“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage battles according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying all arguments and all arrogance raised against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”
(2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Since the last time we addressed the topic of abortion, more and more arguments from the pro-abortion side have been rising to the surface in an attempt to rationalize the killing of unborn children. While the imaginary ‘line’ may shift every which way in order to justify their position, the Christian perspective on the matter remains consistent and objective. It is wrong to end the life of an innocent human being, life begins at conception, abortion is the direct and active killing of an innocent human life, therefore abortion is wrong. What also needs to remain consistent is our approach to the subject. While we ought not shy away from exposing the evils of this world, how we approach the topic also matters. “You know this, my beloved brothers and sisters. Now everyone must be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger; for a man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness of God. therefore riding yourselves of all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not just hearers who deceive themselves.” (James 1:19-22)
It seems as if more of the prevalent and popular arguments are begging to address the crux of the issue. Since the common arguments from bodily autonomy, and the typical SLED arguments are rather easily debunked, the pro-abortion side must seek to meet us on a definitional level. Which is good, this is where we ought to begin anyway. In conversations and debates we too often allow ourselves to talk past each other because we fail to see that we may be unknowingly disagreeing on terms. Making sure we define terms and remain consistent with them plays a vital role in being able to have actual constructive dialog. As the arguments have now shifted onto that new plateau, it makes it all that more imperative that we remain consistent, clear, and objective with our terms. Remember although we assign words to things, those things which we have given words to, still have objective meaning. Take the word “Square” for example. All we have done is assigned a word to this objectively true thing that exists in reality which has 4 sides and 4 90° corners. Why is this important to mention? Well, unless we have objective standards for when life begins, we leave the door open for it to be left to one’s own subjective opinion. Well who’s to say life doesn’t actually begin at consciousness and we ought to just protect the conscious experience of a living being? Can we empirically prove that one ought to be endowed with human rights the moment their life begins? These are just a couple of examples of questions that are being posed now due to a lack of an ability to reach a consensus on terms, or by thinking that these key terms such as life, human beings, rights, etc. are subjective and are not rooted in any sort of definitional fact.
This blog is going to take a little bit of a different approach than usual. I will pose the questions/arguments being posed to the Pro-Life side, then follow up with a response. I recommend looking over the first abortion blog to better understand the approach and some of the questions and arguments that have already been addressed.
The Violinist
Analogy posed– You are driving in a car and run a red light. Due to that mistake you cause an accident. Because of this accident, a life is at stake. You wake up in a hospital bed hooked up to this other person. The person that you hit requires your kidney to survive. Should you then be legally required to give up your kidney?
Parallel situation, two people have sex, and an accident occurs. Because of that accident, a life is at risk. The use of an organ that is not theirs is required to keep that life alive.
So how is it different when a kidney that is not theirs is required to save a life vs. when a uterus that is not theirs is required to sustain a life?
Response– In order for an argument based off of an analogy to work, the situations actually have to be parallel. The case that has been presented is operating on two different degrees of moral relevancy. Mainly, there is a morally relevant difference between a car accident and pregnancy. Driving a car is not naturally ordered towards the condition of having an accident and having someone connected to you in order to live. Whereas pregnancy is the naturally ordered condition of having sex.
Passive vs Active. Moral Oughts vs. Moral Goods. There is a morally relevant difference between refusing to offer help (passive) as opposed to intentionally killing (active.) In the case of the car accident you can either help, not help, or kill. Whereas in pregnancy there remain just two options, help or kill. By denying your kidney to someone, you are choosing not to help, whereas in an abortion you are actively killing.
I would refer you back to my blog on the Moral Argument. There are distinctions between Moral Oughts and Moral Goods. For example, it is a morally good thing to become a doctor, but you are not morally obligated to become one. In our scenario, it would be a morally good thing to donate help to the other, but you are not morally obligated to do so. In the case of a pregnancy, you are still morally obligated, not to kill.
Let’s say you are playing baseball in the street and you accidentally hit the ball and it shatters the neighbor’s window. You would not be in the right if you told your neighbor “I consented to playing baseball in the street, but did not consent to your window breaking, therefore I cannot be held responsible for the damages.” But obviously by consenting to playing baseball in an area where there were breakable glass windows, by virtue you yourself consented to the risk.
Another way in which The two scenarios are on different Moral planes is that a parent has a duty to their child in a different way than you have a duty to a stranger. Whether you consented to having the child in your womb or not, by virtue of being a parent, you have a responsibility to your child in a different way than you do towards a stranger. Again, reference Moral Oughts vs. Moral Goods. It would be good for you to go down to the homeless shelter and feed hungry children, but you are not morally obligated to do so. Whereas a parent is in fact morally obligated to feed their child.
We must also ask ourselves, what is the intended nature and purpose of the kidney, and what is the intended nature and purpose of the uterus. When we think about it logically, we come to realize why a parent ought to be legally obligated to give one but is not legally obligated to give the other. Your kidney exists in your body, for your body. Whereas the uterus exists in your body FOR your child’s body. Both body parts exist separate from each other in terms of the natural intended use of them. The uterus is distinct from the kidney in the way that it is specifically geared to sustaining another’s life. The uterus exists in your body, for them. Your kidney exists in your body, for you. When the child is living outside of the mother, as we have gone over in the previous paragraph, the mother has an obligation to sustain her child. In that example we used food. Well in this case the sustenance that the mother would be obligated would be, allowing the uterus to be used for the very nature it exists for. Just as a born child needs and is required to have basic care such as nourishment, the unborn child is due the same basic level of care.
The Building & the Blueprint
Analogy Posed- Destroying the blueprint to the building is not the same as destroying the building itself. Knocking over the beams and wood that would be used to make that building is not the same as knocking the building down.
Response- Don’t allow yourself to be bought into this false equivalency. In the case of the building, the blueprint is something that exists separate from the building. But in the case of human life, the blueprint is something that exists within the person. The two cannot be separated like they can be with the building analogy. In order to destroy the human blueprint, you would have to destroy the human in which it exists.
Now to address the difference between knocking over the beams and wood vs. knocking over the building…. This is also a false equivalency. To say we are knocking over some beams and wood implies that we have not destroyed the beams and wood. It’s to say that they can still serve their intended use. Whereas when you knock down a building, you are destroying it. So a more accurate parallel scenario would be to ask is knocking down the building the same as burning the wood and breaking the beams? Yes. This then just becomes an age or size discrepancy. No matter what stage of life you are in, it is still life. A life that exists with the right to not be destroyed.
Consciousness
Argument Posed– Generally the metric by which we judge when someone has passed away is their state of consciousness. A dead body no longer has personhood. So why wouldn’t we use that same metric to determine when someone becomes a person? The understood time period by which the first conscious experience happens is between 20-24 weeks. A dead body is not given the same rights as a conscious person, so why would we give the rights of a conscious person to a being that has not yet lived a conscious experience?
Response– There are glaring similarities between this argument and the previous one regarding the building vs the beams and wood. Let’s begin by answering this one with a practical question. Here’s the scenario we will pose… Let’s say Nick knows that Victoria is 9 weeks pregnant (well before that 20-24 line you have set.) Nick goes ahead and punches Victoria in the stomach. This intrinsically leads to Victoria having a miscarriage. Should the only charge for Nick be for assaulting Victoria? Or should he also be charged for ending the life of the child in the womb? I think that we can agree that Nick has done more wrong than simply assaulting Victoria. Well… if it has yet to live a conscious experience, why then would you say that Nick ought to be charged for anything more than simply assaulting Victoria? It isn’t its own person yet according to the arbitrary standard of consciousness you have imposed after all. So then according to your own view, why ought Nick be held accountable to that thing that isn’t yet a person?
Apply Occam’s Razor to the situation. Leaving the broad window of saying that the first conscious experience (so far as we can yet detect) generally happens between 20-24 weeks is a dangerous approach. If we are unable to detect the very first moment which the baby has had its first conscious experience, should we not then err towards the side of safety? Especially since this is a matter of life and death. If we don’t know if this thing inside the womb has had its first conscious experience yet, shouldn’t we say “since we can’t know for sure, then we ought not tear it apart?”
To use an analogy, You buy a new gun and you want to test it out. You go to the local junkyard and find a car to use as target practice. The doors are locked and the windows are tinted. Should you proceed to fire rounds into the car without first knowing for sure that there is no one in it? I would argue that since we cannot know if someone is in there or not, even though you are convinced there is a 99% chance that no one is in that car, you still ought not fire rounds into that car because of the consequences of if you are wrong.
The initial argument also misconstrues the definition of death. Death is the complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity. That definition of death as in not being alive does not apply to that child in the womb. Because the potential to gain that cessation of brain activity still exists for the child. Whereas the person who has died no longer has that ability or potential.
Consciousness is also not merely a human trait. We as humans do in fact have a different sort of conscious experience than animals, but the general ‘conscious experience’ is not only had by human beings. If the conscious experience is what affords us the right to life, why then would this right not be afforded to animals as well? Ought we arrest a Coyote when it ends the conscious experience of a rabbit? Taking the position that it is only the conscious experience that we ought to defend and protect presupposes that there is something distinct and special particularly about the human conscious experience, and that’s what we ought to protect.
Claim that the Bible Permits Abortion
Numbers 5:11-31
The Adultery Test / The Law of Jealousy
There is no mention of pregnancy in this passage, nor is pregnancy ever implied. This is a key example of trying to shove a narrative where it simply doesn’t belong. As a matter of fact, it is implied that she is not pregnant. Verse 28 implies that she has not yet become pregnant. The passage is talking about a woman then becoming infertile if she were to be found guilty. The passage is about when a wife was caught cheating on her husband. Instead of taking matters into his own hands, she would be taken in front of a priest to perform a ritual. If infidelity has truly occurred, it would be parsed out there.
All of the confusion is caused by The NIV in Verse 27. This translation includes the words “her womb will miscarry.” The Hebrew word ‘Yarek’ that the NIV translates to womb is elsewhere seen being used to describe a thigh. See Genesis 24:2, 24:9, 32:25, 32:31, 32:32.
Secondly the word ‘Rechem’ that is commonly used to refer to ‘Womb’ is not used anywhere in this passage.
Lastly, the Hebrew word that is more closely associated with ‘Misscarriage’ is ‘Skakal,’ also nowhere to be found in this passage. Genesis 27:4, 43:14, Exodus 23:26, Job 21:10, Hosea 9:14.
Would you rather save 50 fertilized eggs, or a teenager?
This just comes down to arbitrary, personal standards. It’s just like asking when someone breaks into your house, would you actually use that gun you have? I don’t really really know until I’m put in that situation. Similar to asking if I would save my mother or 10 strangers, again given the circumstances in that moment I can make a guess, but this doesn’t mean that either side doesn’t still have the right to life.