Concerning the practice of abortion in the United States there is both good news and bad news. The good news is that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the number of abortions is at its lowest point since Roe v Wade. In 1981, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44) was at its highest point (29.3). Since then, it has steadily declined. In 2017 it reached its historic low of 13.5.[1] We’ll look at some of the possible reasons for this decline later in this essay.
The bad news is that abortion is still at shockingly high levels. The mantra of “pro-choice” politicians is that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” But abortion is anything but “rare” in the United States. According to the research arm of Planned Parenthood, “abortion remains a common experience for women in the U.S.; roughly one-third of women will have an abortion during their reproductive lifetime.” This equates to about 1.2 million abortions every year. Surveys indicate that only about 10 percent of abortions occur beyond the first 12-13 weeks, or the first trimester. But that still means that annually in the U.S. a disturbingly high number of abortions (120.000) take place in the second and third trimesters.[2] As I will discuss shortly, the number of abortions is dramatically higher among African American women. In New York City, for example, among black women abortions are more frequent than live births.[3]
Central to the Christian tradition is the belief that all life is sacred and should be valued and protected—especially those who are most marginalized and vulnerable. Historically, Christians have therefore identified “pro-life” with opposition to abortion because the unborn are often the most vulnerable, exploited, and discarded population. At the same time, being “pro-life” must involve a concern to protect both prenatal and postnatal life. This means adopting an approach that is completely and consistently pro-life—recognizing the inherent worth and value of every human being. Charles Camosy suggests that such a Consistent Life Ethic (CLE) involves a number of principles:
“It is always wrong to radically reduce someone’s inherent dignity for some other end.”
“In every circumstance, give priority to protecting and supporting the lives of the most vulnerable, especially those who cannot speak up in their own defense.”
“Resist appeals to individual autonomy that detach us from our duty to aid.”
“Resist language, practices, and social structures that detach us from the full reality and dignity of the marginalized.”
“Go to the peripheries, even when there is risk, showing hospitality and care to the stranger.”[4]
As Camosy further points out, what introduces moral and legal complexity into the abortion debate is that the mother of the unborn also often belongs to a marginalized and vulnerable population. This prevents us from adopting any simplistic “us versus them” rhetoric.[5] Indeed, any objective treatment of abortion must acknowledge that there are deep inconsistencies—one could even say tragic ironies—in the traditional binary “pro-life” vs “pro-choice” arguments. This will become apparent as we look at three issues in particular: 1) women, poverty, and abortion; 2) patriarchalism and coercion in abortion; and 3) consumerism and autonomy in abortion.
Women, Poverty, and Abortion
On area that is not given sufficient attention in the current debate is the relationship between poverty and the practice of abortion. An unbiased analysis of this inter-relationship exposes the deep inadequacies of both the pro-life and pro-choice approaches to abortion.
Poverty and Abortion
Women are much more likely than men to be poor, and to suffer from “deep poverty” (i.e., having an income that is less than half of the federal poverty line). In addition, poverty among women is intricately connected with being a single parent. Almost 31 percent of households headed by a single woman are below the poverty line, compared to just 6 percent of two-parent households. Over 80 percent of the single-parent households are headed by women; and almost half of the children living with only their mother are poor.[6] This trend, called the “feminization of poverty,” is a significant factor in incidences of abortion. Nearly half of all the abortions in the United States involve women who are “poor” (below the poverty line) and another 25 percent are carried out by women who are “low income” (100-200 percent of the federal poverty level).[7] Race is also a factor. As I indicated above, African American women have the highest abortion rate in the U.S. In 2008, the abortion rate for non-Hispanic White women was 12 abortions per 1,000 reproductive-age women, 29 per 1,000 for Hispanic women, and 40 per 1,000 for non-Hispanic Black women.[8] African American women account for about 30 percent of abortions, compared to 25 percent for Hispanics, 36 percent for Non-Hispanic whites, 9 percent for people of other races.[9]
Women in poverty are particularly vulnerable to the high cost of health care. In 2017, roughly one out of four women said that they delayed or went without care because of costs. This is particularly problematic for African American women who are also more likely than white women to be diagnosed with chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension. Poor women—particularly minorities—are therefore caught in a vicious cycle. Health care costs lead to financial insecurity which, in turn, leads to lack of treatment and poor health. Those in low-wage jobs without schedule flexibility are at risk of losing their jobs if they miss work for medical treatment or because of illness.[10]
Any realistic and effective response to abortion must address the question, “What factors influence women to have an abortion?” Since those in the middle- or upper-income groups account for 25 percent of abortions in the U.S. we cannot say that structural poverty is the only factor. But for many women who are poor or extremely poor, fear of losing a job, inability to support a child, inadequate access to healthcare, and lack of a support system all contribute to the feeling that they have no other choice but to terminate a (usually unexpected) pregnancy. For single mothers who are already economically vulnerable having a baby can be financially devastating.[11] Birth of another child can drive an entire family into homelessness—as is indicated by the fact that the age at which a person is most likely to be homeless is one year old. In 2017, 2,358 families in New York City’s main shelter system had children under the age of one.[12]
The Inadequacies of Pro-life and Pro-choice Responses
The responses of both liberal “pro-choice” and conservative “pro-life” advocates to these realities are inadequate and often self-contradictory. Liberals argue for federal and state funding for abortions. But government programs offering “free abortions” simply increase the abortion rate; government is effectively “placing its thumb on the scale” to favor death for the unborn. Moreover, surveys indicate that despite having higher rates of abortion, low-income women and women of color tend to be more opposed to abortion than other women. This is even more remarkable given the fact that African American women are four times more likely to die during pregnancy due to poor health than white women.[13] For many women, economic realities pressure them to act against their convictions. As Frederica Mathewes-Green, a pro-life feminist puts it, “no one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”[14] This is particularly true for women caught in the trap of poverty and extreme poverty. For them, having an abortion is an “unchoice.”
For years, the debate has waged between liberal and conservative policymakers over whether to reduce abortions by fighting poverty or passing pro-life laws. But these are false alternatives. The tendency among conservative pro-life activists and politicians has been to advocate for more laws restricting access to abortions. Over the past two decades, many U.S. states have passed hundreds of laws limiting or banning abortions. The decline in abortion rates can be at least partially attributed to such legislation.[15] But laws designed to protect the lives of the unborn which do not also address the issue of poverty and lack of access to affordable healthcare simply push poor women and families deeper into poverty and poor health.
Providing material assistance and various social and healthcare services have proven to be effective in reducing abortions.[16] One study conducted by political scientists Joseph Wright and Michael Bailey indicates that during the 1990s—a decade during which there was a significant drop in abortion rates—“states with more generous grants to women, infants, and children under the age of 5 . . . had a 37 percent lower abortion rate.”[17] Camosy suggests that “the most important factor in reducing abortion rates may be the 2010 Affordable Care Act” which not only expands Medicaid health benefits and provides assistance in purchasing health insurance but also includes provisions for adoption and prenatal care which pro-lifers have pushed for many years.[18] Yet one of President Trump’s main objectives has been to undermine and eventually dismantle the ACA.
Steven Tracy, a professor of theology and ethics at Phoenix Seminary, confesses that for many years he took a “minimalistic” approach to the “pro-life” cause. He writes:
I prided myself in placing a high value on the life of the unborn but didn’t extend the same concern and value to babies once they were born, particularly the poor and ethnic minorities. All too often those of us in the pro-life movement are, at best, known only for being anti-abortion, and, at worst, for being anti-social justice.[19]
Thankfully, according to Tracy, there is a growing reaction to this moral and legal schizophrenia and more and more American religious pro-lifers are developing a broader social justice understanding of what it means to be pro-life.
For some pro-life activists, a “social justice” approach means that the church must do more to provide direct, comprehensive services to pregnant girls and women, particularly the vulnerable and poor. In the words of one pro-lifer,
We can’t just vote pro-life and think that takes care of it. We need to make abortion seem unnecessary. . . . Every reason a woman has an abortion—usually it’s fear. We want to as the body of Christ, help eliminate that fear. We want to help women feel empowered and brave.[20]
In the decades since Roe v Wade, over 2,000 crisis pregnancy centers have sprung up across the U.S. Their primary mission is simple and commendable—save the baby. But many of these pregnancy centers have been criticized for a singular focus on saving the life in the womb that neglects the factors which contribute to unplanned pregnancies (coercion, social isolation, and unhealthy views on sexuality) and create a felt need for abortion (poverty, insufficient medical care, and the lack of a committed partner). In response, pregnancy centers are adopting a variety of new approaches and methods of care that aim at reducing the demand for abortion. Overall, these efforts are more pro-active, strategic, holistic, and comprehensive; they also engage the community in ways that extend beyond the center itself.[21] In short, conservative evangelicals—who are often the most vocally “pro-life” in the abortion debate—can show that they care about life in all stages and work to bring about social transformation by becoming more involved in their communities, not just politics.
Patriarchalism and Coercion in Abortion
Recently, a young woman named Maegan Chen recounted her personal experience of coercion while dating Star Wars actor Mark Hamill’s son Nathan. Despite being on the pill, she discovered that she was pregnant with his child. As she tells the story, Maegan had previously experienced an abortion and she didn’t want to go through that again. But Nathan kept pressuring her to get an abortion. At seven weeks, she relented. Due to scheduling conflicts with clinics, Maegan ended up using the RU-486 pill. But it didn’t work—so she was now faced with a high-risk pregnancy. At that point, she decided to keep the baby. Despite her statements that she didn’t want his family’s money, Nathan’s constant badgering didn’t stop. Matters got even worse when Nathan’s mother stepped in with a barrage of emails. “Verbal abuse, manipulation, lies, and coercion,” Maegan writes, “led me to a state of overwhelming hopelessness.” At 21 weeks Maegan finally agreed to get an abortion. When she was informed by the clinic that it would be a major procedure, she told her story to the nurse who then advised her that she should not have the abortion if it was against her will. The nurse offered to give her paperwork falsely stating that she had completed the procedure. Maegan ended up carrying the baby to term. “In a less-than-great situation,” she concludes, “I did what I thought was right. In the end, I’m happy with that choice, and I’m happy to welcome my daughter into this world.”[22]
Abortion and Freedom to Choose
Though dramatic, the experience of Meagan is not unique. The perception often promoted by the pro-choice advocates that women who terminate their pregnancies freely “choose” to have an abortion and that abortion “empowers” them to have control over their own bodies is a myth. Various studies have documented that a significant percentage of American women who have had an abortion felt some form and degree of pressure to abort an unplanned pregnancy. A survey of women who have had a history of abortions, published recently in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, found that among the 987 respondents:
Three quarters (74%) admitted that they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancies.
More than half (58%) indicated that they decided to abort to make others happy.
Nearly 30% admitted fearing that if they did not terminate their pregnancy, they would lose their partner.
Two-thirds (66%) knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong. [23]
Steven Mosher, the President of the Population Research Institute, describes these findings as “alarming.” They suggest, he says, “that a substantial number of women in America today who supposedly “choose” abortion are actually being pressured into it by their husbands, boyfriends, or family members.”[24] In the previous essay on the origins of the pro-life movement I have referred to the view of early pro-life feminists that abortion is the “ultimate exploitation” of women. In many ways, we still live in a patriarchal society in which a woman’s pregnancy and the recourse to abortion serves the interests of men. When economic structures do not include such things as mandatory pregnancy leave and child care for female workers or equal pay for equal work regardless of whether a woman chooses to have children it puts women at an economic disadvantage relative to men and undermines true reproductive freedom. As Camosy states, “being pregnant and having children is often so burdensome for women precisely because our social structures have been designed by and for human beings who cannot get pregnant.”[25] The United States is the only nation in the developed world that does not provide some level of mandatory paid family leave for working women. “It is barbarous to pit women against their own children—and insist they imitate the unpregnant bodies of men—so they can have economic and social equality.”[26]
But men are more directly responsible for abortions in other ways. Multiple studies, for example, find a strong correlation between intimate partner violence (otherwise referred to as domestic violence) and abortion. One study found that “intimate partner violence is associated with termination of pregnancy and that a woman’s partner not knowing about the termination is a risk factor for intimate partner violence among women seeking termination.” This study further indicates that “violence can lead to pregnancy and to subsequent termination of pregnancy, and that there may be a repetitive cycle of abuse and pregnancy.”[27] This is particularly true of black women who are disproportionately victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.[28] Most men, of course, do not resort to violence. They may simply pressure a sexual partner to have an abortion when having a child will place an unwanted burden upon them, both economically and socially. As the previously mentioned survey documents, almost one-third (30%) of the women admit to having an abortion because they are afraid of losing their partner. In another study, almost half (48%) give “fear of being a single mother” and “having relationship problems” as the reason for terminating a pregnancy.[29]
The Role of the Church
One area that needs to be given more attention concerns the role that religion and churches play in a woman’s reproductive choices. Of the total number of women having abortions in 2014, 24% were Catholic, 17% identified as mainline Protestant and 13% were Evangelical, compared to 38% who reported no religious affiliation at all. In a 2015 survey by Care Net of 1,038 women who chose an abortion, 70% claim Christian as their religious preference and 43% attended church on a regular (monthly or more) basis at the time of their abortion. Nearly one-quarter (23%) claim to be an evangelical Christian. This same study found that nearly two-thirds (65%) believe that church members judge single women who are pregnant; almost two-thirds (64%) agree that church members are more likely to gossip about a woman considering abortion than help her understand the options; and a majority (54%) thinks that churches oversimplify decisions about pregnancy options. Over half (52%) of churchgoers who have had an abortion have no one at church who knows that they have had a pregnancy terminated.[30]
A weakness of this study is that it is does not consider possible statistical differences based on marital status (single vs married). However, the data suggests that fear of social ostracism or judgment by other church members may compel many single women with unplanned pregnancies to go silently from the church pew to the abortion clinic. A perceived lack of support from the church seems to be an important factor why many women (especially those who are single) choose to abort a pregnancy, often in violation of their personal beliefs. Roland Warren, president and CEO of Care Net, puts it this way: “For most women with an unwanted pregnancy, if nobody is willing to say, ‘We’re going to help you through this,’ it’s hard for them to rationally say they should keep the child.”[31]
Supportive responses from the church are therefore key to the pregnancy decisions of many women. In the words of one pro-life advocate, “We need to make the church the first place a girl is going to run to, instead of away from because of guilt and shame.” Unfortunately, the “purity culture” in many of our churches which stresses abstinence before marriage often places the onus on young women to maintain sexual purity. As Linda Kay Klein argues in her groundbreaking book Pure, young women are often taught that they are responsible for arousing male sexual desires. Concerning Jesus’ warnings regarding sexual lust in the Sermon on the Mount she writes:
In the years I spent as an evangelical Christian, I never once heard anyone use the term as it is used here—in reference to the onlooker’s lustful eye. Instead, I heard it used time and time again to describe girls and women who somehow “elicit” men’s lust.[32]
This use of shame as “strategy” to motivate young women to accept their sexual responsibilities increases feelings of guilt when there is an unplanned pregnancy. The tragic irony is that this has the unintended effect of pushing them toward an abortion—which, in turn, often only increases guilt feelings and emotional trauma. Almost half (49%) of the respondents in the Care Net study feel that the church’s teachings on forgiveness don’t seem to apply to terminated pregnancies.
Consumerism and Autonomy in Abortions
Our abortion culture is also driven by the twin forces of consumerism and personal autonomy. Several factors are particularly important in examining abortion: 1) an instrumental and utilitarian approach to human life; 2) abortion as “big business;” and 3) the use of in vitro fertilization as a “solution” to infertility.
An Instrumental and Utilitarian Approach to Human Life
Notwithstanding the pressures placed on women to terminate a pregnancy, it must also be emphasized that we live in a consumerist throwaway culture that places a premium on human autonomy. In such a culture, everything—including human life—is governed by a utilitarian calculus. That which is “burdensome” and conflicts with personal autonomy and freedom—including the aged, the severely mentally and physically handicapped, and the unborn—can be ignored, rejected, and ultimately discarded. Rather than having inherent, irreducible value, persons become the means to an end in a consumerist culture that views personal desire and pleasure and financial profit as the ultimate criteria for what we do. Robert George rightly states that, “secularism rejects the proposition central to the Judeo-Christian tradition of thought about issues of life and death that human life is intrinsically, and not merely instrumentally, good and therefore morally inviolable.”[33] It is this instrumentalist mentality which allows “pro-choice” advocates to dehumanize the unborn. The violence of abortion is made more palatable to the conscience through the use of “clinical” language and euphemisms like “fetus,” “the product of conception,” and “a piece of tissue” to described prenatal human life.
Women often terminate an unplanned pregnancy because having another child interferes with their career ambitions or desired lifestyle. While poor women have more abortions overall, they are less likely to have a positive or permissive attitude toward the termination of an unplanned pregnancy than are more affluent women. Level of education tracks closely with income and, as one study states:
Education level has a positive relationship with supporting attitudes towards abortion . . . The influence that higher levels of education have on people typically is that they have been exposed to different views, are more open to liberal opinions, are more career oriented and may have different goals that are held above having children. The increase of education level is predicted to increase people’s support for abortion. This is because people who have higher education are more aware of the choices that are available to them.[34]
This study found that among women with a high school education or less 43% had a positive attitude toward abortion compared to 56% for those with a bachelor’s degree and 73% for those with a graduate degree. In other words, as education level increased from high school or less to college and graduate degrees support for abortion rose by roughly 13 and 30 percentage points, respectively.[35] Women with college or advanced degrees are more likely to think that an unplanned pregnancy can “ruin your life” whereas women with high school or less education are more likely respond to an abortion with disdain.[36]
Abortion as “Big Business”
Given this social demand—like almost everything else in our society—market values govern the practice of abortion in the United States. Abortion is big business. Like any business, it operates on the market principle of “supply and demand” and is largely driven by the profit motive. To put it another way, “money talks.” Therefore, abortion is often aggressively marketed in ways that both respond to and increase demand. Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the U.S., reported gross revenues of $1.9 billion and profits of $245 million in 2018; and $1.64 billion in total revenue and profits of $110.5 million in 2019. In 2018-2019, taxpayer funding in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements hit a record high of $616.8 million—38% of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue. For every adoption referral in 2018-19 it performed 81 abortions. Over the past 10 reported years, the ratio was approximately 137 abortions for every adoption referral. In 2018-19, abortions made up 95% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy resolution services, while prenatal services, miscarriage care, and adoption referrals accounted for only 2.7%. 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively.[37] Non-abortion services have declined significantly in recent years. Why? Because it is not in Planned Parenthood’s financial interests to promote any service other than abortion.[38]
Other industries also have financial incentives to promote abortion. In the U.S. 70 – 90 percent of the unborn who test positive for Down syndrome are aborted. On the supposition that such abortions save money, manufacturers of prenatal testing kits sell their products to insurance companies by touting the cost-effectiveness of an early detection of Down syndrome. Some health systems and insurance companies even refuse to provide basic health care coverage for prenatal babies with a serious health diagnosis if the parents refuse to abort. Many parents are therefore coerced into considering an abortion which is contrary to their desires or religious beliefs.[39]
Various industries such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics profit from what has been referred to as the “fetal distribution chain.” The reality of these abortion related industries is not a topic of general knowledge or concern. But it shows how deeply the love of money, which the Bible describes as the “root of all evil,” has affected the practice and politics of abortion.[40] What is known as the “fetal tissue industry” has grown considerably in conjunction with the abortion industry. Victoria Evans’ description of this industry recalls the use of humans for medical experimentation by the Nazis:
Few questions are asked about what happens to the millions of fetuses that are by-products of abortion. . . . Simply defined, fetal tissue is taken from a human fetus. It includes the entire fetus or his or her individual body parts—like blood, bone marrow, organs, brain, spinal cord, eyes, arms, legs, and so on. . . . The tissue can be obtained ethically from ectopic pregnancies or spontaneous abortion, but its most available and functional source is induced abortion. Its uses involve medical research and experimentation and product development.[41]
Companies like Life Dynamics profit from the growing market in fetal tissues, body parts, and organs. The wholesaler—the middleman between the “seller” (abortion clinic) and the “buyer”—can make substantial profits. But the most significant profit potential rests with the end-user, “the scientific researcher who resides in an educational or governmental institution or the product-development department of a pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or cosmetics company. The prospects for profit here are virtually unlimited.”[42]
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Abortion
Finally, there is the sobering issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and abortion. To put this issue into proper perspective, consider the following: Some years ago, Judge Richard Posner, a leading proponent of the “law and economics” movement, proposed that the allocation of babies put up for adoption should be governed by the market. He acknowledged that the price of adoption would vary according to the “desirability” of the baby. But he maintained that the “free market” would be more efficient in the allocation of babies than the current system of adoption, which allows adoption agencies to charge a flat fee but prohibits them from charging a “market price.”[43] Many people would strongly disagree with such a proposal. Babies should not be bought and sold, like a car or a house, no matter how efficient the market! Human life is priceless. Yet today any infertile couple can go online to find an egg donation clinic from which they can purchase an egg (which is generally fertilized in vitro) for as much as $100,000, depending upon the desired characteristics (IQ, skin or hair color, eye color, etc.) Such clinics are largely unregulated. Ethically, there seems to be little difference between such procedures and auctioning or charging market price for babies. We have entered Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
In 2011 the New York Times published a story about a couple who, after using in vitro fertilization discovered fourteen weeks into the pregnancy that she was pregnant with twins. What drew national attention was that they decided to “reduce” the twins to a single pregnancy through abortion. The mother who was 45 at the time later explained:
Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn’t had children already or if we were more financially secure . . . If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn’t have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there’s a natural order, then you don’t want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner—in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me—and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control.[44]
The use of in vitro fertilization greatly increases the likelihood of multiples and those who offer such procedures say that the practice of “pregnancy reduction” is on the rise.[45]
In vitro fertilization is easily influenced by consumerism. The artificial nature of IVF and the fact that the above couple was “purchasing” a child made it easier for them to view this termination of a human life as “just another choice.” As Sheehan Iyengar, author of The Art of Choosing puts it in a TED talk, “the story upon which the American dream depends is the story of limitless choice.”[46] But IVF and other reproductive technologies raise disturbing questions of ethical and legal boundaries. Where do we draw the line? What if the unborn is the wrong sex (male/female) or is diagnosed as having certain abnormalities that are deemed “undesirable?” Currently, a technology called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) makes it possible to examine embryos created through IVF before implantation in the woman’s uterus. Unwanted “defective” embryos are routinely discarded. Even more problematic is the fact that people can use the same PGD technology to select desired traits. As we have noted, a couple using IVF is given choices based on characteristics such a sex, height, hair and eye color, and even skin complexion and body build.[47] The price tag varies depending upon what they choose. Such a mentality discards or reduces in value that which is not wanted or less wanted. “It reduces everything—including people—into mere things whose worth consists only in being bought, sold or used, and which are then discarded when their market value has been exhausted.”[48]
Every year, thousands of infertile couples resort to IVF. Hundreds of thousands of babies have been conceived through this method. It is becoming more and more common as couples delay having children and lose their capacity to conceive naturally.[49] When a woman uses in vitro fertilization usually dozens of her eggs (or the eggs of another woman) are fertilized and then screened to choose the most genetically “fit” embryo(s) to implant. Typically, some “extra” embryos are retained and frozen should something go wrong with the pregnancy. Legally, the woman has the choice as to whether the remaining embryos are disposed of or donated to research or other women. If, as religious conservatives assert, an embryo is a human “person” then IVF should be met with the same moral condemnation as legal abortions. Norman Geisler argues:
According to present methods, the majority of embryos are sacrificed in order to get one that will survive. This means that we are knowingly causing the death of many tiny human beings in order to get one to develop. Since the end does not justify this means, in vitro fertilization which wastes embryos is morally wrong.[50]
Overall, however, pro-life Christians have not treated IVF with the same seriousness as abortion. To the contrary, infertile couples are often congratulated when they successfully bear a child through this method. Since the 1970s an estimated 500,000 embryos have been frozen and preserved as the result of IVF. The question is, what should be done with these frozen embryos? If a human embryo has the same moral status as an adult human, logic would seem to dictate that Christians should be advocating for “embryo adoption”—unfreezing the embryos and implanting them so they can develop to term in an adoptive mother. The child given birth through this process is called a “snowflake” baby. Some embryo adoption awareness organizations such as the Snowflake Embryo Adoption Agency suggest that adopting an embryo is morally akin to adopting or “saving” an abandoned child.[51] In my next essay I will address the question of the moral status of the fertilized ovum (zygote). Regardless whether the human embryo is a “person,” it nonetheless has great value. At the very least, then, IVF should be actively discouraged, and emphasis should be placed on traditional adoption as the most “pro-life” alternative to infertility as well as abortion.
[1] French, “Do Pro-Lifers Who Reject Trump Have ‘Blood on Their Hands’?” [2] Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars, 17-19. [3] See Wilson, “Where New York’s Not Proud to Lead.” [4] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 47-48. [5] Ibid., 127. [6] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Poverty and Abortion,” 1-2. [7] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 132. [8] See Dehlendorf, “Disparities in Abortion Rates.” [9] Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, “Women of Color and the Struggle for Reproductive Justice,” 1. [10] See Borcheli, “The Impact Poverty Has on Women’s Health,” 1-11. [11] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 132. [12] See Stewart, “Baby Antonio.” [13] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 152-53. [14] Tracy, “Abortion, the Marginalized, and the Vulnerable,” 29. [15] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 136. [16] Tracy, “Abortion, the Marginalized, and the Vulnerable,” 29-30. [17] Ibid., 30. [18] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 137. [19] Tracy, “Abortion, the Marginalized, and the Vulnerable,” 27. [20] Silliman, “On the Front Lines.” [21] Bear, “A New Kind of Pregnancy Center.” [22] Chen, “It Happened to Me.” [23] Coleman et. al., “Women Who Suffered Emotionally from Abortion,” 113-18. [24] Abbamonte, “Many American Women Have Felt Pressured into Abortions, Study Finds,” 1. [25] Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars, 118. [26] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 146-47. [27] Hall et. al., “Associations Between Intimate Partner Violence and Termination of Pregnancy.” [28] Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, “Women of Color and the Struggle for Reproductive Justice,” 1. [29] Finer, et. al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions,” 112. [30] Care Net, “Study of Women Who Have Had an Abortion and Their Views on the Church.” [31] Green, “New Study: Women Go Silently from Church to Abortion Clinic,” 3. [32] Klein, Pure, 3. [33] George, Clash of Orthodoxies, 4. [34] Rinderknecht, “Supporting Attitudes on Abortion,” 2. [35] Ibid., 9. [36] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 152. [37] Planned Parenthood, “Fact Sheet: Planned Parenthood’s 2018-19 Annual Report.” [38] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 139. [39] Ibid., 158-59. [40] Evans, “Commercial Markets Created by Abortion,” 30. [41] Ibid., 33. [42] Ibid., 34. [43] Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy, 95. [44] Padawer, “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy.” [45] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 133. [46] Ibid. [47] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 111. [48] Ibid., 35. [49] Ibid., 98. [50] Geisler, Christian Ethics, 188. [51] Nash, “Abortion: Drawing a Line of Moral Permissibility in Fetal Development,” 75-76.
Commenti