Apologeet.nl

In this series, we will discuss the Christian Stance on abortion. Many Christians are mute on this topic. This is unfortunate and unnecessary because there are good theological and reasonable arguments to take a firm stand in this debate. In the first part, I’ll lay out the lines along I would like to tackle this topic. I also give a clarification of the terms that are going to be used.

• Part 1 Terms
• Part 2 Human or Not
• Part 3 Dilemmas
• Part 4 Compromise, Church, Conclusion

Part 1 — Clarifying the Terms

Introduction

Talking with my daughter is often an interesting experience. She is almost 17 and her view on the world isn’t much different from that of mine. However, the things that she reads, hears and discuss on the internet are pretty challenging. I kind of thought that the whole issue around abortion wasn’t discussed any more—people are saturated and just don’t want to hear that debate any more. I was wrong! The topic is very much alive, and not only among the older generation. Turns out that many teenagers have a hard time getting their heads around this topic.

When I uploaded my last video, the one on Romans, I asked her what she would like me tackle next. Abortion! Was her direct answer. I asked her why, and she said that it was the first thing that came to her mind. When you ask me about the first thing that pops up, it would definitely be something else. Not to say that abortion isn’t important. No, it is one of the most critical things we as Christians ought to discuss. It directly touches on our world-view. But I have studied the issue so often, I have discussed it a trillion times, so I guess I am the one who got saturated, maybe even doused off. Shame on me!

Anyway, instead of doing a different topic, I decided to comply with her request. I’ll take on this topic first. The problem, however, is that there is so much to say about it. My last video was about 30 minutes. Way too big for me to upload it while I am in our village. Good thing we were still in a bigger town. Nonetheless, I do not want to shorten, or hasten this subject, so I think I’ll just have to make it in another series… Sorry about that!

During my theology studies, we also had to deal with ethics and how to come to a good understanding of Biblical morality in contemporary times. Most of the examination had to be done through essay writing. We could typically choose between several titles or subjects. I already had a hard time studying the ethical dilemmas of today's society and dumb as I could be, I decided to write an essay on abortion. Back then, my wife and I already had four children of our own, and I just couldn’t get my head around this matter. I wrestled, I groused at everybody, I cried, and I protested. On the one hand, medics are capable of saving the premature, while somewhere else unborn of the same age are aborted. How do we approach human life in such? Or can it be that this debate is not relevant, as the unborn are not human yet? In the end, I shouldn’t say this, it felt like giving birth to a child myself. All in all, I finished the essay and received a high mark.

The Approach

Okay, here is how I would like to approach this topic. I will mostly follow the lines as used in my paper. You see, some Christians are mute on this topic. This is unfortunate and unnecessary because there are good theological and reasonable arguments to take a firm stand in this debate. We are not going to discuss the issues from a theological standpoint only, but also from a secular, that is not related to religion, perspective. Especially the arguments that appeal to reason are a bit of a challenge. More often than not, this approach is considered to be cold and heartless. This is not strange when you consider that the world around us is rapidly changing from an intellectual orientated society towards an overly anti-intellectual one. Many prefer emotional arguments to facts (just see what is happening during the COVID-19 drama). Anyway, in the end, I will try to give some suggestions on how Christians can participate in the debate overall.

Clarifying Terms

Before I start, it might be good to clarify some terms. Terminology makes a distinction in development. Often the unborn is referred to as an embryo in its earliest stage of development and when this stage is over the foetal stage begins (normally eight to ten development weeks for the embryonic stage). These terms do not make matters easier, though. Emotionally, people tend to take a different stance towards 'something' which is called an embryo than towards the term 'baby' or 'child'. Still, I will use the terms 'embryo' and 'foetus' because they signify the period of development.

I might use the term ‘sanctity of life’ somewhere down the line. 'Sanctity of life' is generally used by those who oppose technologies or practices that they believe break the clear value of human life. It is best understood as the respect that is owed to human life as the gift of God (Acts 17:25). The Bible teaches us that we have the duty to protect and respect human life (e.g. Genesis 9:5). The Bible is clear about the respect and responsibility we as humans have towards each other's life (Genesis 4:9; Deuteronomy 21:1-9).¹ For Christians this means that all human life is sacred and that this does not depend on culture, race, state of consciousness, colour, physical ability/disability etcetera (Acts 17:26).

Endnote

Good, as I said, I’ll have to make the videos a little shorter, which is a bother for those among you who just want to see the whole topic in ones. My apology for this…

Anyway, in part 2 we will see whether we can talk about the unborn as human-being. I will not just suffice to say ‘yes’… Which would be an easy and fast move. Nope, we will study this question both from the biological and philosophical point of view. The nice thing about that approach is that it will give us three interesting premises to work with.

For now, I leave it at this. I will make a playlist on both Odysee and YouTube, making it easier for you to finding the episodes neatly arranged.

God bless you!

Bibliography

↑ 1. Vere, D. W., 'Sanctity of Human Life,' in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field (eds.), The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 757-758.

Part 2 — Human or Not

Introduction

Hi there! Welcome to the second part of this small series on abortion. I on purposely mention abortion in the first sentence of this video. Why? So nobody can mistakenly watch this video and say they didn’t know the subject.

In the first part I’ve talked about the terms as used in the debate around this topic. If you have a hard time following me in this episode, I recommend watching part 1 first. You’ll find the link in the description of this video.

Now we jump into the nitty-gritty of the debate. We are going to see whether we can consider the unborn as human or not. You might think this is a no-brainer but if I would have received a grain of sand every-time someone argued against this idea… Well, I might be able to fill a teaspoon. No, actually, people don’t often talk about the unborn as non-human. That is to say, most people would say it is a human but at the same time they argue for different qualifications of the unborn. Effectively reducing the baby to sub-human or maybe even non-human.

Is the Unborn Human?

With modern technologies we can easily follow the development of the unborn. This has its benefits but at the same time we can look at the unborn and examine it like any other part of the body. Many will look at an embryo and say that it is just a lump of cells. Still, there is much more to say about the embryo in its earliest state.

Biological

Some argue, mostly the hardcore pro-choicers, that we cannot speak of a human in the very beginning of conception. The say this because the first cells are totipotent and can still develop in different kinds of tissues such as the placenta. Then they go on and say that the placenta is certainly not an individual, especially not when the formation of the embryo did not yet start.¹ Nevertheless, it is known that these cells function as an organism rather than a group of individual cells. In other words, these cells are setting the stage, as a unity in wholeness, for the person's development.² When people say that the embryonic cells can not be accounted for as a human because they are still in development is… Well arbitrary at best. You see, development continues in young children for many years, yet no one would dare to say that a toddler is not a person until adulthood. Maybe I shouldn’t say ‘nobody’, because there are always loonies walking around of which we would be shocked if we had a change to hear their thoughts.

But now we have mentioned it, there are those who say that embryos are parasitic, and only benefits from the mother with nothing in return.³ But scientifically this view doesn’t hold. Scientists discovered that there is no one-way relation because beneficial cells from the unborn pass into the mother’s body during pregnancy. These cells will increase the activity of the mother's autoimmune conditions. This makes the mother more resistance when it comes to rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.⁴ And the research is still ongoing so what will be found next?

Yes, biologically, the unborn is a human and depending on the mother for survival. But no, the unborn cannot be seen as part of the mother since every cell of the unborn is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body. And, as said, this is certainly not a harmful relationship, but rather beneficial for both.

Philosophical

Ever since 1970 some of the medical establishment went through, what you can call 'semantic gymnastics'. They had to change meanings of certain words in order to deny the scientific fact that human life begins at conception.⁵ This dehumanisation of the unborn is not very compelling because an adequate answer to when human life actually begins is not given. This is why others follow the logical conclusion that human life starts at conception.⁶ In other words, all humans are human, whether embryonic, foetal, infantile, young, mature, old, or dying. Saying that the embryo is human is begging the question whether the embryo has human-rights. The question that follows is whether human-rights apply to humans because they are human, or because other humans say so. If the first option is true we are secure against cruelties (at least by right). If the second option is true, our safety cannot be assured because human opinion changes over time.

Three Premises

Good, this brings us to a threefold premise that consists of scientific, moral, and legal arguments:

1. The scientific premise is that human life begins at conception;
2. The moral premise is that all humans have the right to live because they are human;
3. The legal premise is that the law must protect the most basic human rights.

Based on these premises we can conclude that human life, including that of the unborn, needs to be protected against all harm. But also, when people ignore these three premises we can safely conclude that they are scientifically, morally or legally oblivious.⁷ This 'ignorance' is disturbing, to say at least, because the premises are so basic that most can understand it.

Christian Stance

As you can see, the human life arguments are not necessarily religious because they are appealing to reason, or in other words, to our intellect instead of faith. For Christians it is important that they also have sound theological reasons though. The moral view of a Christian relies on the understanding of God and His word. In the Biblical moral view, or Biblical world-view, we have absolutes. With this I mean that we can see be certain that some things are either good or bad. Torturing a child is always wrong, regardless of the situation, time or society. Contrary, secular society's moral views become more and more relative. What might be good for you would not be necessarily be good for me, right?

God's involvement

You’ve already seen Bible texts popping up in which we can see that human life is to be protected. But, for the sake of argument I will highlight Psalm 139. Here David clearly says that God was there when he was formed in his mother's womb, that is from the very beginning. In the New Testament we read that the baby in Elisabeth's womb leaped up when Mary visited them, indicating that the foetus was well aware of the things that were going on around him (Luke 1:36,41,44). The Bible clearly shows God's involvement with the unborn in every stage of development.

The Christian view

The question whether the expression, sanctity of life, should be applied to abortion can be non-other than yes. Christians who believe otherwise and hold the Bible as authoritative, need to go through some pretty misty hermeneutics to defend their views. Even without the theological background we cannot dismiss the facts.

Endnote

Good, I leave it at this because as I said, I’ll have to make the videos a little shorter in order to be able to upload them.

In the part 3 we will discuss some of the dilemmas that may arise when we hold fast to our Biblical world-view with its absolutes. What to do when a girl gets pregnant after she’s been raped? Or h, 34-37.ow about a lady who needs to go through some hefty cancer treatments?

For now, I leave it at this. I will make a playlist on both Odysee and YouTube, making it easier for you to finding the episodes neatly arranged.

God bless you!

Bibliography

↑ 3. Baggott, L. M., Human Reproduction, Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1997, p. 33.

↑ 5. Editorials, 'A New Ethic for Medicine and Society,' California Medicine, The Western Journal of Medicine, 113: 3 (September 1970), pp. 67-68.

↑ 2. Flaman, P., 'When Did I Begin? Another Critical Response to Norman Ford' Linacre Quarterly, 58 (November 1991), pp. 39-55.

↑ 1. Ford, N., When Did I Begin?: Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 157-158.

↑ 7. Kreeft, P., Three Approaches to Abortion: A Thoughtful and Compassionate Guide to Today's Most Controversial issue, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002, pp. 34-37.

↑ 6. O'Rahilly, R. R. and Müller, F., Human Embryology & Teratology, 3^rd ed., New York: Wiley- Liss, 2001, pp. 7-8.

↑ 4. Pincott, J., Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?: The Surprising Science of Pregnancy, New York: Free Press, 2011, PP. 220-221.

Part 3 — Dilemmas

You might have heard at least one of the ‘what ifs’. What if the girl gets pregnant after being raped, what if the girl is still studying, what if the lady is a bit old. Many ‘what ifs’, and today I am going to discuss two ‘what ifs’ that might actually occur.

Introduction

We have already seen in the previous episodes that the unborn needs to be considered as human-being from conception. I have given three premises from which this conclusion needs to be drawn. These premises are so basic that most can understand it. Those who ignore these premises are either scientifically, morally or legally unknowing, that’s a fancy word for dumb.

Also, Christians who ignore God’s clear involvement with the unborn, can only do so when they actively change the meaning of the Bible. There is no way they can come to the same conclusion when they apply good hermeneutics, that is, good interpretation of the Bible.

In any case, do watch the previous episodes if you want to understand the whole picture I am trying to set forth. You’ll find a link to the playlist in the description of this video.

Dilemmas

Serious Sick Mother

What if, for example, a lady gets serious complications during pregnancy and her life is at stake? Here we, as Christians, have a problem that cannot be solved without compromising and thus adopting a more liberal stance.¹ Treatment of the mother is most important since the unborn is depending on her and will also die when she dies. Sometimes mothers are advised to get a 'therapeutic' abortion because treatments (e.g. chemotherapy) could potentially harm or kill the unborn and to improve the mother's changes. Yet, recent studies showed that the risks are not as big as one would expect, also women who carried to term had more change to survive their disease.² Medical treatment should aim at rescuing both lives, However, if this fails, and if the unborn dies, it is unintentionally and along these lines not morally wrong.³ Despite all this, abortion to save the mother's life does probably not, strictly medically spoken, exist. Although it sounds 'noble and pure' to those who recommend abortion, in reality it is, to say it with the words of Sloan and Hartz, a 'real stretch of our thinking.'⁴

Raped and Pregnant

Another dilemma could be that a young girl becomes pregnant after rape. In the UK, raped women can ask for treatment in several forms—some of which include treatment to cut off a possible pregnancy.⁵ But when we say that the right to life is inalienable, we cannot agree with treatments that intentionally kills the embryo. Understandably so, the raped woman will have horrible emotions, but emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. Bad does not become good when we feel like it. Geisler puts it like this: If morality 'can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for everyone.’⁶

Human-Rights

The basic content of these problems evolve around the most important question: Do we acknowledge the unborn as human or not. You see, even when the unborn will be harmed by treatments or is malformed in any other way, we cannot deny the unborn the basic human-right, which is life. So, when a certain treatment cannot wait and needs to be done, a doctor cannot just suggest terminating the pregnancy as a precaution. Doing so, is, as mentioned in part 2 of this series, scientifically, morally and legally wrong. Now, many may argue that that last premise doesn’t count. They might argue that abortion is legal in many countries and as such the doctor wouldn’t be handling illegal. Be that as it may, the mere fact that ungodly politicians say that something like abortion is okay, doesn’t make it okay! Even when earthly judges rule that it is fine, we as Christians, and thank God, with us many who have their brains switched on, cannot accept that law. For this, I would like to point to my last video on Romans 13:1-7. You’ll find the link in the description.

Human life begins at fertilization, and it is absolutely wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.⁷

End-Note

In part 4 I want to make a case for a rather controversial position in the debate, namely an approach that compromises on the ideals in the Christian world-view… Doesn’t that sound like a nice starter-upper for a discussion. But please hear me out first, before you start to shout at me.

Also, depending on the length of that article, I would talk a little about our attitude in this debate. I know it is a matter of freedom to some, while others suggest we’re talking about murder. These discussions are bound to end up with cold hearts and heated heads. Anyway, let’s talk about a little more next time.

God bless you!

Bibliography

↑ 6 Geisler, N. L., 'Can Atheists Justify Being Good Without God?', Articles by Dr. Geisler website (2 July 2021, http://normangeisler.com/can-atheists-justify-being-good-without-god/).

↑ 1 Geisler, N. L., Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options, 2^nd ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 20.

↑ 2 Hoskins, W. J., Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology, 4^th ed., Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Lipkins, 2005, pp. 166-167. SEE ALSO: Choi, D. X. and Morrow, M., 'Breast Cancer: Treatments of Uncommon Diseases,' in M. J. Dixxon (ed.), Breast Surgery: A Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice, 5^th ed., Elsevier Limited, 2014.

↑ 3 ↑ 7 Prolifephysicians.org, 'Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified? Official position statement of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians', The Association of Pro-Life Physicians website (2 July 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20131126103951/http://www.prolifephysicians.org/ rarecases.htm).
See also: (2 July 2021, https://sites.google.com/site/abortioninformationfororthodox/cases-involving-the-mother-s-life).

↑ 4 Sloan, D. and Hartz, P., Choice: A Doctor's Experience with the Abortion Dilemma: A Dedicated Compassionate Physician's Forty-year Odyssey in the Service of Women Facing their most Fateful Choice, New York: International Publishers, 2002, pp. 46-47.

↑ 5 Victim Support, 'Rape or sexual assault: information for women', Victim Support website (2 July 2021, https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P2063_06-Rape-and-sexual-assault_women-leaflet-PMS-268-12042021.pdf).

Part 4 — Compromise, Churches, and the Conclusion

Welcome to the last episode of this series about the Christian stance on abortion. In part three we have discussed two dilemmas that so now and then happen. We’ve seen that good arguments to keep the unborn alive are abounding. Basically, there are no philosophical nor rational arguments for abortion that can withstand the test. That means that the emotional argument is the only one that is left, and we all know that our emotions cannot be accounted for good moral decisions. In any case, let’s get to it, let’s talk about the options we have.

Compromising

Living in a democracy, Christians are free to express their values on human life. Nevertheless, we cannot force our morality on other people. This is why we need to walk down the legal ways instead. One way to accomplish a change is through politics. Our Christian ideals are clear—a total abolishing of the practise of abortion. This, however, will not likely happen very fast, and that why I propose a compromised stance.

Before I continue, I need to clarify myself a little. I talk about this topic with mainly the Dutch society in mind. Our country has many political parties. And with many I do mean: Many! As far as I know we have only two political parties who are against abortion. Both parties are Christian and do not receive many votes. As a consequence, they hardly receive enough votes to shift towards a ruling position. Normally they need to form coalitions with other parties. In such situation they cannot 'push' their ideals. This, of course, is very frustrating. It is this situation that triggered me to think further than the ideals. Note, however, that a compromised situation is not my preferred model, neither is it for those Christian parties. But for now, I think it is the best we can do.

Good, let’s talk about this, shall we? We can find an example of compromising the ideal in the Bible. In Genesis, God sets the ideals for marriage (Genesis 2:24). Later, Moses allowed the people to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). According to Jesus, Moses accepted divorce because of the hardness of the people (Matthew 19:1-9). Jesus implied that Moses compromised the ideal in such a way that at least the divorced woman could be married by another man. Likewise, Christian politicians should consider a compromised agenda. That is to say, they can try to change the conditions and timescale for abortions—focussing on the politically feasible and not on the ideal. This way, they can change the abortion law in gradual reductions.¹

I know that this requires a big change of thinking for many Christians. And understandably so, compromise on abortion can be seen as agreeing with a terrible sin. Still, we need to realise that we live in a fallen world. In a fallen world we are bound to encounter conflicting moral issues. In cases like this, Christians have to choose between two evil options—choosing the less evil and thus saving a few is better than saving none. This tactic, of restricting access to abortion through state laws (in the USA), and offering viable alternatives for women in need, has been described by a worried pro-choice columnist as 'death by a thousand tiny cuts.'²

Attitude

The tensions are high in the abortion debate. Still, we really need to maintain our best behaviour. Even though you might think of abortion as murder, on which I wouldn’t disagree, it is better to control your tongue (James 1:26). Normally, women do not go through abortion light-hearted, many of them simply do not know what else to do. Most women are, just like the adulterous woman in John 8:1-12, totally aware of what they have done. You see, Jesus did not preach a sermon or told her how bad the woman in John 8 was. The woman probably knew just fine what Jesus' ideal was, still Jesus showed compassion, grace, and love. If we say that we are followers of Christ, we should do as our Master (1 John 2:6).

Pro-active Church

Women, who consider abortion, generally have no reasonable idea of the alternatives, or they are strongly influenced by their surroundings such as their family or friends. It would be good if local churches become known as active pro-life communities. The topic should be in every church's agenda. Education is crucial to help Christians understand the dilemmas that some women go through.

Many of the human-right issues which we discuss in our churches are about foreign dilemmas. While this is of great worth, we should not, and we cannot close our eyes for the problems of our neighbours that are closest to us. Information centres can be of great use for women who feel they are stuck. We can even consider taking up arms with non-Christians in setting up such centres. Really, there are many non-Christians that are totally committed to the pro-life movement. This may be considered as another compromise, but can prove to be even more effective in reaching women because some may have not much affinity with Christians.

In a society where one's own choice is celebrated, Christians have a wonderful message. Part of the Christian message is the promotion of freedom of choice—freedom of speech and the freedom to choose any religion, school, healthcare centre you like—freedom should be one of the trademarks of Biblical Christianity as long as this freedom doesn’t harm others.

Conclusion

Okay, let’s wrap up this topic. We have seen that that Christians cannot accept legalised abortion. It is just absolutely immoral to say that the unborn cannot be seen as human. As I argued in the previous episodes, the unborn should be entitled to all basic human-rights. This is scientifically, morally, and legally undeniable. It is our duty to protect the unborn against any harm. Why? Simply because the unborn is a human-being. Human-Rights are there to protect, not only the strong, but in the first place to protects those who can’t protect themselves.

I also argued that doctors need to do their utmost to safe the unborn from harm in cases where a mother needs treatment for a life-threatening situation, such as cancer. It might happen though, that the medics unintentionally fail to save the unborn. If this happens, and it is really unintentionally, I would not consider this as immoral or wrong. Especially in the early stage of the pregnancy the baby cannot survive outside the mother's womb. This means that medics need to prioritise the life of the mother. No, that doesn’t mean they can terminate the unborn in that stage. Absolutely not! But again, if there’s a change in which the baby gets hurt while saving the mother, it isn’t immoral. The baby needs his or her mother.

It is such a blessing, to see that the medical achievements are progressing rapidly. Last week I read about a baby, still a foetus of 21 weeks and three days, has been saved. It was born way the soon and the doctors gave the boy 0% change. Still, the parents wanted them to try, and now the boy just had his first birthday! Glory to God, who gave us a brain to use! When we use our brains to the Glory of God we can achieve great things. In this last example, saving the life of a very young boy!

End-Note

Anyway! This was the fourth and last episode on this topic. Now, I am very curious about your thoughts! What do you think about my rather controversial stance on compromising the ideals? Keep in mind: Saving a few is always better than saving none.

You know, we do not live our lives in order to disagree and argue with everybody and every thing, while sitting safely behind our laptops. Nope, all major changes in the world came about because of proactive people. We, Christians, shouldn’t be laid back! Jesus wasn’t silent, He actively obeyed God in every thing. We are to follow His example!

God bless you!

Bibliography

↑ 1 Cook, E. D., 'Abortion,' in D. J. Atkinson and D. H. Field (eds.), The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 131-133.

↑ 2 Harris-Perry, M., 'On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, a Letter to one Fighting for Choice', website (03 July 2021, http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/roe-v).

Related Articles:

Ethics – Abortion The ‘Woke-Christian’ Christian Doctrine of Salvation Core Principles of the Christian Faith