In a monumental decision, the Supreme Court has given a victory to pro-life advocates for the unborn by overturning Roe v. Wade, ending a half-century of nationwide legalized abortion in the U.S. To be clear, however, while the historic 6-3 decision acknowledges that “abortion presents a profound moral question” it does not ban or criminalize abortion, nor does it recognize an unborn child’s constitutional right to life. It merely returns the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion to “the people and their elected representatives” of each state.
Abortion is an extraordinarily complex issue which requires honest dialogue and humility within the context of the Christian community. Christians—particularly evangelical Christians—have tended to put all their eggs into the political basket. But, argues the Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas, by largely restricting “the moral question of abortion” to the language of politics Christians have failed to fully articulate and make intelligible the reasons for our rejection of abortion within the Christian community.[1] In other words, instead of framing the issue of abortion within the limited framework of politics, Christians should begin with the implications of biblical principles for the thinking and practice of the Christian community. This does not mean that public policy is unimportant. It most assuredly is. But Christians must first assess the morality of abortion as it relates to the Christian community using categories given to us by Scripture.[2] Russell Moore reminds us that the church has little right to engage the secular society or political powers-that-be on issues of justice and “family values” until it has its own house in order. The call for righteousness in the sociopolitical realm is biblical; but “such righteousness begins in the internal structures and relationships of the people of God (1 Pet 4:17).”[3]
In this essay, I will begin with attempts throughout the history of church to determine when someone becomes a living soul. This has particular relevance for the modern debate over abortion since in the minds of many the question of the origin of the soul is bound up with the issue of whether abortion involves the killing of an innocent person (Gen 9:6; Exod 20:13). As we will see, the meaning of personhood is complicated by the phenomena of twinning and recombination. I will then look at how the Bible has been used and abused in the current abortion debate and suggest some themes or biblical paradigms that are important for addressing this issue within the context of the church. We will conclude with some implications for a Christian approach to public policy.
Twinning, Recombination, and the Origin of the Soul
A key question in the abortion debate even within the church is how we should think of the moral status of the unborn (embryo/fetus). On the one hand, those who are “pro-choice” typically argue that unborn should not be regarded “persons” until they acquire certain traits or characteristics (i.e., viability, rationality, self-awareness, etc.). At some point, there is a “transition” from “non-person” to “person.” On the other hand, conservative “pro-life” advocates maintain that what is morally relevant is not the appearance, size, or functional characteristics of the unborn. Biologically, a fertilized human ovum contains all the genetic information that is needed—twenty-three chromosomes from the male sperm and twenty-three chromosomes from the female ovum for a total of 46 chromosomes—to form a human being. Thus, argue conservative pro-lifers, all the physical characteristics of an individual person are contained in the genetic code present at conception.[4] The unborn from his or her earliest embryonic state is not a potential person but a person with great potential for further development and maturation.
A common assumption among many “pro-life” conservatives is that to be a member of the species homo sapiens is the same thing as to be a person. But merely to assume this is to beg the question.[5] Even those who take a strong anti-abortion stance concede that science alone is insufficient in establishing the moral status of the embryo or fetus though it can certainly show that at the earliest stages it is human.[6] The question of the personhood is not a question that can be resolved simply by an appeal to biology or genetics.
In the Christian tradition personhood is associated with “ensoulment.” Throughout the history of the church many have thought that a determination of the origin of the soul could therefore go a long way toward a resolution of the question of the moral status of the unborn. Presumably, if it can be shown that embryos or fetuses have souls this would provide a basis for taking a strong anti-abortion stance. Alternatively, if ensoulment occurs at a later stage in development this would be consistent with a more moderate or liberal approach.[7] Again, this is a question that cannot be resolved by science or biology for two reasons. First, by the very nature of the case it is primarily a philosophical and theological, not scientific, issue. Secondly, since different theological responses to this question are often (though not always) consistent with the scientific data science alone cannot adjudicate between different perspectives.[8]
Without getting too much into the theological weeds, broadly speaking we can distinguish between two basic perspectives within the Christian tradition on the origin of the soul—Creationism and Traducianism. Briefly put, Creationists maintain that at some point of his choosing between conception and birth, God creates a soul ex nihilo and incorporates it into the fetus. Traducians, on the other hand, hold that “soulish” properties are present in both the sperm and the egg. The soul comes naturally and directly from the parents (mother and father) and is present the moment the ovum is fertilized. When the sperm and the egg come together there is the emergence of a new substantial whole—namely, a soul that informs the zygote and guides the process of further development.[9] For Creationists, God is the direct cause of “ensoulment.” For Traducianists, he is a secondary cause.[10]
Traducianism was the view of many (though not all) of the early church fathers. The pro-life position that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception is consistent with the Traducianist view that each person inherits the human soul from his or her parents at conception. Thus, conservative pro-lifers might be considered modern proponents of Tradutionism. But some prominent theologians in the history of the church such as St. Jerome, St. Augustine of Hippo (in his early years) and Thomas Aquinas were Creationists. Augustine struggled with the question of the soul’s origin—taking a Creationist perspective early and then gravitating toward Traducianism later in his life. Aquinas held that the soul is infused by God at some later stage when the fetus begins to take human shape. The reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin were Traducianists. But many later Calvinists held to Creationism. Thus, it would be wrong to conclude that there has been a consistent and uniform Christian teaching on this issue.
These differences in viewpoint on the origin of the soul have relevance for the phenomena of both twinning and recombination. Ethicists and theologians have pointed out that the zygote (single cell embryo) is “totipotent”—that is, it lacks the stable basis for the individuality or undividedness that characterizes a “person.” Traditionally, Thomas Shannon and Allan Wolter argue, individuality has been considered a necessary basis for personhood. But a newly fertilized ovum or zygote is not fully formed and therefore it is not a single individual, or “ontological individual.” During the second and third weeks of pregnancy, there is the possibility of twinning and recombination.[11] In short, it takes until the third week to have stable individuality in place. Before that time (generally during the first 12 to 14 days) the early embryo may split into two separate embryos, each with the potential to develop into two more mature individuals. This raises the interesting question: In the case of twinning, if the embryo is truly a distinct individual human, then how can it become two (or more) individuals? Daniel Dombrowski and Robert Deltete argue that, “Biologically, it makes sense that from one cell two individuals can eventually develop, but metaphysically it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how one person can become two persons if a person is by definition, an individual undivided in itself . . .”[12]
For conservatives, however, this is not a problem. In Embryo: A Defense of Human Life Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen describe twinning in terms of a new embryo “budding” from the original embryo which functions as the “parent” of a new embryo. They compare the process of human twinning to the asexual reproduction of flatworms. When a flatworm is cut in half with a razor blade one worm becomes two.[13] J. P. Moreland explains the origin of the soul in the case of twinning from the standpoint of Traducianism:
In Genesis 1 we are told that animals (and plants) reproduce after their kind, and this has frequently been taken to imply a Traducian view of the generation of animal souls. Now in this case, it should be clear that the genetic materials of animals contain soulish potentialities and, thus, are not merely physical/chemical entities. . . . Applied to twinning . . . we simply discover that certain substances, once they have developed a structure adequate to provide a framework for part replacement or for generating new substances, have the capacities in question. Nothing whatsoever in the notion of substantial soul provides a bar to these realities. Because starfish are living, we take them to have souls. But a piece of starfish can be split of and used to grow a new starfish. In this case, the soul of the original starfish is not losing a piece of itself. Rather, as a brute fact we discover that certain organic body parts of the starfish have totipotentiality, soulish potentials to develop a new organism.[14]
Perhaps even more problematic is a phenomenon known as recombination or human embryo combination in which two embryos combine to form one embryo. This process of the two becoming one might happen when there is the death of one embryo and the incorporation of that embryo’s material DNA by the one that lives. But it is also possible for there to be a fusion of two zygotes (two ovum fertilized by two spermatozoa) to produce what is referred to as a “fusion chimera.” The fusion can take place in other ways as well.[15] If an individual zygote is a person, then, as Charles Camosy remarks, “it does seem at least remarkably odd to imagine . . . that one individual human person can combine with another individual human person to become a single human person.”[16] Theologically, how can two persons each with a soul fuse to become one person with one soul?
The Catholic Church has reacted to this issue by refusing to say categorically that the human embryo in fact and beyond doubt is a human person. Rather, its position is that we should err on the side of caution and treat it as a human person.[17] However, some Catholic ethicists and theologians take a different stance. They assert that the embryo at its earliest stage of development has great value but disagree that it is a human person. Richard McCormick describes the embryo’s first two weeks as “nascent human life” but does not consider it an “individual human life.” Charles Curran agrees, stating that “truly human life” does not come into being until two to three weeks after fertilization.”[18]
Some Christian ethicists argue that the decisive “moment” when defines the beginning of an individual human “person” is the implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall, which begins around the sixth- or seventh day following conception. Biologically, the implantation process is not completed until fourteen to nineteen days after fertilization. Once implantation is completed, twinning and recombination are no longer possible and we can speak of “individuation,” or the beginning of an ontologically distinct and unique individual human organism. This marks the key event—the formation of what has been referred to as the “primitive streak” when there is the emergence of the earliest biological tools necessary for sensation, imagination, and rational thought. Proponents of this viewpoint suggest that this is the point of “ensoulment.”[19]
Ethically, this perspective has several implications. First, it can account for the fact that as many as one-half of the embryos spontaneously abort prior to implantation. It seems odd that God would cause the needless deaths of so many persons. Moreover, we do not intuitively morn the loss of so many embryos as we do the loss of infants and children in a natural disaster. Second, some artificial contraceptives such as the IUD, the “morning after” pill, and Ella which are often viewed as morally problematic because they function as abortifacients (or potential abortifacients) might be morally permissible if preventing their use imposes an “undue burden” on the woman. Third, biomedical practices such as stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization (IVF), which generally involve the discarding of unwanted or defective embryos would be regarded as less objectionable in some cases. Senator Orrin Hatch expresses this view in popular language when he states that a human life worthy of respect begins “in a woman’s womb, not a Petri dish.”[20] However, this is an overstatement. Even if the pre-implantation embryo is not considered to be a person, the fact that it is human in the sense that it contains a complete set of human DNA means that it is still of great value and deserving of protection.
The Appeal to Scripture
Christians naturally turn to Scripture to resolve these differences in perspective on abortion. Unfortunately, as Richard Hays points out in The Moral Vision of the New Testament, what complicates matters is the simple fact that there is no passage in the Bible that directly or explicitly addresses this issue. For example, Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 both state: “You shall not murder.” But to use these passages as a basis for prohibiting abortions begs the question, since the central issue is whether abortion is or is not murder.[21] To support their respective positions, both pro-life and pro-choice advocates have therefore cited various “proof texts” that they think express the Bible’s implicit position on abortion and personhood.
The biblical passage which is most often discussed in the debate over abortion is Exodus 21:22-25. This text is part of section of laws dealing with compensation for injuries inflicted through violence. In this case, two men are fighting, and one strikes a pregnant woman unintentionally:
When two 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 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.
While this passage does not deal directly with the question of intentional abortion it is nonetheless viewed as important for determining the value placed on the unborn in Old Testament law. There are multiple problems of interpretation with this passage which cannot be addressed in detail here, The central question is this: Does the text (vs 22) envision the pregnant woman going into early labor and delivering a live baby; or is it describing a miscarriage? Translations differ on this question. The RSV assumes that a "miscarriage" happens. In this translation, if there is “no harm” to the mother only a monetary fine is imposed for the loss of the fetus. The unborn is thus in the category of a “non-person” with less value than that of the mother. However, the NASB and NIV imply that the child is born alive. If both the mother and child survive there should only be a fine; but if any further harm comes to either of them the law of lex talionis would apply (vs 23). On this interpretation, the text makes no distinction between harm done to the child and harm done to the mother. Therefore, the unborn child is viewed as having the same value as the mother. The majority of interpreters favor the former translation. But an increasing number of evangelicals who are pro-life give good reasons for adopting the latter version.[22]
To further complicate matters, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) gives us yet another spin on the text. It assumes a case of miscarriage, but it makes a distinction between a child that is “imperfectly formed” (vs 22) and a child that is “perfectly formed” (vs 23). Its translation is as follows:
And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty . . . But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life. . .
Thus, in the Septuagint translation, the issue is not whether the woman suffers injury but whether the miscarried child is sufficiently developed—that is bears the appearance of human form—that would justify lex talionis rather than a monetary fine.[23]After an exhaustive analysis of the relative merits of the different translations, Mako Nagasawa concludes that there is not sufficient basis for giving priority to either the Hebrew manuscript or the Septuagint. It does not seem, then, that Exodus 21:22-25 is of much help in resolving the differences of opinion over abortion or the moral status of the unborn.[24] As one commentator states: “The complexities involved in attempting to interpret verse 22 make it unwise to press it into service in the abortion controversy, pro or con.”[25]
Two other passages that are often cited by opponents to abortion are Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5. Both texts picture God’s active involvement in the formation of unborn life. David asserts:
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. (Ps 139:13-14a)
Jeremiah likewise states:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)
These passages have value in informing the abortion debate. But, as Hays warns, we should be careful not to read too much into the text. In his words: these passages “cannot be pressed as a way of making claims about the status of the fetus as a ‘person’; rather, they are confessions about God’s divine foreknowledge and care.”[26]
David’s psalm must be interpreted within the larger poetic context. To be sure, it does beautifully convey God’s loving involvement as Creator in the development of the unborn. But commentators suggest that the primary intent of the psalmist in this entire psalm is to convey the omniscience (1-6); omnipresence (7-11); omnipotence (12-16); and righteous judgment (17-24) of God. Some have suggested that the psalm is a plea of innocence (as indicated in vss 23-24) in which the words of praise function as proof of God’s knowledge of the psalmist—knowledge that confirms his innocence. Thus, the passage is in no way explicitly concerned with abortion.[27]
Similar qualifications must be made concerning the passage in Jeremiah. Almost certainly, the real point of this text is not about the prophet’s personhood before birth but about the divine authority of his ministry and message based on his prenatal calling. Furthermore, if we take this text literally, aren’t we faced with the conclusion that personhood begins before conception—since God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”?[28] Taken literally, this passage would confer a “right to life” preceding fertilization—thus leading to the assumption that artificial contraception should be morally prohibited as well as abortion.[29]
Those who gravitate toward the pro-choice position also have their favorite proof texts. For example, Genesis 2:7 states that Adam “became a living being” when God “breathed into his nostrils the breadth of life.” This is taken as support for the position that since breathing does not occur until birth, the unborn are not persons until they are born. But based on the principle of logical consistency this would mean that an adult who has respiratory failure and requires a ventilator is a “non-person.” Furthermore, it leads to the irony that an infant born prematurely at twenty-four weeks has more value than a fetus of thirty-four weeks.
Space does not permit a discussion of all the biblical texts that have been used to support a position for or against abortion. The main point is that the appeal to proof texts usually ends up taking biblical passages out of their context in a way that really says nothing about the inherent or intended meaning of the text and merely supports “the ideological commitments of the text’s readers.”[30] As the saying goes, “Text without context is pretext.” Michael Gorman rightly states that both sides of the abortion debate
have been guilty of irresponsible handling of the biblical texts and, to varying degrees, of failure to deal adequately with the act of abortion. Readers of the Bible who wish to use the Bible to help address the abortion questions must do so by reading the Bible carefully, not sloppily or ideologically, combined with a serious commitment to grappling with the complex moral issues that our contemporary situation presents.[31]
Given this misuse of Scripture, there are those who go to the opposite extreme and avoid the Bible altogether. In reacting against what they regard as “biblical tyranny” and a literalistic “biblicism” which reads the Bible uncritically without engaging in serious moral reflection, they end up rejecting the Bible as the final authority on matters of ethics.[32] But this approach has its own presuppositions which elevate human authority and secular ideologies above that of Scripture. For Christians who take biblical authority seriously, this is a non-starter.
Toward an Alternative Approach
In response to the usual methods of dealing with the issue of abortion, Gorman, Hays, and other biblical scholars have suggested an alternative hermeneutical approach which focuses on addressing the problem through the lens of the biblical worldview. As Gorman describes this approach, “we must seek to ‘enculturate’ or re-appropriate, the image-rich words of Jesus and the biblical writers” and read or interpret abortion in light of those image-rich words. “We are to read Scripture through its narratives, themes, and images, as a means of reading abortion.”[33] Hays describes this as a process of placing the problem of abortion within the broader framework of Scripture’s “symbolic world,” and then “reflecting analogically about the way in which [it] might provide implicit paradigms for our response to the question.”[34]
Foundational are the many Scriptural passages which describe God as the Creator and author of life. In the creation account, God pronounces his blessing that humans should “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Throughout the Bible, children are regarded as a blessing and gift from God. As God’s imagers, we are stewards of the life that God has entrusted to us. This establishes a strong presumption against the taking of life of the unborn at all stages of development. In the words of Hays:
To terminate a pregnancy is not only to commit an act of violence but also to assume responsibility for destroying a work of God, “from whom are all things and for whom we exist (1 Cor 8:6). To put the matter in these terms does not presume any particular decision about when the fetus becomes a “person.” Whether or not we accord “personhood” to the unborn or not, he or she is a manifestation of a new life that has come forth from God. There might be circumstances in which we would deem the termination of such life warranted, but the burden of proof lies heavily upon any decision to undertake such an extreme action. The normal response to pregnancy, within the Bible’s symbolic world, is one of rejoicing for God’s gift—even when that gift comes unexpectedly.[35] (My emphases)
This biblical perspective is fundamentally at odds with the Greco-Roman worldview. In his book When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity O. M. Bakke shows how the early Christians confronted the prevailing view in Greek and Roman law, philosophy, and culture that infants have no inherent rights. Abortion, exposure, and infanticide were commonly practiced in the Greco-Roman world. Various scriptural themes and images within the Judeo-Christian worldview helped shape the early Christian condemnation of these practices.
The following five “master images” or “paradigms” are particularly important for constructing a Christian response to abortion: 1) Image of God; 2) shalom; 3) the Good Samaritan; 4) hospitality; and 5) covenant community. Let’s look briefly at each.
Image of God. A key biblical principle is that all humans have a right to life because they bear the divine image. But what does it mean to be made in the image of God? In what sense does the image of God serve as the basis for defending the rights of the unborn? Through the history of the church there have been many different interpretations of the imago Dei. For our present purposes, we can distinguish between two basic perspectives. The capacities approach defines the divine image bearer (person) as “one who reflects the divine nature by virtue of his or her capacity, whether potential or actualized, to exercise rational, moral, and spiritual agency.”[36] The bestowed worth perspective views the image of God not in terms of the possession of a network of capacities (whether actual or potential) but as a unique and exalted status conferred by God by virtue of his great love for all humans.[37] The “right to life” exists simply by virtue of being a human being, regardless of whether an individual (born or unborn) ever was, ever could be, or ever would be capable of rational, moral, or spiritual agency.
In The Sacredness of Human Life, David Gushee gives a powerful defense of the bestowed worth perspective as it relates to abortion. In his view, the capacities approach has two fundamental flaws. First, in emphasizing human rationality, spirituality, and moral freedom as the basis for personhood it renders as less valuable those who never will develop (the severely mentally retarded) or eventually lose (those with severe Alzheimer’s) the capacities deemed essential to bearing the divine image. Secondly, it risks a denigration of human physicality and embodiment. It leads to an unbiblical separation of the “higher” rational and spiritual functions from the “lower” and less valuable human body and its functions.[38] Biblically, as other scholars have pointed out, humans are not body/soul dualities. The word “soul” does not refer primarily to some immaterial essence in the human person but to the whole human person as a living being. We do not have souls or bodies; we are embodied beings.[39] What has been termed the “essentialist” perspective is therefore closer to the truth in that it refuses to draw a distinction between biological human life and personhood. Although many theologians and ethicists continue to make such a distinction between being human and being a person, Gushee (and others) disagree with this approach. In the final analysis, he argues, “We cannot go looking for something in humanity that in and of itself gains us value and worth.” Humanity’s sacred worth is an ascribed status willed by God.[40] On this basis, the unborn life at its earliest stages of development is sacred simply by virtue of being a member of the human species.
Gushee’s argument has much to commend it. However, it does not totally resolve the difficulty we noted earlier of ascribing personhood to a pre-implantation embryo (zygote) which is totipotent—that is, capable of twinning or recombination, and therefore lacking in stable individuality which characterizes a distinct and unique person. Pro-life advocates regularly appeal to passages such as Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 which describe the relationship of God with the unborn in the womb to establish the personhood of the human zygote. But, again, we should be careful not to read too much into these (and other) passages. The bestowed-worth perspective on the image of God presumes the grounding of human rights (including the right to life of the unborn) in the worth-imparting relation of human beings to God. But Scripture is not totally clear on when or how that relationship begins.
One further difficulty is that there is the possibility that a pre-implantation embryo will implant outside the uterus—resulting in a dangerous and potentially life-threatening “ectopic pregnancy.” It is essential that such pregnancies be terminated as soon as possible. This creates potential legal difficulties if a pre-implantation embryo is considered a person. Pro-life groups such as Personhood USA have pushed for states to rewrite laws and constitutions in ways that would recognize someone as a person “exactly at creation” when the sperm meets the egg. But giving all fertilized eggs legal rights calls into question what kind of methods a doctor can use to protect or save a woman’s life in such situations. These and other considerations helped defeat personhood amendments in Colorado in 2008 and 2010.[41]
In my mind, these factors lend support for the view that the “decisive moment” which marks the beginning of personhood is the completion of implantation—when there is individuation or the coming into existence of a unique individual entity.[42] However, one cannot be dogmatic on this point. This is a “grey area” for which there are no easy answers or clear-cut “rules” of behavior. What I believe we can say is that bestowed worth creates a presumption in favor of life at the earliest stages—which can be terminated only if there is strong moral justification for doing so.
Shalom. Another important biblical concept for responding to abortion is shalom, which Gushee defines as “that state of affairs in which human beings flourish in community and the sacredness of each and every human life is finally honored.”[43] Shalom is peace, wholeness, well-being, harmony, and salvation. It is characterized by right relationships with God, other humans, and the entire creation. It is inextricably bound up with God’s concern for justice—particularly his protection and restoration to community of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society. This concern of God for the oppressed is expressed by the psalmist:
Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy, deliver them from the hand of the wicked. (Ps 82:3-4)
The unborn are the most defenseless—the “least of these”—of society. So-called “pro-choice” liberals are therefore guilty of violating the biblical principles of shalom and restorative justice—and deeply inconsistent given their expressed concern for the socially marginalized—when they emphasize the woman’s “right” to bodily autonomy. Some advocate almost unlimited freedom to “choose” to end the life of the unborn.[44]
But we must also keep in mind that there are many women with crisis pregnancies who themselves are among the weak and defenseless of society. Abortion is most common among the poor and women of color. It is also bound up with male domination and the exploitation of women. God’s concern for the vulnerable includes compassion for needy women facing crisis pregnancies who experience deep emotional, physical, and spiritual pain. There is no justice at all if justice for one is achieved at the expense of injustice toward another. In the words of Walter Brueggemann, “Shalom comes only to the inclusive, embracing community that excludes none.”[45] This means that concern for the rights of the unborn must be accompanied by an equal concern for the rights of women. However, for many Christian conservatives, these rights are in conflict, particularly in areas of healthcare and economic and racial equality. As Gushee states:
I am . . . convinced that the forms of women’s marginalization that still can be found in conservative Christian religion here in the United States contribute to our relative indifference to women’s rights issues . . . And, clearly, the association between women’s rights and abortion in the minds of conservative Christians has damaged that cause greatly and quite unfairly.[46]
The Good Samaritan. In this well-known passage (Lk 10:25-37), a lawyer asks Jesus the question “who is my neighbor?” to determine the limits of his obligation to the double love command in Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5, which enjoins love of God and of neighbor (10:27). Jesus gives this parable of a Good Samaritan who comes to the aid of a half-dead Jewish man on the side of the road, and then turns the tables on the lawyer by asking the prophetic question, “Who was a neighbor to the person in need?” In asking this question, Jesus both puts the marginalized (those deemed unworthy of love) in the category of “neighbor” and redefines a “neighbor” as one who shows, rather than receives, mercy.[47] In a way analogous to the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side, pro-choice proponents often justify abortion on the grounds that the pregnancy was “unplanned” or “inconvenient.” But Jesus rejects such limiting, self-serving, and self-justifying responses. As Hays states: “Jesus by answering the lawyer’s question with this parable, rejects casuistic attempts to circumscribe our moral concern by defining the other as belonging to a category outside the scope of our obligation.”[48]
Hospitality. Closely related to the parable of the Good Samaritan is the principle of hospitality. The implications of hospitality for the issue of abortion are best understood by considering the following hypothetical case of the famous violinist posed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. . . . Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?[49]
Notice that in this illustration the famous violinist is a person with whom we can identify. Thompson, who is pro-choice, argues that just as one would not be morally (or legally) obligated to stay hooked up to a famous violinist for nine months since she did not consent to it so one should not be forced to carry through with an unwanted pregnancy. So “unplugging” oneself of the human fetus is not necessarily unjust or immoral, even if the fetus is considered a person.[50]
Thompson’s argument has been the subject of much debate. There are a number of respects in which it breaks down, as many pro-life critics have pointed out. For example, unlike the violinist illustration, in most cases involving abortion both the man and the woman have voluntarily entered a sexual relationship that has led to the conception of human life.[51] However, Thompson’s violinist analogy is more applicable to the small but not insignificant number of cases involving the violence of rape or incest. In such cases, the woman has not chosen to have sex. Like the violinist, the fetus might be regarded as a “stranger.” But, nonetheless, just as the violinist’s life is at stake, the unborn conceived in sexual violence are an unimaginably vulnerable population.[52] What guidance does the biblical principle of hospitality give in such situations?
The mandate to show hospitality to the widow, the stranger, and the orphan is present in both the Old and New Testaments. This means that while giving birth to child conceived through sexual violence may well entail great personal sacrifice, the principle of radical hospitality generally entails a moral obligation to do so. Autonomy and freedom of choice should not determine one’s conduct in such situations, however difficult that might be. But ethical consistency means that we should as Christians show the same radical hospitality when it comes to other issues such as our treatment of the immigrant and the refugee.[53] Conservative Christians are guilty of gross inconsistency when they oppose abortion of the unborn child but do not similarly oppose policies of separating children from their immigrant parents and placing them in cages and other forms of injustice toward the “stranger.”
At the same time, there are limits to hospitality. One would be morally justified in unplugging herself from the violinist if failure to do so put her own life in danger. Similarly, it is almost universally recognized that abortion is justified if there is a threat to the life of the mother. In such cases, the woman is acting in self-defense. Life is taken to save a life. But what if a single mother of two learns that carrying a pregnancy to term will render her legally blind?[54] What if the rape victim who becomes pregnant is thirteen years old or suffers from mental impairment? Are there circumstances in which it would be morally permissible to use abortifacients (or potential abortifacients) which prevent implantation of the zygote? For example, what of a schizophrenic woman who is on a medication (e.g., Haldol) which would likely lead to severe limb malformation of the fetus should she become pregnant? These questions indicate that there are situations, however rare, in which we cannot make moralistic judgments. An overly conservative “black and white” approach to abortion does not always sufficiently take account of the moral complexities of women’s lives. Moreover, hospitality calls us to broaden our understanding of respect for human life and envision ways in which we can create structures and relationships that are conducive to welfare of both the mother and the unborn.
Covenant Community. In the Old Testament, the concept of covenant is expressed by the Hebrew word hesed which means a binding relationship of love and faithfulness. In the New Testament, this idea of a covenant community is depicted in Acts 4:32-35 which describes the practice of economic sharing and caring for the needy in the early Jerusalem church:
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
This passage has some important implications for abortion. First, unlike the tendency in our society toward radical individualism, the practice of the early church was characterized by collective responsibility and care for each member of the community. Thus, within the church there should be no situation where any single woman or couple feels compelled to have an abortion because of financial hardship and inability to care for another child. Hays rightly states:
The community assumes responsibility and creates whatever structures are necessary to provide for the mother and child alike. Sharing, not abortion, is the answer. . . . The church’s confusion on the issue of abortion is a symptom of a more fundamental unfaithfulness to the economic imperatives of the gospel.[55]
This practice of corporate sharing does not absolve individuals of responsibility. Recent surveys indicate that women who identify as “Christian” (Catholic, mainline Protestant, and evangelical) account for over 50 percent of the abortions in the U.S. Deuteronomy 30:19 encourages God’s people to “choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” This passage indicates that the fundamental posture of Scripture is toward life and not death. The liberal Protestant churches’ advocacy of abortion for poor women who cannot afford to have more children is symptomatic of the tendency of our society to promote what Pope John Paul II calls a “culture of death” rather than a “culture of life.” Sharing of resources must therefore be accompanied by a call for both men and women to be responsible in adopting behavior that enhances life. One of the tragedies of our abortion culture is that men are often given a free pass when it comes to taking responsibility for children. Abortion is often described as a “woman’s issue.” As Stanley Hauerwas states: “Abortion is often defended as the necessary condition for the freedom of women from male oppression. Yet . . . abortion often is the coercive method men use to free themselves from responsibility to women.”[56] Churches must therefore proactively encourage men as well as women to accept their parental responsibilities and provide whatever support is necessary (financial aid, friendship, counseling, prayer) to help single women and couples assume their role as parents. If churches adopted this model of a “covenant community” many of the incentives to abortion could be eliminated.[57]
Conclusion
In this essay, I have been primarily concerned with the morality of abortion within the context of the church. Addressing the issues of public policy and the legal complexities of abortion would require a separate essay (or book). However, in closing we can make some general observations which have implications for how Christians should approach this contentious issue within the public and political spheres.
First, priority should be given to the witness and life of the church as a covenant community. Hauerwas rightly states:
If we are to serve our society well, and on our terms, our first task must be to address ourselves by articulating for Christians why abortion can never be regarded as morally indifferent for us. Only by doing this can we witness to society what kind of people and what kind of society of society is required if abortion is to be excluded.[58]
Hauerwas rightly observes that so much attention is given to the abstract question “Is the fetus a human being with a right to life?” that we miss the preliminary question, “What kind of people should we be to welcome children into the world?” The former question is indeed important. But our first concern should be with our behavior toward another as the context for a Christian regard and care for the fetus as a child.[59] Equally important are attitudes towards premarital sex and marriage. Recent research indicates that by the time they are young adults, roughly two-thirds of evangelicals have engaged in premarital sexual intercourse. While 37 percent of “fundamentalist” adults say that sex outside of marriage is “always wrong” 41 percent say that it is “not wrong at all.”[60] At the same time, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research of over 1,000 women who chose to have an abortion, almost one quarter (23 percent) self-identify as “evangelical.”[61] A large percentage of those surveyed perceive the church as “judgmental” toward single women who are pregnant (65 percent) and avoid informing others in the church of their decision to have an abortion (52 percent). With the overwhelming majority of young evangelicals failing to uphold traditional standards of sexuality and marriage, perhaps these statistics on abortion are to be expected. Nonetheless, it is equally tragic when the church is perceived as the last place a woman contemplating abortion will go for advice or support.
Secondly, as those who are completely and consistently “pro-life,” we must resist pitting one vulnerable population against another based on an over-identification with a particular political ideology, whether “left” or “right.” Because many who seek abortions are part of disadvantaged populations, abortion is intertwined with issues of racism, poverty, sexual abuse, patriarchy and sexism, and lack of social support for women, particularly single women.[62] These issues have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Concern for sexual responsibility must be balanced with compassion and mercy toward women in crisis pregnancies who consider abortion as a “last resort.” Following the example of Christ means giving up certain rights and privileges and one’s self-defined freedom for the “weak” (Rom 15:1-7; 1 Cor 11:1). On the one hand, this entails creating forms of support and care, the absence of which make abortion seem necessary in our society. On the other, the call to welcome a child into the world is addressed not just to the pregnant woman (or couple) but also to the entire church body which must share the burden of caring for the child, if necessary, once he/she is born.[63] Russell Moore reminds us that “What the world needs most from evangelical America is that we be a people who really believe what we say. Whether the world agrees or disagrees with us on abortion, or any other matter, they need to see us love vulnerable children—whether in the womb, in abusive homes, in foster care, or in our own pews. . . They need to witness the testimony that the new birth we claim is more than just a brand.”[64]
Finally, we should adopt an approach which avoids extremist rhetoric and hyperbole on both the left and the right. Liberal attempts to justify abortion on the grounds that women have the “right” to full control over their own bodies and that the fetus is mere “tissue” exhibit a profound disrespect for the sanctity of human life. From a Christian perspective, any resort to abortion as a last-ditch method of birth control to avoid the consequences of sexual sin is profoundly immoral. At the same time, blanket assertions by some abortion foes on the political right that all abortions are murder and ought to be criminalized oversimplify the complex and agonizing decisions that many women are forced to make. Camosy points out that whatever we think concerning the punishment of the physicians who perform abortions, most conservatives do not regard the woman having the abortion as an accomplice to murder. “The fact that even very serious ‘pro-lifers’ do not think that women should be held responsible in this way, even when they craft the public policy themselves, is strong evidence that the rhetoric that some ‘pro-lifers’ use about abortion being murder does not describe what most abortion actually involves: the complex, intimate, bodily relationship between a woman and the prenatal child growing inside her.”[65]
In sum, the church may win political battles in the culture war. These wins are not insignificant. But in the long-term, whatever is won through political power and influence will pale in comparison to what is lost by a church that lacks humility, love, and moral integrity. The church should earnestly search for ways in which both ends of the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum can find common ground based on broad principles—such as the sanctity of human life and care for the weakest and most vulnerable of society—on which there is agreement.
[1] Heuerwas, A Community of Character, 212-213. [2] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 445-46. [3] Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 168-69. [4] See Geisler, Christian Ethics, 149 [5] See Kluge, The Practice of Death, 8-9 [6] See, for example, Noonan, The Morality of Abortion. [7] Wennberg, Life in the Balance, 41 [8] Moreland, “The Origin of the Soul,” 2 [9] Ibid., 5-6 [10] Ibid., 5. [11] Shannon and Wolter, “Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo,” 612-13. [12] Dombrowski and Deltete, A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, 51. [13] George and Tollefsen, Embryo. [14] Moreland, “The Origin of the Soul,” 10. [15] Madan, “Natural Human Chimeras: A Review,” 1-2. [16] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 124. [17] Ibid., 125. [18] See Tauer, “Catholic Dissent on the Moral Status of the Early Embryo.” [19] See Eberl, “The Beginning of Personhood.” Also Ford, When Did I Begin? [20] Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion, 81. [21] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 446. [22] For a good summary of differing interpretations see Marsden, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law.” [23] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 447. [24] Nagasawa, “The Ethic of Abortion in the United States,” 31. [25] Youngblood, Exodus, 105. [26] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 447-48. [27] Ibid., 448; Gorman, “The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Abortion Debate,” 145-46. [28] Ibid., 147. [29] Wennberg, Life in the Balance, 61. [30] Gorman, “The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Abortion Debate,” 142. [31] Ibid., 158. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid., 168. [34] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 450. [35] Ibid. [36] Wennberg, Life in the Balance, 127. [37] See Wolterstorff, Justice, 342-61. [38] Gushee, The Sacredness of Human Life, 43. [39] See Sprinkle, Embodied, 150-51; Moore, “The Gospel According to Jane Roe,” 43. [40] Ibid., 46. [41] Ronner, “Abortion Foes Push to Redefine Personhood.” [42] See Jason Eberl, “The Beginning of Personhood.” [43] Gushee, The Sacredness of Human Life, 77. [44] See Gorman, “Shalom and the Unborn,” 26-29. [45] Ibid., 29. [46] Gushee, The Sacredness of Human Life, 387. [47] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 451. [48] Ibid. [49] Wennberg, Life in the Balance, 156 [50] Ibid., 157. [51] See Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion, 147. [52] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 172. [53] Ibid., 174. [54] See Borgmann, “The Meaning of Life: Belief and Reason in the Abortion Debate,” 600. (This was an actual case in Poland.) [55] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 452. [56]Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 201. [57] Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 452. [58] Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 223. [59] Ibid., 198. [60] Ayers, “Sex and the Single Evangelical.” [61] LifeWay Research, “Study of Women Who Have Had an Abortion and Their Views on Church,” 37. The study was sponsored by Care Net. [62] Camosy, Resisting Throwaway Culture, 173-74. [63] Hauerwas, A Community of Character, 229; Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 452-53. [64] Moore, “How to Lose the Abortion Debate While Winning It,” 4. [65] Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars, 104-5.