Recently, someone asked me what the Christian view on abortion is, since they find themselves uncomfortable with both extreme "pro-choice" and dogmatic "pro-life" views which are always at war in our culture. I realized I have never written anything specifically on abortion, so here I would like to set out the ethics of abortion in 3000 words or less. Much more can and should be said, but I think this is a kind of limit for quick reading (or a medium length sermon). So please excuse the points I make which could be elaborated on or debated.
I try my hardest to be a consistent life ethicist, which means that I want to protect and enhance human life in all its forms, from womb to tomb. Thus "consistent life ethics" generally entails being critical of all kinds of activities which diminish, deny, and destroy human life. This includes criticism of: Capital punishment; Assisted suicide; Warfare that does not have a clear defensive purpose; Criminal justice that does not have a clear rehabilitative purpose; Sacrificing individuals, communities, and/or the environment to corporate profits or economic “progress”; And abortion (or abortive drugs) used for convenience or as birth control.
In particular, my consistent life approach to abortion is informed by the following twelve considerations:
1. Every human life, both male AND female, is sacred and good, and humans are indwelt by God's very own Spirit (cf. Genesis 1-2). In the ministry of Jesus Christ, we find that humans are sacred and infinitely valuable as individuals, and not just as a group or community. From Jesus’ healing of individuals, to his conversation with the thief on the cross, to his parable of leaving 99 sheep to rescue one, he displays the worth of human individuals. Thus individual persons should never be treated as "means to an end", nor willingly sacrificed for any other purpose, whether profit or power, ideology or orthodoxy, community or convenience.
2. Human life begins in the womb, and Scripture says that we are formed by God in the womb (cf. Psalm 139; Jeremiah 1). God is intimately involved with all aspects of each and every person’s growth and development, and intends each of us to be who we are.
3. Christian tradition is at odds over exactly when, in the womb, the fetus is "quickened" or made fully alive, by God's Spirit. The question here is at what point the new life ceases being merely tissue in the body of the mother, and becomes a person in its own right. Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the great fathers of Catholic Theology, held the view of Aristotle. They said that the fetus was not fully alive until 40 days after conception for males, and 90 for females. More recent speculations have placed the "quickening" of the fetus at the first movement, or the first heartbeat, or the first neural signals, or at the moment of conception. The last view seems to be most vocally held view nowadays, but even Catholic tradition is at variance with itself on this.
The main problem with views that place "quickening" AFTER conception is: What if we are wrong? What if we are treating something as "tissue" if in fact it is a person? Killing that "tissue" then becomes murder of a person.
The main problem with the view that conception and "quickening" are the same event is: What about every miscarriage or shed embryo? Should they all be buried and treated as we would other human deaths? But, if early stage embryos are not fully human yet, and we harm someone who is fully human to protect an embryo, are we then guilty of crime against real humans?
4. The Gospels portray our Lord Jesus Christ (as well as John the Baptist) as chosen and alive from the womb (cf. Matthew 1-3, Luke 1-3). In his public ministry Jesus demonstrated special concern for children (cf. Matthew 18), but also for women, both old and young, rich and poor, Jewish and Gentile. So, Jesus seems to place a high value on both children and their mothers. This is foreshadowed by the Hebrew Scriptures, in which God works in the lives of elderly mothers like Sarah; Slave mothers like Hagar, Bilhah, and Zilpah; And young mothers like Rachel and Leah.
Thus, from Scripture we have two competing moral goods which need to be upheld as we develop policies regarding life in the womb:
(a) The health and bodily autonomy of the mother
(b) The health and bodily viability of the unborn
Both of these moral goods are absolute and binding, and must be considered in any decision which arbitrates between lesser and greater goods which are upheld, and the lesser and greater evils which are entailed.
5. The Judeo-Christian tradition has consistently declared murder as evil, wrong, and outside the bounds of Divine Justice. We can see this from the time of the first murder (Genesis 4), to the Sixth Commandment (Deuteronomy 5, Exodus 20), to Christ's teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), to Paul's summary of the Law (Romans 13). The Great Commandments of Love (cf. Matthew 22.36-40) and the New Commandment of Christlike Love (cf. John 13, 15), both presuppose that the purpose of human life is to actively and altruistically seek to enhance the lives of others, rather than diminishing the lives of others for personal gain.
6. Within these Love commands is also the injunction to "love ourselves": God's general desire is for us to act for our self-preservation and enhancement, so long as this does not harm others. God does not generally desire for us to help others to the extent it causes lasting harm to ourselves. For instance: While Jesus sacrificed himself willingly for our salvation, he sent his disciples out as missionaries first and foremost, not as sacrificial victims. He did not tell them to run into the arms of their persecutors and kill themselves, but rather go and spread the Good News of Life through Christ. Then Jesus told them that if this entailed persecution and self-sacrifice, to endure it, but not to actively seek it.
7. And thus we can make the distinction between martyrs and murderers: There is a difference between sacrificing one's own life for the good of someone else, and sacrificing someone else for one's own benefit. Sacrificing someone else who is unable to choose to give their own life is murder, and should always be avoided. Voluntary self-sacrifice by someone who is old enough and informed enough to choose to sacrifice themselves can be a noble act if the situation demands it (or it can be a needless tragedy if the situation did not demand it). We are never called by God to be murderers, and relatively few people are called to be martyrs, and only in extreme circumstances. The norm is to practice self-preservation and caretaking so that we may be in the best position to love and heal and bless others.
8. The decision to martyr oneself is a sacred decision between the individual and their God. I can offer pastoral counsel and theological consideration for people, but I cannot tell them if God is calling them to martyr themselves. That decision is between themselves and God, and may not be mandated or legislated for them, because forced self-sacrifice is form of murder. So if a mother is confronted by a pregnancy which could end or permanently harm her life, or the life of her child, she has the moral responsibility to choose which life to save. She both has a moral duty to protect her life, and protect the life of her child. And these duties are both equally important and in conflict in this instant. So, whether she knowingly chooses to protect and preserve her life, or sacrifice her life for the pregnancy, she must be given the freedom to make this sacred decision with God.
This idea that freedom (or liberty) is a sacred right is rooted in our creation in God's image. God is radically free to make choices, and has also given us this freedom as his children, with all of the consequences this entails. Unlike God, we can and will misuse our freedom at times, and also make healthy and life-giving choices at times. But this freedom is in turn built on bodily autonomy. The concept of freedom entails the use of one's body as the person sees fit, and having our body controlled by others is not consistent with our Divine Right of freedom. So, bodily autonomy should ONLY be curtailed by others (or the state) if a person's use of their body would harm the innocent (such as stopping and imprisoning a criminal). But in this particular case, the question is about pregnancies in which the life and body of the unborn is harming (or will harm) the life and body of the woman.
9. No pregnancy is fully certain and safe, and they all occur on a continuum from relatively safe, to almost certainly lethal for mother and/or child. Even a "safe" pregnancy brings about a host of difficulties, costs of time and resources, and considerable personal sacrifice and suffering, even for women who are healthy and well-prepared. The reason why a pregnancy may be more or less dangerous is complex, and includes physical, emotional, social, and economic causes. A certified medical professional is the only person who can accurately assess the danger of a pregnancy for the mother and child, and offer treatment advice. I am in no way certified to evaluate those causes, or their potential effects, on the mother or the child. All I can say is that God deeply values the life of BOTH mother AND child, and that Christ died and rose again for the liberation, salvation, and abundant life of BOTH mother and child.
10. If a certified medical professional advises that a pregnancy is relatively safe, and does not represent a clear and present threat to mother and child, I believe that it is in the best interest of society and all involved that the child be born. But I am fully aware that this comes from my perspective as a man who cannot be pregnant, as a husband of a mother who willingly went through difficult pregnancies, and as a father of three children who I support with my wife, in a nurturing and well-resourced family. Change any of these factors, and my perspective might shift radically. So, I feel profoundly uncomfortable laying down a rule for all women in a dispassionate and seemingly objective way.
9. No pregnancy is fully certain and safe, and they all occur on a continuum from relatively safe, to almost certainly lethal for mother and/or child. Even a "safe" pregnancy brings about a host of difficulties, costs of time and resources, and considerable personal sacrifice and suffering, even for women who are healthy and well-prepared. The reason why a pregnancy may be more or less dangerous is complex, and includes physical, emotional, social, and economic causes. A certified medical professional is the only person who can accurately assess the danger of a pregnancy for the mother and child, and offer treatment advice. I am in no way certified to evaluate those causes, or their potential effects, on the mother or the child. All I can say is that God deeply values the life of BOTH mother AND child, and that Christ died and rose again for the liberation, salvation, and abundant life of BOTH mother and child.
10. If a certified medical professional advises that a pregnancy is relatively safe, and does not represent a clear and present threat to mother and child, I believe that it is in the best interest of society and all involved that the child be born. But I am fully aware that this comes from my perspective as a man who cannot be pregnant, as a husband of a mother who willingly went through difficult pregnancies, and as a father of three children who I support with my wife, in a nurturing and well-resourced family. Change any of these factors, and my perspective might shift radically. So, I feel profoundly uncomfortable laying down a rule for all women in a dispassionate and seemingly objective way.
Each and every pregnancy is a different situation, and the best decision can only be made by the woman involved, with adequate support from the entire community around her. Because the responsibility for that child is not only borne by the mother, but also by the father, and also by all of society, since we are all "our brother's keeper" (cf. Genesis 4). Furthermore, we are members of a common Body together, because society forms a “Body Politic” and the Church forms the “Body of Christ” (cf. 1Corinthians 12; Romans 12). Our lives are woven together with each and every other human, so that everything that happens to one member affects every other member of the Body. Thus, we all bear responsibility for every other person, and must work together for the health and flourishing of every other person.
This principle of social membership and solidarity means that a truly just society will ensure that all of God's children have the “daily bread” they need to survive and thrive, including food, shelter, medical care, and education (all the things Jesus provided for people through his ministry). This is particularly true for the most vulnerable and helpless in society, including the very young and the very old. Thus, a society that is willing to say that every viable pregnancy should be brought to term is also a society that MUST provide for all needs that these pregnancies entail. This includes but is not limited to: Healthcare, Childcare, Educational opportunities, Sex education and availability of contraception, Adoption process access, and Assistance from the father. Anything less equates to the social sanction of the slow murder of God's children through neglect and negligence.
11. If a certified medical professional advises that a pregnancy is high risk for a mother or the child, then we have an ethical dilemma. God values both mother and child, but often only one can be saved. These complex cases cannot be pre-judged. Decisions should be based on the best practices of medical science, and the prayerful decision of the mother. Pre-judged outcomes which limit medical options can be a form of institutionally mandated murder or abuse, especially if these outcomes require someone to sacrifice their life unwillingly, or permanently damage their health involuntarily. Thus, medical expertise and abortive procedures should be legal and available to provide the best care, and save the most lives possible, if medical professionals deem that saving the mother's life entails ending the child's life.
While "pro-life" advocates often frame this medical decision to save the mother at the expense of the child to be a murder, I think this is incorrect. Murder assumes that both persons COULD live, BUT we are arbitrarily choosing to eliminate the child, to make life more convenient for the mother. This is not the case. Instead, this is a medical calculation that both persons will NOT be able to live under any circumstances. The choice is NOT between good and bad outcomes, BUT between bad and worse outcomes. We must either lose one or both lives. This is not murder, but more like the choice of a fireman who enters a burning building and realizes that they can only save one of two people who are trapped inside. They do not have time and resources to save both. Thus, while abortion may be intrinsically evil, in cases where the mother's life is at risk, it may be a lesser evil and necessary decision to save at least one of the persons in the situation.
Thus, I personally feel uncomfortable with both the "pro-life" label and the "pro-choice" label, because both tend to reduce this complex issue down to just the mother and child without reference to broader medical, social, and economic responsibilities. Since I am closer to the "pro-life" view in many ways, I worry that often this means merely "pro-birth" and not actually "pro-life". What I mean is this: Many "pro-life" advocates seem like they will do almost anything to make sure babies are born, but almost nothing to provide for those babies once they are here. The truth is, if we want to ensure every viable life comes into the world, we need to be prepared to pay more taxes, give more charity, and offer more assistance, so those lives can not only survive but thrive. In the end, I would rather say that I am "pro-human" because I seek to maximize health and human flourishing for the most people possible, while doing harm to the least.
In an ideal world, there would be no need for abortion, and every human life that came into the would would be cherished, respected, and provided with all the resources they need to survive and thrive. But since we live in a fallen world, and since some pregnancies can be life threatening, a just society will allow for abortive medical procedures which will save the mother's life, when a certified medical professional has judged this the best course of action to save the mother's life. This complex, dreadful, and sometimes necessary decision should be left in the hands of medical professionals, the parent(s), and their God. Legislators and religious leaders have neither the expertise, nor the experience with each particular situation, to offer a pre-judged law or mandate which can designate what course of action to take in life-threatening pregnancies.
No comments:
Post a Comment