived in the womb. The existence of the unborn was not recognized until quickening. In the 18th century, there was no way to determine that a pregnancy actually existed. Termination of pregnancies prior to quickening was not considered criminal even if determined that an action resulted in the death of an unborn. The reasoning was that there was no way to know if an action would result in the death of an unborn since there was no way to determine if there was, in fact, one was pregnant. Therefore, without proof that there was an existence of a fetus, women were legally free to take action to terminate a pregnancy because there was no proof that she was in fact pregnant – kind of a hit and miss.
Legal policy shifted in regards to abortion in Connecticut in 1821. Legal scholars drafted a law which stated:
“Every person who shall willfully and maliciously, administer to, or cause to be administered to, or taken by, any person or persons, any deadly poison, or other noxious and destructive substance, with an intention him, her or them, thereby to murder, or thereby to cause or procure the miscarriage of any woman, then being quick with child shall suffer imprisonment, in newgate prison, during his natural life.”
Shortly thereafter, other states followed suit over the next 30 or so years. In 1828, New York passed a law that banned abortion by any means and used stronger language. It stated:
“Every person who shall willfully administer to any pregnant woman, any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, … shall upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in a county jail no more than one year.”
Yet, these laws only applied to those that were ‘quick with child.’ It was not until the medical field developed a formal educational system in training doctors and began to base the practice of medicine upon scientific evidence that again, the views of the unborn took on a new light. In 1859, the AMA, a new entity that developed as doctors began to form medical societies and establish standards in the practice of medicine declared “”The frightful extent of [abortion] is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken exploded medical dogmas.”
A mere seven years later, the New York State Medical Society was successful in changing the law through the state legislature in defining when life began. As a result, in 1867, New York passed a law that stated:
“Whereas, from the first moment of conception, there is a living creature in process of development to full maturity; and whereas, any sufficient interruption to this living process always results in the destruction of life; and whereas, the intentional arrest of this living process, eventuating in the destruction of life (being an act with intention to kill), is consequently murder. Whereas, from the first moment of conception, there is a living creature in process of development to full maturity; and whereas, any sufficient interruption to this living process always results in the destruction of life; and whereas, the intentional arrest of this living process, eventuating in the destruction of life (being an act with intention to kill), is consequently murder.”
It became apparent that the legislators relied on medical evidence to sway them in determining when life began. In other words, they relied on more advanced science to determine when life began.
Man has been grappling with when life begins and in fact, the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade were not willing to go down that road. At best, they could only decide who was afforded legal protection. As I said earlier, in Roe vs. Wade, a legal concept was formulated to deal with the abortion issue, that being the viability of the unborn.
As a Christian who wants to understand why I argue that abortion is not merely a woman’s right to choose but the termination of a human life, I’ve only given a short summary of the history of what is deemed to be life as it relates to abortion. Today, the unborn is not considered a non-life or non-human as it is evident that mankind has not been able to come to a consensus as to when life begins, it changes with the time. The unborn is afforded protection only when it is deemed able to live outside the womb, albeit with a respirator.
This leaves me, as a Christian, searching what really is a life and is that life worthy of protection? At conception, everything that is needed for the fertilized egg to develop is present exactly at the moment of conception. My first question that I ask myself is what is a human being, what makes us a human being? We have a soul, a human soul. I don’t question that all human beings have a soul but if at conception, the fertilized egg does not possess a soul, then I would not have an issue with termination. Since everything is available for growth at the moment of conception, I have no basis to argue that a soul is inserted into the growing fetus at some later state in its development especially since nothing else is added later in the child’s development. At the moment the egg is fertilized, the process of growth immediately begins. In order to keep this short, I shall not detail the quick development of the fetus but suffice it to say, by the 8th week, the baby has every organ and the organs are in place, fingerprints are forming and the child can hear. By the 12th week, all parts that will enable the child to experience pain are in place, which include nerves and the spinal cord. The child’s vocal cords are complete. By the 17th week, the child has REM sleep though no one knows what the child is dreaming. In less than 5 months, the child dreams, hiccups, grasps, feels physical pain, has a fully functioning heart that pumps blood, and recognizes its mother’s voice. Yet, because the child is unable to sustain life outside the womb (not viable), the courts have declared that the child is not to be afforded constitutional protection which gives the mother the right to choose to terminate the life.
One argument that is put forth by pro-choice folks and one that I also used to argue is what about a woman who was raped and became pregnant or someone that became pregnant in an incestuous relationship? To be sure, these are very tragic but interestingly, those victims are less than one percent of those who seek an abortion. Those that do become pregnant, not all of them seek abortions but choose to carry the child to full term. In fact the Alan Guttmacher Institute and state health statistic agencies report that only .3% of those seeking abortions are victims of rape. That’s less than 1%.
Man has wrestled with the subject of when life begins for a long time and has, over time, changed and declared when life begins. We are now at the point where we do not declare that the unborn is a non life or non human until later but only that it is not afforded protection. As a Christian, what man declares is of no value to me if it does not hold to the same view as God. I now ask the question does God consider the unborn a human being? If He does, then despite society’s view that the unborn, if not viable, has no right to protection, then the termination of the baby’s life is murder whether or not society deems it so.
In Psalm 51:5, David declares he was sinful from the time he was conceived.
(Psa 119:73) Yodh. Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.
(Psa 139:13-16) 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. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 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 book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them.
There are many other scriptures that speak to the view that God takes in regards to the unborn and it is not supportive of society’s view. Society may continue to wrestle with or it may be done and remain where it is now, that is no protection for the unborn. Whatever path society takes that comes against the view that God places on the unborn, people will eventually stand before Him with the blood of the innocent on their hands. It matters not whether one does not believe there is a God who will judge.
A woman wants to the right to choose to terminate the life of her unborn child. Society has given her that right and she may exercise it as many times as she wishes. However, our Creator has not given her the right to terminate the innocent life of an unborn child.
Since Roe vs. Wade, 46 million unborn had their lives terminated. (Source: Finer LB and Henshak). Annually, approximately 1.3 millions are performed in the United States. (Source: Source: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005).
The follow is a list of the percentage of abortions performed during various stages of pregnancy based on the 1.3 million abortions performed annually.
Less than 9 weeks: 75% or 752,700 total abortions.
9-10 weeks: 20.3% or 263,900 total abortions.
11-12 weeks: 10.2% or 132,600 total abortions.
13-15 weeks: 6.2% or 80,600 total abortions.
16-20 weeks: 4.3% or 55,900 total abortions.
21+ weeks: 1.5% or 19,500 total abortions.
The termination of pregnancies will continue in this country and throughout the world. I do not expect nor hope that this blog post will change anyone’s views. It is an explanation of why I, as a Christian, do not support the termination of the life of an unborn. I have been given the legal right to end the life of a child that has not been born because society has deemed that my right to do with my body as I please exceeds the right of a child to life. And most interestingly, the unborn life of an eagle is protected. It is illegal to disturb or harm either an eagle, the eggs or the nest. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits possession, transport, or take of any migratory bird (including bald eagles), their parts, nests or eggs (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the possession, transport, or take of any bald or golden eagle, their parts, nests or eggs (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). Unborn migratory birds are afforded more protection to life than an unborn child.
I’ve wondered about the right to do with one’s body as we wish. Women have the option to terminate the life of their child because it is their body and it is deemed an infringement to require that one remain pregnant. Yet, not one of us has an ultimate right to do with our bodies as we wish. Fortunately, we do not have the right to take our own lives if one were to choose death. A person who unsuccessfully attempts to take their own life is placed in a facility for their own safety and help given. They are prevented from doing with their body as they wish and in this case, this is the right and proper action to take.
By the end of this year, 1.3 million children will lose their lives. They are in the womb, dreaming the dreams of the unborn, sucking their thumbs, kicking, recognizing the voice of their mothers who will make the decision to take their lives while the migratory birds will have the protection of our government to ensure that they are born. Unbeknownst to the 1.3 million unborn children, an abortionist’s tool will enter the womb and snuff out its life, perhaps while it is sleeping or perhaps while it is sucking its thumb listening to the voice of its mother.
Woman may use their right to terminate the life of their child as many times as they wish. I do not believe that that ‘right’ will ever be taken away. But one day when they step into eternity, as we all will, they will stand before God and answer for the life that they took.
I no longer parrot what I have been taught by Christians. I have looked at the issue myself both from the legal history and from the Word of God and as well as looking at the arguments from the ‘pro-choice’ side of the fence. I understand why I believe as I do and am more persuaded that at conception, a human child has been created and begins to develop and is ready to emerge into this world nine months later. Our right to convenience or right to our bodies should not override the child’s right to live. It’s a God-given right to live that society has taken away from the young. The unborn has no right to live unless the mother declares it shall live.
Related posts:
Comments