–– Paul Schlehlein
The audio version of this article is available here: YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.
In light of President Trump’s recent cuts of abortion aid across Africa, questions continue to rise about the morality of infanticide.
Abortion is unconditionally legal in only a few countries in Africa, including Benin, Tunisia, and South Africa. Most other African nations allow for abortion under certain circumstances, such as rape and fetal impairment.
This prompts questions. Is abortion ever justified? Is it ever valid or morally permissible under certain circumstances? If so, which exceptions are reasonable?
Definition
Apple Dictionary defines abortion as “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” This definition is weak because the word “pregnancy” is too abstract. It doesn’t jar the reader’s conscience or grab him by the collar like the following definition: “Abortion is the deliberate termination of the baby in the womb.”
Pro-choice and even pro-life advocates offer several scenarios when abortion is morally justified. We’ll divide the arguments into four categories: discomfort, disability, delinquency, and danger.
Discomfort
The first class of justification, discomfort, is the most frivolous. Here, abortion is vindicated for reasons such as population control, poverty, and the woman’s psychological health. But none of these arguments overturn the fact that abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent life, which Scripture calls murder (Ex. 20:13). Since life begins at conception (Judges 16:17; Ps. 139:13, 16; Jer. 1:5), destroying the child in the womb is murder.
Disability
The second category, which seeks to justify abortion, we will label “disability”, which includes children with mental and physical impairments.
Parents never have the right to murder their child, either inside or outside the womb, simply because the baby has a disease or handicap. To do so is pure eugenics, the study of how to produce the most heritable characteristics in a society.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenicist who believed the best way to breed human thoroughbreds was by inhibiting the procreation of what she called “human weeds”—by which she meant black people. The Nazi’s affection for eugenics and the Aryan race can be seen in the six million Jews they murdered in the Holocaust. Today, the common man frowns upon the Nazis, but not upon the mother and doctor that want to kill her Down syndrome baby in the womb. Both practice eugenics.
Psalm 82:3 tells us to “give justice to the weak.” Verse 4 says: “Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” In this case, “the wicked” refers to mothers, fathers, abortion doctors, and politicians who seek to kill unborn babies with infirmities like HIV and cerebral palsy.
Delinquency
The third category, which we’ll call delinquency, addresses children conceived by crimes like rape or incest. We sympathise with the women who believe they have no alternative. We pity those who do not want to give birth to a child that reminds them of such painful experiences. But we must also sympathise with the child, who is innocent.
In the case of rape, two parties are guiltless (the mother and the child) and one is culpable—the man. Rape is a terrible crime that deserves the death penalty for the aggressor, not the victim. It makes no sense to kill the innocent party, as Scripture forbids children to be punished for the sins of the father (Ezek. 18:20).
Moreover, fatherless children, such as those conceived by rape, are the most vulnerable people on earth and should be protected and cared for at all costs (Isa. 1:17; Jms. 1:27).
Danger
The final category we’ll call “danger”. This is when the unborn child threatens the life of the mother, such as in a tubal pregnancy. This situation is very rare and occurs when the fertilised egg implants itself in the fallopian tubes instead of the womb.
Tubal ectopic pregnancies are usually discovered in the first two months of pregnancy, and the baby has usually died by then, as the fallopian tubes cannot sustain a baby. Immediate treatment for the mother is needed because if the blood vessels rupture, it could kill the mother. Only hospitals, not abortion clinics, can address ectopic pregnancies. Not all ectopic pregnancies are tubal pregnancies, and there are some cases of babies surviving non-tubal ectopic pregnancies.
In the very rare occasion the baby is still alive during a tubal ectopic pregnancy, is aborting the child a valid exception?
Exceptions
There are two rules to remember regarding laws and exceptions. The first rule is that exceptions make bad laws. For example, suppose that after the city council decided on a speed limit of 60 km/h through a small town, a man said that rushing his severely injured son to the hospital at 130 km/h through the town would save his life. In this scenario, driving 130 may be valid, but making a rule around that rare exception would make a bad law.
The second adage is that exceptions test the rule. For example, only a father who keeps his children in subjection is qualified to be a pastor (1Tm. 3). Bad fathers will make bad pastors. But suppose a young man impregnated his girlfriend at 18 and was never allowed to see his son, who is now a rebellious atheist. The man has since been converted, is a pastor, married a godly wife and is raising five obedient children. The exception tested the rule, which is that qualified pastors raise obedient kids, and therefore, he is qualified.
In a similar way, the rule for abortion is ‘preserving life in the womb’. There are no exceptions for removing life, except in the very rare occasion where the baby still lives in the fallopian tube and the doctor must act to save the mother. In this case, the exception tests the rule, which is the preservation of life. Currently, in medical technology, this baby cannot live, as God in his sovereignty has determined. The woman should not feel pressured to maintain a pregnancy that will undoubtedly lead to her death or the child’s.
There are two patients, not only one, so in this case the doctor and family preserve the life that can survive: the mother’s.
Conclusion
Discomfort, disability, and delinquency do not qualify as exceptions for abortion because destroying that child still kills an innocent life. The church should extend grace and sympathy to those who face the complexities of sometimes very difficult decisions.
Using medical intervention to remove a deceased baby from the mother’s womb is not an abortion. Saving the mother’s life by not allowing an unviable child to live is morally right and should not be called an abortion.