The Biblical Case for Fetal Sacredness
Protecting the Dignity of Mothers who Bear the Image of God
Every Baby is a Human… So What?
Scripture is clear that God created mankind—both male and female—in his image and that taking the life of any human is a violation of God’s good design (Gen 1:26; 9:5–6; Ex. 20:13; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 5:17; Mat. 19:18; Rom. 13:9). This truth leads us to the question; is abortion a violation of the biblical command against killing? Based on the science alone, the answer is clearly yes. Even the most ardent pro-choice advocates agree that every fetus is a human from the moment of conception. But don’t take my word for it, Ann Furedi, who is the head of BPAS (the UK’s leading abortion provider) rests her entire pro-choice argument on this very point.
I too believe that from the time an egg is fertilized a life is there…. In the womb or newly born, nothing changes from the perspective of the fetus, but from the point of view of the woman, everything changes. So, each person and each woman values life in different ways.
In his HBO television show, the comedian Bill Maher explores the practical implications of this point. Of course a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. Of course abortion is murder but, Maher concludes,“I’m just okay with it.”
In her article for the NY Times, pro-abortion advocate Antonia Senior sys it’s scientifically undeniable that the fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. The article is titled, “Yes, abortion is killing. But it’s the lesser evil.“ Senior justifies her claim as follows,
My daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person —forged in my womb, not by my mothering.1
Like Bill Maher, Senior argues that although her own daughter was a human from the moment of conception, sometimes a woman must be willing to commit a lesser evil (the taking of a human life) in order to prevent a greater evil (the loss of a woman’s right to self-determination). Senior concludes,
The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.2
Abortion advocate Jennie Bristow thinks the science establishing fetal-personhood is questionable, but agrees with Senior that abortion “is a political issue about women’s need for abortion in a society committed to women’s equality and individual autonomy.”3 Senior and Bristow rest their case in favor of abortion, not on the scientific denial of fetal-personhood, but on the overriding need to protect political equality and on the woman’s right to autonomous self-determination.
The Pivot to Personhood
Because science helped pro-lifers win the argument that human life starts at conception, pro-abortionists who aren’t as honest as Maher, Senior, or Bristow have shifted the debate from science to philosophy.4 The pro-abortion philosophy accepts that every fetus is human, but “so what,” they say, “not every human is an actual persons.”
Since both pro-life and pro-choice people agree that human life begins at conception, I’ll focus on defending personhood from the moment of conception, or what I prefer to call fetal-sacredness.
Fetal sacredness is the biblical conviction that every baby is a human person made in the image of God from the moment of conception. This doctrine is the foundation for protecting both women’s rights and human dignity.
Fetal Sacredness Denied
With the rise of naturalism, Western theories of human-personhood were fueled by enlightenment values and Darwinian biology. As naturalism gained sway, the Christian doctrine that every fetas was a human person—made sacred in the image of God—was diminished even among Christians.
By the mid-nineteenth century, abortion in the United States was on the rise due, in part, to wealthy Protestant women who embraced this medical procedure as a means of maintaining social-status.5
Over time, Christians adapted their lifestyle to the culture and the doctrine of fetal-sacredness was lost as the moral foundation for protecting women and preserving human rights. By the mid-twentieth century, due in large part to the work of Margaret Sanger, many had come to believe that any opposition to abortion was driven by religious bigotry against women.
By the time the 1970s rolled around, the Supreme Court was thoroughly immersed in the naturalistic worldview of autonomous rights. Their decision in Roe v. Wade reflected their conviction that the moral opposition to abortion (embedded in the Hippocratic Oath) was really Christian theology in disguise. The evidence, SCOTUS argued, goes back to the first century in a book called the Didache. This book was a collection of moral instruction for the church which, like the much older Hippocratic Oath, included commands against abortion and infanticide.6 In their zeal to separate church from state, the court read their naturalistic worldview back into the Constitution and treated abortion as a protection for a women’s “right” to bodily autonomy.
Nigel Cameron demonstrates in his book, The New Medicine, how the Supreme Court relied on the writings of Ludwig Edelstein to marginalize the Greek Hippocratic tradition and the Christian theology of human-sacredness as minority traditions.7 In his opinion, Justice Blackmun ruled as follows,
Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians. He points out that medical writings down to Galen (A. D. 130-200) “give evidence of the violation of almost every one of its injunctions.” Is But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath “became the nucleus of all medical ethics” and “was applauded as the embodiment of truth.” Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is “a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct.”
This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath’s apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long- accepted and revered statement of medical ethics.
The characterization of the Oath by SCOTUS as a marginal “Christian” ethic was used to free doctors from the shackles of Christian morality. Since the fetus, in the view of the court, was only a clump of cells with potential for human life, doctors could treat abortion as nothing more than a mother’s personal preference.
As I said above, the idea that a fetus is only a potential human life has since been proven scientifically false. Consequently, pro-choice apologists have shifted their justification for abortion to a concept of personhood which they believe depends wholly on the feelings of the mother.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argue in the Journal of Medical Ethics that because the fetus lacks personhood, abortion should be deemed legal and morally acceptable in all cases. The authors conclude that a mother has an absolute right to abort her child in the womb, or even after birth, because the fetus does not have the same moral status as a fully developed and healthy person. They write,
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.8
Giubilini and Minerva insist that Christians who argue that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception are simply wrong. Religious opinions should never be taken as a legal justification to override the mother’s right to choose.
Sadly, the argument against fetal personhood is also embraced by some within the Christian tradition. W. A. Criswell, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, provides a significant example. Following the decision in Roe v. Wade, Criswell declared:
I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.9
Given the confusion among some Christians, what follows is a counterargument, not for the atheist, but for those who are persuaded that abortion is a biblical virtue.
The Bible is Not Silent
Christian advocates of abortion largely rest their case on the silence of Scripture, which they argue does not specifically condemn this act. In support of their pro-abortion stance, some theologians point to Exodus 21:22. In this law, it explicitly states that a man who strikes a pregnant woman, resulting in an accidental abortion, is not subject to the death penalty but is instead only fined. The key phrase for this interpretation, וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ (wĕyāṣʾû yĕlāḏêhā), is commonly taken to mean miscarriage. Dolores E. Dunnett argues that given this case, it is fair to conclude that a fully developed pregnant woman is more valuable than a fetus, which is considered property and not a person.10 Dunnett concludes that since Scripture does not affirm fetal-personhood, it is not possible to create a clear case for or against intentional abortion. But is this argument supported by the Bible? I’m convinced that Dunnett’s argument from silence fails on several grounds.
The Fallacy of Presentism
First, she commits the fallacy of presentism by assuming the Hebrew people made a philosophical distinction between biological humanness and personhood. Like most Westerners, Dunnett assumes that personhood is an emergent quality that is added to humanness, and not an unqualified state granted at the moment of conception. While this distinction is common today, the Hebrew’s viewed the human person in a holistic sense which did not allow for such a dichotomy. This conclusion is affirmed by a study of the Hebrew word יֶ֫לֶד (yeleḏ) used in Exodus 21:22 to describe the unborn child and elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to a postnatal child (Gen 21:8; Exo 2:3; and Ru 4:16). The prophet Nathan, for example, describes David’s son as “yet to be born.” This simple description implies that in the Hebrew worldview, the child’s status as a recognized person (a son in this case) was not to be achieved, but a state of being which persists from conception through birth (2 Sam 12:14).
A Questionable Translation
Second, there is reason to doubt the translation of wĕyāṣʾû yĕlāḏêhā as miscarriage. Contra Dunnett, many scholars understand Exodus 21:22 to address the scenario where a man strikes a woman and causes her to give birth prematurely (not a miscarriage). In this case, where the baby is born early but without injury, the father of the child is allowed to set a financial penalty on the assailant. However, if either the mother or the baby suffers death, then the law must treat the man as guilty of taking a human life.11
In his analysis of the key verb verb יצא, (yṣʾ) “come out,” John Makujina recognizes there are many unresolved etymological tensions, but concludes there is no solid evidence within the Hebrew text itself to substantiate the claim that yṣʾ is an idiom for miscarriage. The Hebrew word commonly used to describe a miscarriage is שָׁכֹל (škl). This word is used in passages such as Gen 31:38; Exo 23:26; 2 Kin 2:21; Job 21:10; and Hos. 9:14. In Exodus 21:22, however, the verb yṣʾ is used in the Old Testament to describe a live birth (See, Gen 25:26; 38:28–30; Job 3:11; 10:18; and Jer. 1:5; 20:18).
In spite of the strong textual evidence, the argument in favor of interpreting Exodus 21:22 as describing a miscarriage depends almost entirely on sources outside the Hebrew Scripture.12 Given this analysis, the translation of the Hebrew in Exodus 21:22 as “premature birth” is accepted in a variety of translations including the New International Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, New English Translation, and New Living Translation. If this translation is correct, and I belie it is, then the case of denying personhood to the unborn falls apart.
A Misreading of Old Testament Case Law
Third, Dunnett’s denial of fetal-personhood rests on the inference that wĒyāṣʾû yĕlāḏêhā means miscarriage, and the punishment demanded was merely a fine, whereas the penalty for killing a person in Leviticus 24:18 is death. This conclusion, however, is at best inconclusive and at worst a distortion of Levitical law. After his exhaustive study of the case law, Meredith G. Kline concludes that,
no matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatment accorded the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life.13
Kline’s conclusion finds supported going back to John Calvin in the 16th century,
This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the fœtus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the fœtus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth.14
A Cultural Blindspot
Finally, Dunnett’s argument that Bible is silent fails because it does not properly weigh the possibility that “intentional” abortion was not directly mentioned in Scripture because the practice was never contemplated by the Hebrew woman who valued her child as the fruit of God’s blessing. Children were valued as a gift from God, the means of fulfilling the Divine command to be fruitful and multiply, and the hope of perpetuating the family’s legacy (Psa 127:3; Gen 1:22; and Deu 25:6). Given this worldview, God had no reason to give a special law to ban a practice which was already deemed unacceptable among his people and covered in his command not to murder.
Summary
In consideration of these four arguments, the lack of a single law outlawing intentional abortion does not mean Scripture is silent. By way of analogy, the Bible does not have laws forbidding specific acts of cyberbullying, cannibalism, child pornography, or pedophilia. This lack of case law in the text, however, does not preclude the possibility of condemning such acts. Thus, the argument against abortion, like many other moral issues faced in modern society, must be developed in light of what is clearly taught in the Bible. It is axiomatic to assert that Scripture condemns murder of human persons. If it can be demonstrated from Scripture that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then logic dictates that intentional abortion is murder. Fortunately, Scripture does speak clearly to the issue of fetal-personhood. Next, I’ll look at teachings from the Old and New Testaments to make the case that an unborn fetus is a human person that must be protected.
The Argument from the Old Testament
For Eve, the moment she conceived she thanked God the blessing of a son (Gen 4:1). Samson’s mother was instructed by God to keep her pre-born son ritually pure by avoiding alcohol and unclean food. Samson was bound by this Nazirite covenant, not after he was born, but from the moment of his conception and throughout his mother’s pregnancy. From conception, God treated Samson as a person set-apart for his own Divine purpose (Judges 13:1–5).
In the midst of his suffering, Job lamented not just the day of his birth, but even the moment he was conceived as a person (Job 3:3). King David was grieved by his sin against God which he traced back through his entire life; even to the moment of his own conception (Psa 51:5). His sin notwithstanding, David celebrated the truth that God knew him intimately as a human-person and shaped him into a man while still in his mother’s womb (Psa 139:13–16).
The affirmation of in utero personhood was recognized by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah who declared through inspiration that YHWH himself had called them and sanctified them from the moment they were conceived (Isa 49:1& Jer 1:5 & Jud 13:3).
Throughout the Old Testament, the stillborn child is treated as a human-person who must be pitted for never living the fullness of their days (Eccl 6:3 and Ps 58:9). Hosea confirms the unborn fetus has in utero awareness (Hos 12:3). Jeremiah makes clear that he was a living person inside his mother’s womb (Jer 20:16–18). Each of these passages affirms that fetal personhood was fundamental to the Hebrew worldview that God created and ordained the days of each person from the moment they were conceived. This same worldview—accepting the continuity of human-personhood from conception through birth—is mirrored in the New Testament passages examined in the next section.
The Argument from the New Testament
The New Testament case for human-personhood from the moment of conception is most clear in the Gospels. Just like the mother of Samson on the Old Testament, Elizabeth was promised that her pre-born son John would be set-apart as a Nazirite. Zechariah was assured that his son John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:14–17). When the angel of God appeared to Mary, she too was assured that from the moment of conception she would carry in her womb a person called to holiness who would bear the title, Son of God (Luke 1:35–36). Joseph, Mary’s fiancé, was also assured by the Angel of God that the boy in Mary’s womb was conceived by the Holy Spirit and set-apart as the Messiah of Israel (Mat 1:20–22). Through the inspiration of God, the reader of Scripture is assured that Elizabeth’s son John, while still in the womb, leapt for joy having an awareness that Jesus was alive in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:41).
The argument that human-personhood begins at conception—made clear in the Gospels—is affirmed by the use of the Greek word βρέφος (brephos). This root is used eight times in the New Testament and applied equally to John while still in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44) and to Jesus after he was born (Luk 2:12, 16). In light of these passages—from both the Old and New Testaments—Beckwith concludes that the burden of proof has shifted back to the biblical scholars who rely on Western philosophy to deny the plain reading of these passages from Scripture that human-personhood begins at conception.15
In Defense of Human Rights
Establishing in utero personhood from Scripture leaves unanswered the question of moral obligation. In the last part of this post, I’ll answer the question, “How should the truth of fetal personhood impact the Christian response—personally and politically—to both the mother and the unborn child?”
Looking back to the argument from Senior’s NY Times article, I’d like to offer two reasons for my claim that abortion denies equal rights to all women.
Abortion Denies Equal Rights
First, Senior’s assertion that the right to life is less fundamental than a woman’s right to self-determination is self-refuting. A women who is killed in the womb never has the opportunity to act on her so-called right to autonomous self-determination. If a female is killed in the womb, then the mother is violating the babies right to autonomous self-determination. In fact, all other civil rights are entailed by the fundamental right to life because without a living woman, there is no person to receive the benefit of equality.
Second, Senior’s argument that abortion preserves equality is not supported by history. The culture of ancient Rome treated women as property yet embraced all forms of abortion and infanticide. In stark contrast, history shows that the Christian commitment to the sacredness of all persons beginning at conception led to the protection of women and to the recognition of their human rights.
The defense of human-sacredness from conception gave the early Christians a uniform framework to oppose infanticide and, at the same time, elevate the status of women above mere chattel.
The doctrine of human-sacredness which promised protection to all people (both unborn and born) held great appeal to women living in an oppressive culture that devalued their sexuality, diminished the bond of marriage, accepted the infidelity of husbands, and valued the life of male childfree over the female. Mark Husbands and Jeffrey P. Greenman conclude:
Not only did the Christians refuse to discard their own babies, even when their families were large, they also went to the dumps and rescued unwanted babies of pagan parents, whom they proceeded to raise as their own children. These rescued babies, often girls, are one reason that the proportion of females was extraordinarily high in Christian communities.16
The early record of the church affirms how the doctrine of human sacredness established family as the foundation for society, protected women, elevated women to positions of leadership, and buttressed economic progress.17
The historic doctrine of in utero personhood was a key factor in the rapid growth of the church, the appeal of Christianity to women, and one of the key factors in accepting the equality of men and women.
Abortion Denies Universal Rights
The second reason to reject the pro-abortion argument for fetal non-personhood is that it makes women’s rights contingent on vacillating conditions unique to different society. Specifically, their argument in favor of abortion is that its practice is needed to guarantee women economic equality. Ruth Colker, in line with Roe v. Wade, argues that abortion is not an absolute right. Colker argues that the right to an abortion is in fact a limited right:
It is contingent upon existing social circumstances of inequality; it is not embedded in the argument that a woman has the right to control her body under any circumstances. From the perspective of love and compassion, I accept the argument that women have responsibilities in this world to nurture love and life. Since we are connected selves, we have no claim to act in ways to protect our bodily autonomy in isolation from society. However, society must allocate the responsibilities of its members compassionately and respectfully”18
The right to an abortion, says Colker, is contingent not upon the value of the mother’s own life, but upon the economic conditions of her particular situation. Abortion is needed because it protects the woman from a society that disadvantages pregnancy and childcare and does not provide proper healthcare. If this argument is accepted, then there exists no universal standard for protecting women. If the rights of the woman are contingent on economic equality, then once this goal is met the rights of the woman would no longer be protected.
In contrast, the church’s historic protection of fetal-sacredness provides a universal ground for protecting women’s rights regardless of economic conditions. In his exploration of Roman civilization at the time of the early church, B. Sears demonstrate how important the doctrine of human-sacredness was to the church’s growing influence and prosperity. Lactantius, writes Sears, affirmed that God’s teleological purpose for the unborn overrides financial fears:
“It is true those homicidal fathers plead poverty, and their inability to rear a family, just as if the good things of this world were in the power of those who possess them, as if God did not continually plunge the rich into poverty, and raise the poor to abundance. If poverty really prevents anyone from the power of maintaining children, let him not be a father. That would be much better than, by impious hands, to destroy the work of God.”19
For the Christian, neither the disquiet of poverty nor the passion for economic justice grants anyone the right to take he life of an unborn child. Valid human and civil rights are contingent on the universal nature of human-sacredness and never on the vicissitudes of economics.
Given the best pro-choice argument, abortion is itself nothing more than a contingent right that denies the universality of human-sacredness, fails to universally protect women, and must not be practiced by the Christian.
Yet what about abortion in the case of rape and incest? I’ll tackle that next.
Abortion in the Most Tragic Cases
Christians opposed to abortion on demand will oftentimes accept the argument that exceptions should be made based on the traumatizing circumstances of rape and incest. The 1971 Resolution On Abortion by the Southern Baptist Convention is an early example that shows this view is not new,
“That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”20
This argument still holds sway among many Christians. Most recently, N.T. Wright appeared on the Unbelievable radio show to share his own support for abortion for the mother’s mental health or cases of rape and incest. Protestia.com clipped just a few of his comments.
At the same time, there may be certain exceptions of which severe deformity might be one, of which certainly incest and rape would be others, and in those cases I would say ‘the sooner the better’ because at a certain point -and I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line- then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.
However, in certain dire circumstances, Wright concludes that aborting the unborn baby is the best choice,
We do not want to do this in principle, but with sorrow and a bit of shame, the best thing to do is as soon as possible to terminate the pregnancy.
Wright even adopts the feminist perspective on moral truth by suggesting that men should be wary of speaking to this issue because their voice is perceived as oppression of women’s rights or control of their bodies.
So the whole debate about the woman’s rights, it’s very difficult, it’s very hard for a man to talk about this. And indeed one of the problems has been, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, when women, particularly say a girl who’s been raped or who’s had incest committed on her, then discovering that unmarried men from the Catholic hierarchy are telling her what she can and can’t do.
Given the biblical argument for fetal-sacredness—that unborn child is a human person from the moment of conception—it’s clear that Wright is morally confused because any act that in inherently unjust can never be justified.
“Two things can be true at once… [Wright] is a dedicated, wise, and brilliant man. He can also be a lazy, foolish, and muddled-minded man.” — Nate Fugate
The practice of abortion in the cases of rape and incest should not be accepted by the Christian. As painful as it may be to embrace this conclusion, I am convinced that genuine love for the mother who is a victim of a heinous crime cannot justify another crime against an innocent human person. While I recognize the difficulty of this position, let me share four things which have led me to accept that abortion in the most tragic cases of rape and incest is not a morally just solution.
Fetal Rights are Connected to Infant Rights
First, the argument for accepting abortion as a woman’s right to choose is fundamentally flawed because it denies the universality of human sacredness. It seems clear that once we deny a fetus the right to life, we open the door to denying rights to the infant, the toddler, the handicapped, and the even the children of the poor. This problem is made clear in the logic of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva who argue favorably that,
killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.21
Let’s be clear in what these authors are saying. They are claiming that every argument in favor of abortion is also a valid argument in favor infanticide. Why? Because they view personhood on a sliding scale and, therefore, any argument which disqualifies a fetus as a full person can also be used to argue against the personhood of the infant or toddler who—like the fetus—relies on the mother for survival.
If we can abort a fetus because his/her birth will cause undue economic hardship, we can kill a child if there is an economic downturn that makes raising him/her too expensive.
If we can abort a fetus for having a potential birth defect, we can kill an infant who manifests a deformity or debilitating illness after they are born.
If we can abort a fetus because the mother has suffered a terrible trauma such as rape, we can kill a toddler if a mother has a post-birth trauma that makes raising the child emotionally difficult.
Please realize, this is not my argument as a Christian nor is it a straw-man that I invented to deform the argument made by pro-choice advocates. This is the argument offered by published pro-abortion academics who favor infanticide as a form of post-birth abortion.
Now, it seems to me that Christian , like Wright, who justify the abortion of a human person in the case of rape and incest opens the door to the same moral dilemma as the naturalist. Namely, if suffering a traumatic injustice validates the mother’s choice to end the life of their dependent child, then the Christian is forced to made human rights contingent upon suffering. This leads to my second point.
Fetal-Personhood is not a Contingent Property
Second, the moral value of the unborn baby is not a contingent property and therefore cannot be diminished by the act of rape or incest. If we abandon the biblical truth of fetal-sacredness, there remains no transcendent standard for protecting human rights in any number of tragic circumstances. Personhood reflects the absolute value of the fetus which is granted by God at the moment of conception. The specific conditions surrounding conception, therefore, cannot be used to undermine the personhood of the baby which is contingent solely on his or her standing with the Creator.22
Abortion brings Psychological Harm
Third, the data supports the Christian claim that abortion is an unnatural process that ends a life and harms the mother. Priscilla K. Coleman in her 2011 study of the impact abortion has on women experiencing unwanted pregnancies. Coleman’s study was a meta-analysis of 877,181 total participants (of whom 163 831 had an abortion) from 22 peer-reviewed studies covering eight countries and measured the phycological impact of abortion in terms of increased alcohol use/misuse, marijuana, anxiety, depression, and suicidal behavior. This was a massive study! Coleman concludes that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that abortion has any positive mental health benefits, but when compared to women who allowed their baby to be born, 81% of women experienced a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems. Coleman’s conclusions are persuasive.
Based on data extracted from 22 studies, the results of this meta-analytic review of the abortion and mental health literature indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure. The magnitude of effects derived varied based on the comparison group (no abortion, pregnancy delivered, unintended pregnancy delivered) and the type of problem examined (alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, anxiety, depression, suicidal behaviours).
Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be directly attributable to abortion.
The strongest effects were observed when women who had had an abortion were compared with women who had carried to term and when the outcomes measured related.23
Pregnancy and Childbirth bring Healing
Fourth, it’s not enough to decry the harm of abortion, we must also trumpet the healing power of pregnancy and childbirth. There is a positive argument to be made that both pregnancy and childbirth can heal the trauma of rape and incest. That’s a bold claim, so let me take a step back and look at the big picture.
Pro-abortion advocates claim that women who have suffered rape or incest should not be forced to suffer more by bringing the baby to term. On its face, I’d hope we can all agree that a woman who gets pregnant in the circumstance of rape or incest has suffered greatly. It was not her choice to get pregnant and her life will forever be changed. But notice how pro-abortionists smuggle in the claim that pregnancy and childbirth are a source of increased suffering. I’d argue that this worldview assumption is wrong. I’d argue that the trauma from sexual violence should not be made worse by aborting the baby. Abortion itself is an act of violence against both the mother and the unborn person.24
Here again, the data provided by Coleman supports my belief that a pregnancy carried to term is a prophylactic for the mother’s mental health.
The finding that abortion is associated with significantly higher risks of mental health problems compared with carrying a pregnancy to term is consistent with literature demonstrating protective effects of pregnancy delivered relative to particular mental health outcomes. For example, with regard to suicide, Gissler et al reported the annual suicide rate for women of reproductive age to be 11.3 per 100 000, whereas the rate was only 5.9 per 100 000 in association with birth. Several other studies conducted in different countries have revealed even lower rates of suicide following birth when compared with women in the general population.
The research is clear. Abortion does not provide women with a positive resolution of the trauma of rape or incest. In fact, abortion might even deepen her emotional trauma.
Mothers who abort their unborn children are forced to bear the emotional pain of their violent conception which is only compounded by their personal choice to perpetuate violence on her child. Abortion is not a solution, it’s actually the cause of new layers of emotional distress.
The argument for abortion in these tragic cases fails to consider the potential for healing that can come only when a mother sees the birth of her child. Most every mom (and Dad) will tell you that watching the birth of their child is magical. For the mom, the pain of childbirth is soon overwhelmed by the joy of holding her son or daughter in her arms. Even if the mother chooses to give the child up for adoption, she can experience the God-designed joy that comes through the process of pregnancy and birth.
Christians must have the same love for the mother as they do for the unborn child and this love leads me to conclude that abortion in the case of rape and incest is not only an injustice but a true lack of compassion which prohibits the mother from experiencing God’s path to healing—the brith of a child.
Conclusion
All humans are persons from the moment of conception and Christians have a moral obligation to protect the life of every pre-born and post-born person. The mitigating circumstances of rape or incest do not exempt the Christian from their moral obligation to love the mother and preserve the unborn baby’s sacred life. Abortion does not protect the rights of the woman, nor does it resolve legitimate concerns of societal inequality. However, the Christian value for the rights of fetal-life should not outweigh compassion for a woman faced with unwanted pregnancies who must also be treated with love and respect, as equal in value and bearers of not just a child, but bearers of the image of God.
Antonia Senior, “Yes, Abortion is Killing. But it’s the Lesser Evil,” The New York Times, June 30, 2010, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/yes-abortion-is-killing-but-its-the-lesser-evil-f7v2k2ngvf8.
Ibid.
Jennie Bristow, “Abortion: Stop Hiding Behind The Science,” Spiked, last modified October 22, 2007, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/3991#.WpcIfGaZMWo.
Megan Best, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made: Ethics and the Beginning of Human Life (Kingsford, N.S.W.: Matthias Media, 2012), 37.
Albert R. Jonsen, A Short History of Medical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 78.
Harry A Blackmun and Supreme Court Of The United States, “Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113,”U.S. Reports (October Term 1972): 132, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/. Note, the Hippocratic Oath predates the Didache by hundreds of years.
Nigel M. de S. Cameron, The New Medicine: Life and Death After Hippocrates (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003), 58.
Giubilini Alberto and Minerva Francesca, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?,” Journal of Medical Ethics, no. 5 (March 2 2012): 1.
David Roach, “How Southern Baptists became pro-life,” Baptist Press, last modified January 16, 2015, http://www.bpnews.net/44055/how-southern-baptists-became-prolife. Influenced by thinkers such as Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Criswell eventually reversed his opinion on human personhood. For a fuller discussion of the history of Evangelical’s evolving position on abortion see, Russell Moore, “The Gospel according to Jane Roe: Abortion Rights and the Reshaping of Evangelical Theology,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 77, no. 2 (2003): 38–45.
Dolores E. Dunnett, “Evangelicals And Abortion,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 2 (June 1990): 217–218.
Francis J. Beckwith, “Brave New Bible: A Reply To The Moderate Evangelical Position On Abortion,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 4 (December 1990): 496.
John Makujina, “The Semantics of יצא in Exodus 21:22: Reassessing the Variables That Determine Meaning,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 23, no. 3 (2013): 320–321.
Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis And The Human Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 2 (September 1977): 197, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11664012. See also, Joe M. Sprinkle, “The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22–25 (Lex Talionis) and Abortion,” Westminster Theological Journal 55, no. 2 (1993): 243.
Calvin, John, and Charles William Bingham. 2010. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony. Vol. 3. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
Beckwith, “Brave New Bible,” 492.
Mark Husbands and Jeffrey P. Greenman, Ancient Faith for the Church’s Future (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2008), 172.
David Kinley, “The Relation of the Church to Social Reform,” Bibliotheca Sacra 50, no. 199 (1893): 386.
Ruth Colker, Abortion & Dialogue: Pro-choice, Pro-life, and American Law (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992), 107.
B. Sears, “The Roman Empire and Christianity,” Bibliotheca Sacra 20, no. 78 (1863): 248–249.
Roach, “How Southern Baptists became pro-life.”
Alberto and Francesca, “After-Birth Abortion,” 2.
C. Ben Mitchell, “Persons Beyond Roe v. Wade: The Post-Human Age?,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7, no. 2 (2003): 74.
Priscilla K. Coleman, “Abortion and Mental Health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Research Published 1995―2009,” British Journal of Psychiatry, no. SEP (2011): 180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230.
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 77.