Christian Living

---

Colin Bernreuter
Dr. Voss
PHIL 250

According to evolutionary science and postmodern thinking, human life is not sacred and is as dispensable as that of animals. Surgical abortion is a specific method that promotes the reduction of human life to merely evolutionary processes. For the Christian, all humans were created in the image of God, thereby making them sacred (Genesis 1:27). We are also called to respect our bodies, for they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). Furthermore, who are we to decide when to end our life. It is not ours to take (Romans 9:19-21). The current worldview leaning toward Darwinism is based on death, whereas the Christian worldview is based on life. In this paper I will argue against surgical abortion on the basis of three main arguments. First, I will explain the definition of life. Next, I will set out to show that the unborn being is not just alive, but is also human in nature. Then I will show how, because it is human, killing it is murder. Last, I will implement Scriptural authority as well as arguments from Kant and Augustine, and provide the necessary counter-arguments and respond to them.
Premise 1) The being in the womb is alive.
Published in 2007, Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (30th edition) states that “death” is “(1) total loss of cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line (2) spontaneous loss of a functioning circulatory system” (Anderson, 2003). If death is the cessation of certain functions, then definition of life should be the starting of those functions. Take the first identifying factor of death, total loss of cerebral function. If we follow the idea that the beginning of brain-wave activity indicates life, then we would have to consider the being in the womb alive as early as the 40th day of pregnancy. The same concept goes for the other example of circulatory function. The heart-beat begins even earlier, the 18th day. Eighty-eight to ninety-two percent of surgical abortions take place during the first trimester, around the 13th week, far from the 18th or 40th days that critical functions begin. (Schwarzwalder, 2011) Arguers for surgical abortion cite that the fetus is dependent, almost as a parasite on a social-ethical basis, on the mother’s physical processes therefore denying it of autonomy. This seems to me a mistake between a parasitic relationship and a simply obligatory dependent relationship. A parasite is an invading outside organism, whereas a fetus is of the same species and is internally conceived. The mother has the obligation to care for a dependent fetus.
Influential medieval theologian St. Augustine adamantly opposed both forms of abortion, surgical and drug-induced. He states that "sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness…preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born." (Outler, 1955) It doesn’t make sense from a medical stand-point to call something in the womb “not alive” especially when it has medical implications of life besides autonomy.
Premise 2) The being in the womb is made of human DNA, given to it by the parents, making its nature distinctly human.
Legal issues regarding abortion came to the forefront in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade legislation. It states, in essence, that the fetus is not human until viability, where viability is defined as “potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.” This landmark case sparked a gamut of issues about the viability of human life and who gets to decide when it occurs. Roe v. Wade claimed a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment, essentially giving the mother the right to choose when the fetus can be considered a person, not just a human (Schwarzwalder, 2011). Yes, under the law there is a difference. According to the law, we are all human. What makes me a person, and legally makes the unborn not, is that I have autonomy. I can rationally make my own choices.
There are multiple distressing problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, it is illogical to say that a mother can declare a fetus a person or not. Personhood is not something to be merely handed out by a willful mother. Personhood is inherent to human life. Our very own Declaration of Independence is inundated with references to God-given human rights, not society-given human rights. The pro-choice advocate would say that the concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? I would respond that, yes, those fetuses that are thrown away are in fact persons. It is a fallacy to say that because it is a rountinely happening occurance, it follows that it is the ethically correct thing to do.
A disturbing consequence of this view is shown in the words of Dr. Francis Crick, a famed molecular biologist; “If a child were considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an 'acceptable member of human society.” (Anderson, 2003) This can lead to infanticide. Where do we draw the line to prevent it? Are a mother’s rights the ultimate when making a decision regarding the life of the fetus? If we say her rights are, then there is nothing to stop a generation of children from being aborted altogether. We’ve seen it before in Nazi Germany. People with disabilities (mental and physical) and the elderly were terminated simply because they were longer of use to society. Adolf Hitler used abortion as an attempt to create his super-race. He said, "in view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics." (Tennant, 2012)
Immanuel Kant offers a unique perspective, based on reason, on the abortion problem through the use of his Categorical Imperative. He would theoretically ask a mother about to have an abortion whether or not she could will every other woman to have an abortion as well. That is the categorical imperative; that a maxim could be made into a universal moral law. Obviously, the answer for the mother would be no, she couldn’t will any every other mother to have an abortion as that would also result in extinction. It is both immoral and irrational. (Pratt, 2011)

Premise 3) Abortion is killing what is in the womb, something human in nature

We have already established that what is the womb is both alive, and if kept alive would result in being human. Now abortion, by definition, is intentionally killing what is in the womb, a human being. Whether by surgical or drug-induced means, the being is ultimately killed.
Studies have shown that in fact fetuses can feel pain while still in the womb. Dr. Robert White, Professor of Neuroscience at Case Western University, explains: “An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.” Also, Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto, says “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).” At such an early time of development, fetuses have increased sensitivity to all stimuli including touch. A single hair grazed against the palm will trigger the baby to make a fist. It is medically shown that they feel more pain than older humans to the same stimuli simply because their pain systems have developed fully, but the pain-modifying systems haven’t. (Anderson, 2003)
Fetuses aren’t the only ones who can have medical complications during an abortion. Mothers are at an increased risk of a multitude of life-threatening complications as a result. The risk of an ectopic pregnancy is 30% higher for a mother who has had one abortion. It is up to four times higher for those who have had multiple abortions. There is also a 12% chance of death for those who end up having an ectopic pregnancy. There is also the risk of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease. Five percent of women suffer PID following surgical abortion. This can lead to infertility and severe fever. If the woman has a family history of breast cancer, this rate doubles with each successive abortion, if the woman is under 18 or over 30 years of age when the abortion takes place. Abruptio Placenta is a condition in pregnancy where the sac holding the baby (the placenta) tears away from the uterine lining. This can result in extreme and severe life-threatening bleeding.
Women who have experienced abortion have a 600% increase in their risk for Abruptio Placenta in future pregnancies.  Abortion causes sterility in 2-5% of the women who have an abortion. Fifty percent of women who have had abortions report experiencing emotional and psychological problems lasting for months or years. These emotions include, but aren't limited to, acute feeling of grief, depression, anger, fear of disclosure, preoccupation with babies or getting pregnant again, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, termination of relationships, emotional coldness, increased alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders, anxiety, flashbacks of the abortion procedure, anniversary syndrome, repeat abortions, and suicide. (Schwarzwalder, 2011) The list goes on and on, and this list is just for surgical abortion. It doesn’t take into account the side effects of drug-induced abortion.
The main argument against Capital Punishment is almost identical to the argument that most pro-lifers use. They both end the life of another human. While states are abandoning the death penalty, they are at the same time making it easier to get an abortion. It doesn’t make sense. If capital punishment is the ending the life of a criminal, then why is abortion not considered ending the life as well? This is a contradiction that needs to be addressed.
As medical professionals, surgeons recite some variation of the Hippocratic Oath. “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art. I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.” The Hippocratic Oath of medical professionals specifically opposes abortion and any harmful act on an individual. Recently, this portion of the Oath has gone by the wayside. I believe that it is a direct effect of our relatively utilitarian view of human life. As mentioned before, it is a fallacy to say simply because it is the norm does not follow that it is correct.

Conclusion)
Abortion is the intentional killing (murder) of a human being while still in the process of development. Apart from the fetus, the severe complications, both mental and physical, negatively affect everyone involved including parents, doctors, and bystanders.
Coming from a Christian worldview, the idea of abortion goes against what is found throughout the teachings of Christ. Dr. Richard Eyer, in his book Holy People, Holy Lives, states that “Roe v. Wade set a precedent for the Supreme Court. Morality, formerly understood as being about objective or transcendent values of right and wrong, is no longer permitted as part of the argument…there is no judgment of right or wrong. Morality is simply a matter of following proper procedure. Method has replaced content in defining morality.” (Eyer, 2000) We have, as a culture, decided to care more about the individual rights of people involved than the intrinsic values God has given to us.










1

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR