| |
Return to The Bible & Abortion Page
Abortion - A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue
By
R.C. Sproul
Chapter 7
Every man … is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
-- Ayn Rand
Feminists need to ask why the "sexist" establishment supports abortion. It may be that abortion enhances the male's freedom to exploit by sparing him from the worry of paternity.
-- Bill Crouse
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO OWN HER OWN BODY
One of the most frequent arguments heard in favor of legal abortion is that a woman has a right to her own body. What does this mean?
The current debate is not over whether or not a woman in the United States has the legal right to her own body with respect to abortion. Since Roe v. Wade she has that right. But should she have that right?
The right to privacy
The closest the Constitution comes to affirming a woman's right to her own body is an implied "right to privacy." Roe v. Wade utilized the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to make this claim. Among abortion adherents there is a strong sentiment that abortion legislation improperly intrudes into the privacy rights of persons and families. In simple language, they plead that it is none of the state's business whether a woman terminates her pregnancy or chooses to carry it to term. The relevant portions of the United States Constitution are as follows:
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What is immediately evident from even a cursory reading of these two amendments to the Constitution is the obvious absence of a single explicit word about privacy rights. The right to privacy concept, on which legalized abortion is based, is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Constitution. Without analysis, the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade decided the issue by simple assertion:
This right to privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The Supreme Court should not be faulted for being jealous to protect the privacy rights of citizens from the unwarranted invasion or intrusion of the state. Few of us have a desire to live with Big Brother monitoring our every action and eavesdropping on our every word. The specter of such a society is hideous. We should be thankful we have such things as a lock for the bedroom door. But this question remains: Is there any ethical or moral justification for including the right to have an abortion under the broader category of the right to privacy?
From an ethical perspective we must raise this question: Is the right to privacy an absolute right? Does God, for example, give us the right to blaspheme Him as long as we don’t do it publicly? Do I have the right to murder someone or disfigure his property as long as I do it in privacy? Obviously not. There are moral limitations to the right of privacy. How far do those limitations extend?
Once again the debate returns to the question of when life begins. If the justices of the Supreme Court were persuaded that the fetus is a living human person, it is highly unlikely that they would include destroying the fetus with the right to privacy. Surely, the right to privacy is not a higher or greater right than the right to life. If it were, I would have the moral right to take your life if you invaded my privacy.
Because I speak nationally and my Ligonier video lectures are used in thousands of churches, I have experienced a substantive loss of privacy. Though not hounded like movie stars or famous athletes, nevertheless I know that it means to have my dinner interrupted in a restaurant by someone who wants me to autograph a book. These interruptions are infrequent and mild, but real nevertheless. Any person who works in the public eye knows some sense of the loss of privacy. We rarely understand how important a right is until we lose some of it.
We can understand a celebrity's annoyance when he or she is disturbed in a public place, but we would hardly argue that in such instances the celebrity has the right to kill the fan or the news reporter. We understand that the right to life transcends the right to privacy. If a fetus is a human life, then the Supreme Court erred in granting the destruction of the fetus under the application of the right of privacy.
A woman's moral rights to her body
Most people agree that a woman certainly does have a considerable number of rights to her own body. She has a right not to be subject to rape or malicious physical injury, for example. But is the woman's right to her own body absolute? In addition to the legal right related to abortion, does a woman have the moral right to do anything she pleases with her body? For example, can a woman use her body as a battering ram to injure others? Does she have a moral right to sell her body in prostitution? Is she free to mutilate her body, or to destroy it through suicide? These questions reveal that the issue of a woman's right to her own body is more complicated than it first appears.
Whatever moral rights a woman has to her own body must be grounded in some norm or the claim is arbitrary. From where does a moral right to one's own body with respect to abortion come? Is it given by God? That would be exceedingly difficult to prove. Does it come from some other ethical norm? If so, which one?
In summary, a woman does have some rights to her own body. That she has an absolute right to her own body is not evident. The right to abortion, based on the right to one's own body, demands justification beyond mere assertion.
Is the fetus a part of the woman's body?
Contained within the argument concerning rights a woman has to her own body is an assumption that must be challenged: that the embryo or fetus is a part of the woman's body. The fetus is contained within the woman's body and connected to it, but that does not mean the fetus is a part of the mother's body. A more accurate description is to say that though the fetus shares the same geographical location of the woman's body, the fetus is not essentially a part of her body. We can distinguish between the essence of the woman's body and the essence of the fetus. Given the gestation process, the fetus is neither the product essentially or organically of the mother's body alone nor is the fetus a permanent fixture of the woman's body. Left to the natural course, the unborn baby will leave the mother's body to carry out his or her own life. As such, the fetus is capable of being essentially distinct from the essence of the mother. The fetus has a brain, a heart and fingerprints - a unique identity, which is not merely personal but is also physical. The biological structure and essence of the fetus is not exactly the same as the biological structure and essence of the mother.
The startling discovery of genetic fingerprinting has added important information to this discussion. In the early 1980's, a British geneticist named Alex Jeffries made a surprising discovery in the process of mapping human genes. Jeffries extracted DNA molecules from a sample of blood cells and cut them into unequal bits by adding enzymes. The fragments were put into a gel, where an electrical field caused the larger fragments to separate from the smaller ones. The DNA fragment pattern was transferred to a nylon membrane. Jeffries then added radioactively labeled pieces of DNA to act as probes. The membrane was then subjected to X-ray analysis. The X-ray film revealed vast numbers of genetic markers that exhibited an amazing degree of individual specificity.
Later experiments - both in England and in the United States - confirmed that each person, with the exception of identical twins, has a unique genetic fingerprint. In 1985, Jeffries declared,
You would have to look for one part in a million million million million million before you would find one pair with the same genetic fingerprint, and with the world population of only five billion it can be categorically said that a genetic fingerprint is individually specific and that any pattern, excepting identical twins, does not belong to anyone on the face of this planet whoever has been or ever will be.
If any single cell of a woman's body is analyzed to find its essential biological structure, each and every cell will have the same genetic fingerprint. Any analysis of the cells of the fetus will determine that each cell has the same genetic fingerprint, which is different from that of the mother. This indicates that, at the physical biological level, there is a clear line of demarcation between the body of the fetus and the body of the mother. Two distinct sets of human tissue reside in the pregnant woman's body.
How about the father? Does he have any rights related to the fetus? Although the father does not carry the fetus in his body, he has contributed half of the substance that is the genetic structure of the fetus. In the case of abortion, at least three persons (not to mention grandparents and other ancestors who contributed to the unique genetic structure of the fetus) have a stake in the woman's decision about "her own body."
Without a solid justification, is the argument for the right to one's own body just another way of obtaining personal preference? The least charitable interpretation is to say it is a thinly veiled tactic to earn the right to do what one wants.
I do not want to imply that selfishness is the only reason behind the argument for a woman's right to her own body. It is important, however, that those who advance this argument be careful to clarify their precise meaning. Because of the various possible interpretations and their inherent weaknesses, the argument, as it is so frequently and simply stated, is insufficient ground for justifying abortion.
SUMMARY
- Women were granted the legal right to "their own bodies" as it relates to abortion by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that this right was implied by the Constitution's right to privacy provisions.
- The right to life transcends the right to privacy.
- No persons, including women, have an absolute right to do anything they wish with their bodies.
- The fetus, although sharing geographical space within a woman's body and connected to her, has a distinct genetic imprint and in essence is a separate entity, not a part of the woman's body.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- Why is it seemingly so easy for people to get away with invalid arguments in the mass media? Why do many people so easily miss the logical fallacies in invalid arguments
- What restraints are placed on our rights to our own bodies? (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.)
- What kind of right do most people mean by a "right to one's own body"? Where does this right come from?
- Is the fetus a part of the woman's body? Why or why not?
- Do we have any right to privacy? How would you frame that right if you were writing a constitution?
- How does a woman have a right to choose regarding pregnancy?
CHAPTER EIGHT
Duty is ours; consequences are God's.
-- General Stonewall Jackson
Men no longer are bound together by ideas, but by interest.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
THREE OFTEN-HEARD STATEMENTS
- If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous back-alley abortions.
- Isn't it inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment?
- Men shouldn't speak on abortion because it's a women's issue.
If abortion is illegal, women will have dangerous back-alley abortions.
Pro-abortionists predict there will be a carnage of human life if existing abortion laws are changed. How valid is this argument, which is based ultimately on the "lesser of two evils" principle? The thinking is that though legal abortion may not be entirely desirable, it is more desirable than the alternative. If abortion is outlawed, then women will be forced to place their lives in the hands of unskilled and unscrupulous back-alley butchers.
This argument assumes that if abortion is made illegal a significant number of women will still have them. Instead of being performed by a qualified physician in an antiseptic environment, abortions will be performed in dingy criminal settings or by rank amateurs armed with coat hangers. Though this scenario may seem overly dramatic, it does have historical precedent and is therefore realistic.
The argument rests on fairly sound premise: In all likelihood, if the law prohibits abortion, many women will still seek them and have them in perilous circumstances. Many women would become the victims of gynecological butchery. This is no small horror to contemplate.
More women have died from abortions in the United States since abortion was legalized than in the preceding times of illegal abortion. This is due not to the incompetency of the physicians, but to the huge increase in the number of abortions performed. Pro-life advocates tend to assume that if abortion is once again made illegal, the number of women who die or are permanently injured from abortions will dramatically decrease to pre-Roe v. Wade levels. This assumption takes an enormous leap of faith. If Roe v. Wade were reversed, it is highly unlikely that the number of deaths would revert to what it was before.
Our culture has gone through nearly two decades of legal abortion. Now it is a widely accepted practice, and the strong social taboos that exercised restraint on abortion prior to Roe v. Wade will probably not make a swift or certain comeback. Whether we like it or not, abortion-on-demand is part of the fabric of current experience. Here we see evidence of the original meaning of "you can't legislate morality." This makes the practical consequences of the reversal of abortion law a very serious matter. Whether abortion remains legal or is made illegal, women are going to continue to die from abortions.
The ethical issue at stake, however, is not only the women who are dying or who may die, but also the unborn babies who are killed every year -one and a half million in the United States alone. This remains the focal point of the debate. For those convinced that abortion involves killing living human persons, the continuation of it to protect those who are having the abortions is ethically intolerable. The loss of a woman's life in abortion is a tragic thing; but if abortion is evil, then the life lost is that of the guilty party. The destruction of the unborn baby is the loss of the innocent party. Ideally, we should refrain from abortion altogether, because then neither the woman nor the baby would die. If the practice of abortion is unjust, then the protection of those who engage in the practice is not the duty of the state. Concern for them is certainly the duty of the church, but to protect the criminal in the course of committing a crime is not the responsibility of government.
Again, the argument based on the concern for the harm that will come to women who have illegal abortions presumes that aborting unborn babies is a legitimate practice. In all likelihood, if the pro-abortionist who uses this argument were to be convinced that the unborn are living human persons, this argument from practical expediency would vanish in view of the greater evil of the destruction of babies.
Isn't it inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment?
Pro-abortionists repeatedly have charged advocates of pro-life with a hypocritical inconsistency. The argument is that if pro-life advocates are so stirred up about the loss of the life of unborn babies, why are they not equally concerned about the fate of men and women who are executed by the criminal justice system? Even talk show host Larry King made this charge, saying that the would give no credence to pro-life supporters until they became more consistent in their two positions.
There are two responses. The first is to the logic of Larry King's complaint. Even if pro-life advocates are wrong about their view of capital punishment and are utterly inconsistent in their views on the two matters, that does not disqualify their grounds for objection to abortion. A person may hold views on two subjects that are inconsistent, and still may be holding a correct view on one of them. King must allow logically for the possibility of the happy inconsistency. Not one of us is right in all of his or her thinking, and each person has some points of inconsistency. That does not invalidate everything we believe.
Second, are anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment views in fact inconsistent? The biblical view of the overarching sanctity of life is the same principle that leads people to be both anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. The biblical reason for the institution of capital punishment is that murder is an intolerable violation of the sanctity of life. The murderer who willfully and maliciously takes another person's life thereby forfeits his right to his own life. Whether Mr. King or others agree with this position, its weakness is not one of inconsistency. Advocates of capital punishment cannot rightly be charged with espousing a principle of injustice. If a murderer is killed as a penalty for killing someone else, the punishment is perfectly just. The penalty may not be merciful, but it is not unjust. An injustice would be dealt the murderer if his penalty were more severe than his crime.
Men shouldn't speak on abortion because it's a woman's issue.
It is a specious argument to say that men shouldn't speak on abortion because it's a women's issue. Some people include it as an extension of the woman's right to privacy. That is, since childbearing is exclusive to women, men have no right to address moral issues connected to it. Such statements as, "If men had to carry babies in pregnancy, there would be no laws against abortion," reflect this radical view.
Recently, I received a letter from a Christian woman who chided me on precisely this point. She maintained that I had no right to speak or write on abortion because I am a man. Since she was a professing Christian I wondered what she would say if the Lord Jesus Christ were to appear and begin speaking about abortion. Would she disqualify Him as well simply on the basis that He is male?
This argument is a crass form of reverse sexism and female chauvinism. It is unworthy of the feminist position, slanderous to men, and trivial in its conception. If we followed this principle to its logical conclusion we would have to dismiss Moses, Paul, Socrates, Plato, Confucius, or any other male teacher of ethics from the discussion. Ultimately, we would have to disqualify eight out of nine of the current justices of the Supreme Court, leaving Sandra Day O'Connor to decide the matter by herself.
More soberly, it is important to realize that the current division over abortion is not simply a division between men and women. Women are at the forefront of the pro-life movement, and advocates of pro-choice have countless men involved in their ranks. A common tactic in debate or discussion is to attack the soundness of an argument by attacking the person who espouses it. If abortion is just, then it doesn't matter who argues for it- male or female, black or white, Asian or European. The argument must be decided on its own merits, not on the personalities involved.
SUMMARY
- It is likely that abortion will continue to be in high demand even if it becomes illegal.
- Although the death of a woman in any abortion - legal or illegal - is tragic, the focal point of the abortion debate must remain the unborn child.
- Anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment views are not biblically inconsistent. A high view of the sanctity of life is foundational to both positions.
- Abortion is not just a women's issue. Since the father contributes one-half of the genetic structure of the fetus, men should be involved in the abortion discussion.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- Is legalized abortion the lesser of two evils?
- What unspoken assumptions are part of the "back-alley abortion" arguments?
- If abortion were illegal, what could be done to minimize the number of illegal abortions?
- What is the government's responsibility concerning the safety of lawbreakers?
- Must those who are pro-life be against capital punishment in order to be consistent?
- If men were disallowed from dealing with the abortion issue, what issue would that exclude women from?
- How can pro-life advocates exhibit an image of consistent reasoning and concern?
ProLifeForum.org
A Ministry of Proclamation Presbyterian Church
278 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Voice: 610-520-9500
Fax: 610-520-5240
|
|
