Now, in this post we take up the second problem.
2. Problem Two: What The Bible Really
Teaches.
This second problem deals with the idea there are two
competing ethical issues involved in abortion. On the one hand, there is the
idea that government’s role in the lives of its citizens should be limited and
should not remove their freedom to make choices. In other words, the government
should not tell a woman what she must do with her own body. On the other hand,
there is the issue of the sanctity of life. How do we reconcile these two
important matters?
Let’s look at each in turn.
A. Freedom Of Choice.
It is true that the Bible values people making choices: “I
have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey…then you
shall live and multiply…. But if your heart turns away…you shall surely
perish…” (Dt. 30:15-18); “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:15).
It also affirms it is better for people to make choices when they really want
to do them as opposed to being coerced into them (Philemon 14). The Bible also
gives reasons for citizens to prefer governments that are limited in power and
scope, rather than being ever-present to have its hand in every decision that
is made (cf. Deut. 17:14-20; Rom. 13:1-7; Rev. 13:1-18).
So, we can conclude that it is right that the government
should not force citizens to do what it desires against their will in every
case and it should not be involved in every area of life. Yet, does this mean
that it is wrong for the government to enact laws that protect life in the womb
and prohibit abortion?
The answer is, “No,” for two reasons.
The first reason is that some biblical principles have
greater weight than others. Matthew 23:23 reads: “Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have
neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.
These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” It is important
to tithe says Jesus, but even more important is expressing justice, mercy, and
faithfulness toward others.
The principle applies to the preservation of life. We know
this because in the Ten Commandments we see that we should not murder (Ex.
20:13). Yet, if someone does take the life of another without just cause, life
is so important that the only fit and just penalty is to take the life of the
murderer (Gen. 9:6). In this case preserving the sanctity of life created in
God’s image is more important than the taking of the one life (the life of the
murderer) itself.
If this is the case, then surely preserving a human life is
far more important than preserving a person’s ability to make the choice they
desire. In fact, we also see this simply in the command not to murder. What is
being said is that as much as God values choice, he values far more making the
right choices, choices which involve trust in and obedience to him (Gen.
2:16-17). And so there are certain choices God forbids because they are wrong,
dishonoring to him, and harmful to others. One of those forbidden choices is
the taking of a human life without just cause.
Thus, we conclude that to kill a baby in the womb, whom we
know to be a human being created in God’s image, is just such a choice God forbids.
The choice to abort is not merely a choice about what to do with one’s own
body. It is a choice about what to do with someone else’s body.
This leads to the second reason it is not wrong for the
government to pass laws that prohibit abortion, which also is the second major
matter we take up under this second problem related to abortion.
B. The Sanctity Of Life.
The Bible is clear that the life of humans, created in God’s
image, is sacred. As we saw above, it is not to be taken without just cause
(Ex. 20:13) and when it is taken without just cause, the penalty must fit the
crime in order to preserve a sense of that sacredness (Gen. 9:6).
To take this one more step, “the Bible teaches that we
should think of the unborn child as a person from the moment of conception, and
therefore we should give to the unborn child legal protection at least equal to
that of others in the society.”[1]
Here are three biblical passages as evidence:
·
In Psalm 51:5, as part of King David’s repentance
and confession after his sin with Bathsheba, he writes: “Behold, I was brought
forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Prior to this
statement in the psalm David has been repeatedly addressing his own sin, so he
is most likely addressing his own sin in this verse—making the point that his
sinful nature goes back even before birth. “This means that he thinks of
himself as having been a distinct human being, a distinct person, from the
moment of his conception. He was not merely part of his mother’s body….”[2]
· In Luke 1:35 we read as part of the angel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary that she would be mother of the Messiah: “And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.’” To this we must add that in Lk. 1:43 Elizabeth called Mary “the mother of my Lord.” These verses are significant because they mean that “the incarnation of Christ did not begin when he was a newborn baby, a small child, a teenager, or an adult man. Rather, the divine nature of God the Son was joined to the human nature of Jesus from the moment of his conception in Mary’s womb…. This is [important]…because it means that Christ was a genuine human person long before his birth as a baby on the first Christmas.”[3]
·
In Luke 1:41-44, as part of the account of Mary
visiting her relative, Elizabeth (the expecting mother of the forerunner of
Jesus: John), we read: “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she
exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the
fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord
should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears,
the baby in my womb leaped for joy.’” There are two significant points to be
made here. To begin, “under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth called
[her own] unborn child…‘a baby’ (Greek, brephos,
‘baby, infant’). This is the same Greek word that is used for a child after it
is born…(Lk. 2:16…18:15; 2 Tim. 3:15).”[4]
Additionally, we notice that Mary said the baby in her womb “leaped for joy.”
This attributes personal human activity to him…to hear Mary’s voice…[and to]
feel joyful about it.”[5]
It is also clear that there is scientific evidence that
corroborates the biblical teaching that life begins at conception. Dianne
Irving, a biochemist and biologist, as well as an MA and PhD philosopher and
professor of the history of philosophy and of medical ethics at Georgetown
University, wrote the following, which I will quote at length:
To
begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes
of gametogenesis and fertilization—the change from a simple part of one human
being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e. an
oocyte—usually referred to as an ‘ovum’ or ‘egg’), which simply possess ‘human
life,’ to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living
human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into
something very different from what they were before; they have been changed
into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the
sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
To
understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has
a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each
member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to
survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of
the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g. in human beings with Down’s or
Turner’s syndromes). Every somatic (or body) cell in a human being has this
characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46
chromosomes; it is only their mature forms—the sex gametes, or sperms and
oocytes—which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each. Sperms and oocytes
are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the
process known as “gametogenesis.” Because each germ cell normally has 46
chromosomes, the process of “fertilization” cannot take place until the total
number of chromosomes in each germ cell is cut in half. This is necessary so
that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of
chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be
maintained—otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.
To
accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human
life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic
scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization.
It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and
fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex
gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is
a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the
maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the
initiation of a new human being.[6]
Conclusion
Chelsea Clinton recently affirmed sentiments shared by many
in our society, namely that the legalization of and access to abortion is a
matter of reproductive rights and equality for women, and thus advocating for it
is a matter of social justice.[7] Yet, as Christians, we should see that the
very opposite is true. Though choice is important and though biblical wisdom
would lead us to conclude that a government should not control every choice a
person makes, there are some choices it is ethically-right for a government to
outlaw. Any taking of life without just cause, such as abortion or euthanasia, is
included.[8]
Life originates from God and his design for mankind is to
know and enjoy true and full life (which includes both physical and spiritual
vitality). As such, part of the call we have to bring righteousness and justice
to bear upon the world includes helping each other see that human life, created
in the image of God, is sacred and should be protected, whether it is in or out
of the womb.[9]
Such is part of the great cause God calls us to live for as
we help meet the needs of others, rather than remaining in our comfort zones.
May we respond to the call!
Joyfully Seeking Justice With You,
Tom
[1]
Wayne Grudem, Christian
Ethics: In Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton: Crossway,
2018), 571.
[6]
Dianne N. Irving, “When Do Human Beings Begin?” Catholic Education Resource
Center (www.catholiceducation.org), cited in Grudem, Ethics, 571-72.
[7] Al
Mohler, in his August 24, 2018 “The Briefing podcast, found at
albertmohler.com/the briefing.
[8]
The word “euthanasia” literally means “good death” and refers to allowing
persons to end their own life when and how they want. Usually this is advocated
when a person is ill and experiencing great pain (which more and more is
including pain that is other than a terminal illness). An extreme example of
the permission of euthanasia can be found in Belgium, where in 2014, they
legalized euthanasia for children. In other words, in a nation where such minors
would not be allowed to drive or marry, they can make the decision to end their
own life. John Stonestreet writes of this and similar decisions that “autonomy
is their god” and “they end up sacrificing their children on its altar.” See
John Stonestreet, Roberto Rivera, “When Children ‘Choose’ To Die: Sacrificing
Babes On The Altar Of Autonomy,” in the August 21, 2018 podcast, found at
breakpoint.org.
[9]There
are at least three instances in which God sees the taking of life as just and
thus allowable: In the case of capital
punishment, when a person has unjustly and intentionally taken the life of
another; in the case of a government who is defending its citizens against
lawbreakers from without or within; and in the case of self-defense. See Gen.
9:6; Ex. 22:2-3; Nu. 35:31; Rom. 13:1-7.
No comments:
Post a Comment