At the core of all the arguments for and against abortion is the question the Supreme Court of the United States evaded 15 years ago. When does a person’s life begin? It’s a subject on which one’s views should be clearly formulated far in advance of the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. When the person is already pregnant, it is usually impossible for her or others concerned to view the pros and cons objectively.
When is a fetus a person?
When does life begin? Is there any scientific evidence of a point in time before which the embryo is not a child and after which it is? How is that point to be determined: is size the criterion? On what grounds? Exactly how big should a human be to be considered a person? Or, how big should a fetus be to be considered a child?
Is it viability, the ability to live independently of the life-support system of the mother? What of an accident victim, or a critically ill person temporarily on a life-support system? Are they not still human beings even though temporarily they may be unable to live independently?
Brain activity is now the generally accepted standard for judging whether a person is alive or dead (not, note, a person or non-person). It has been argued, with some plausibility, that a working brain is the person. Until recently, brain waves had not been detected in a fetus until the third month; now, with improved technology, they have been detected on the 18th day. How do we know that tomorrow’s technology will not detect them at conception?
Unique from conception?
On the other hand, there is some evidence that an embryo is not just a part of the mother’s tissue, but a separate person, from the moment of conception. Books and magazine articles on embryology agree with the Time-Life book on DNA which shows two chains of DNA combining at the moment of conception with the illustration captioned: “At this momenta new human being begins.” It is from the outset something genetically unique, a being quite distinct from the mother. The genetic makeup of its cells is an altogether new pattern which is characteristically its own and which distinguishes it from either parent.
The Biblical considerations
For those who accept the Bible’s authority, there are two main arguments: one that the fetus is not human until it breathes and the other in Exo. 21:22-25 that the unborn child is not regarded as a person. The first point is based on Job 27:3 KJV which parallels breath with spirit and quotes Gen. 2:7 as showing that Adam did not become a “living soul” until God breathed into him the breath of life. But the fetus is not, like Adam, lifeless clay before breathing. Furthermore, the margin indicates that a better reading of Job 27:3 is: “For as long as my breath is in me, and the air God gives me is in my nostrils.” If we equate the spirit of God, that is the life-force that flows from God, with “the breath of our nostrils,” does it not follow that creatures that do no breathe through their nostrils are not sustained by the spirit of God? How are they sustained? If it is argued that they do in a sense breathe, drawing in oxygen by other means, it must be pointed out that the unborn draws its oxygen from its mother’s blood. Many people have not breathed for two or three minutes afterbirth. Could those newborn, but not yet breathing babies, have been killed without guilt?
Direct information
Exo. 21:22-25 is the Bible’s only direct legislation on abortion. Its meaning has been debated for centuries but surely only by those wishing to justify abortion. It has been said of this passage (by a Christadelphian!) that “…the loss of the unborn child when caused by a man’s violence against the mother-to-be…was not treated as murder. Therefore, God did not regard the unborn child as a person.”
Such a conclusion must assume that the child dies in every case and some harm may occur to the mother. However, the Hebrew word rendered “depart” means to be born when used elsewhere in a similar context (Job 1:21 “came out;” 3:11; Jer. 20:18). Therefore, the striving of the men causes a premature birth of the child. In any case, this is dangerous; even if the child is alright, the father still can justly claim a fine against the offenders. If harm is caused to the baby, a greater penalty should be assessed which could mean capital punishment if the child is stillborn. Harm to the mother is covered by the stipulations of verses 12-14 and 18-19. It is apparent the fetus is treated as a human being.
Granted, this is a very uncomfortable conclusion to accept; if one is a person from the moment of conception, then abortion is murder.
Objections considered
Perhaps atheists could argue that murder of the unborn is preferable to letting an innocent child conceived by incest or rape be ruined physically or emotionally. But even they should recognize that what they are doing is, or at the very least may be, murder and not seek to evade the issue. And if one is allowed to kill one person to spare another, where is the line to be drawn?
As for aborting a person likely to be born to a life of suffering, why has society so long hesitated to legalize euthanasia? As for aborting a person likely to be born deaf or blind, or missing a limb or limbs, what is that saying about the values of our society? How do you suppose it makes those who are physically handicapped feel to hear arguments telling them that they should have been aborted? Actually, of the 1.6 million abortions performed annually in the U.S., only a tiny percentage is because of rape or a defective fetus.
Clear for the believer
For the believer, the case is surely clear. If there is the smallest chance that abortion might be murder, to resort to it is disobedience to God. Can we, of all people, not trust God to control the consequences of our obedience to Him?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One