The Complete Christian View of Abortion
Outlining a Full-Orbed Position
Listen to the audio narration of this article here.
Introduction:
As of June 24th, 2022, Roe vs. Wade has been overturned. This date will be remembered in church history next to Emperor Constantine’s issuance of the Edict of Milan or Martin Luther’s posting his 95 theses. Hopefully your churches loudly celebrated this decision and thanked God for His mercy. Celebration is indeed in order, but we ought not get too carried away celebrating the positive outcome of a single battle and forget the rest of the war that lies ahead.
And what the war ahead will certainly require is Christians to have a full-orbed position on abortion. You see, Roe v. Wade provided one easy target at which pro-lifers of various stripes and degrees could aim. With it gone, dozens of state laws, each with their own nuances and loopholes will come into play. That full-orbed position mentioned earlier will be essential to continuing the crusade for life.
The Christian Position:
People are no doubt familiar with the center of the Christian position, that life begins at conception and thus any unjustified destruction of life thereafter is murder. Let me begin by reaffirming the logical pillars which support the humanity and personhood of the preborn.
Firstly, the humanity of the preborn is biologically indisputable. From the moment of conception, that preborn baby has its very own and completely unique DNA, just as a toddler does. Distinct DNA always denotes a distinct biological being.
Secondly, the humanity of the preborn is philosophically indisputable. There are no ontological changes that occur to the preborn baby subsequent to conception which somehow modify its being. In the absence of any ontological changes, if everyone can agree that the child after birth is a human being, then it follows that the child before birth is also a human being. Neither level of dependence nor biological development change the inherent being of the preborn as these are changes of degree, not of ontological category.
Thirdly, the humanity of the preborn is theologically indisputable. The biblical writers repeatedly speak and record God as speaking of the preborn as human beings. Psalms 51 and 139 are very clear, as is Jeremiah 1. But the passage which completely cinches the case is Exodus 21:22-25:
When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Here God prescribes the punishment for the harm towards a mother or her unborn child to be “life for life.” The equivalence of punishment clearly implies the equivalence of humanity both between the mother and her harmer and between the preborn baby and its harmer.1
We should also keep in mind that, despite having airtight arguments at our disposal, the burden of proof lies on those who wish to permit abortion to prove the preborn are not human beings. A common illustration goes like this: Suppose you were driving at night and you saw something laying in the road ahead of you, but you couldn’t tell what it was. It looks like it might be a person, but it could just be roadkill or some other debris. Would you run it over? The takeaway is that since the pro-abortionists are suggesting killing something which could be reasonably perceived to be a human, they must prove the preborn are not human and, whatever they are, can be killed on a whim.
Controversial Points:
While virtually all Christians would agree with the logical correctness of the arguments against abortion, far fewer agree on what should actually be done about abortion. The passage from Exodus referenced above, however, makes it very clear. God’s law treats the life of the preborn as legally equivalent to anyone else’s. Therefore, the murder of the preborn should carry consequences commensurate with the murder of an adult, in other words, the death penalty. R. J. Rushdoony observed that the case in Exodus 25…
is concerned with involuntary abortion. The premise is that, if these penalties apply to an accidental abortion, how much more do they apply to deliberate abortion.2
The next question is to whom these penalties should apply. From the text, we should answer that the penalty should apply to any who materially participate in the attempt or completion of the murder or aids and abets those who do. In other words, the abortionist performing the murder and the mother procuring the abortionist’s services would face the death penalty. If the father was aware of the attempt and did nothing to stop it, then he would likewise be guilty. The same would apply to friends and family if they were directly involved in the situation. In situations where family and friends were not aiding and abetting but still somehow aware, then their liability would be reduced but still legally actionable. For example, if they knew almost for certain that someone was intending on procuring an abortion and did nothing to intervene, they would be criminally liable for at most a lower degree of murder. However, if in an emotional outburst, someone said they would procure an abortion, but there was no additional evidence they would go through with it, then the liability of the family or friend would be drastically reduced (if not completely eliminated). This is basically how the principles taught in biblical law would deal with any other murder.
We also must ensure that all forms of killing the unborn are prohibited. This would include methods such as abortifacient pills which function by preventing a zygote from fusing to the uterine wall or in some other way destroying it once formed. To be clear, it would not extend to pills which minimize the chances of conception by hormonally delaying ovulation. Also prohibited should be in vitro fertilization which involves the creation of numerous conceptions and the disposal of any which to not successfully mature. Finally, we must be on guard against loopholes. A frequent example is allowing abortion in instances of rape or incest. But punishing a child for the sins of its father is manifestly unjust, as it is written “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.” (Ezek. 18). Justice in that situation involves executing the offender and doing everything possible to support the woman in question, not murdering an innocent third party. Another common loophole is prohibiting abortion excepting cases where the life or health of the mother is threatened. We all recognize that a case where the mother or child’s life is in danger, the situation is analogous to a rescue operation where unfortunately not everyone can be saved, and that the law should include stipulations for this. This is not to say actively killing one party or the other is acceptable – the intent must always be to save life – but that if both parties are unable to be saved despite best efforts, no one is at fault. This is a just qualification, but the health of the mother is a far more subjective, pliable term, and its myriad interpretations will be used as wedges to pry the door back open.
The End Goal:
Having these points clearly articulated as our ideal will be essential as we parse through the intricacies of various state and local laws. As we strive towards that ideal, we should be happy with incremental victories, but not satisfied to stop there. Gain ground, inch by inch if necessary, but never give up. When God led Israel into the promised land, He repeatedly warned them against allowing stragglers of the pagan nations to remain. He highlighted the importance of completely routing them and destroying all of their pagan institutions. The failure of the Israelites to do so proved costly as they spent centuries attempting to eliminate their various enclaves.
We ought to learn from this – we should endeavor for a completely Christian position enforced at every level. Of course, this should be our ultimate goal on every issue, but given the importance of abortion and our ability to find common ground with Catholics and secular conservatives, we have a unique ability to make progress there. We may not be able to unite everyone in those camps with our position, but if we articulate our position clearly, hold firm on it, and work to push them in our direction, undoubtedly we can have a positive impact. With that being said, may God bless you and your church’s efforts toward this goal.
For an in-depth exegesis of this passage, and a refutation of pro-abortion misunderstandings thereof, see this article by John Piper or John Calvin’s commentary on the passage.