Abortion and Evangelical Christians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This opposition is at odds with many people who support a woman's right to abortion. Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have opposed abortion mainly because of their belief in the Bible as the unchanging and inspired Word of God, as well as the interpretive framework that is used to understand and apply it. Through this belief and process of interpretation, Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have come to the conclusion that abortion is morally wrong, generally through the fundamentalist interpretation of various verses in the Bible. Moreover, many of them see the termination of a human embryo in pregnancy or in a test tube as murder, which would be a violation of the 6th commandment.
Contents |
[edit] The Bible and Hermeneutics
Evangelicals generally believe in both the divine inspiration of the Bible (the idea that in the Bible, the Christian God clearly speaks) and the fact that it was written by people. The Bible is therefore believed to be both a divine and a human document, with God (as the Holy Spirit) supervising his direct work through the people who wrote it. It is believed that because of this divine supervision that any errors in fact or thinking are not present in the Biblical text. Both Evangelicals and Fundamentalists hold to the belief that the Bible is the perfect, "Spirit-breathed" words of God to all who read it.
Classic evangelical Biblical interpretation (Christian Hermeneutics) holds also to the idea that the Biblical text should be interpreted via the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. Put simply, this method of interpretation seeks to understand the human genre of the text and place it in its historical context. "Reading it the way the author intended it to be read" is one way of explaining this.
The result of this dual interpretive structure - that the author of the Bible is ultimately God / The Bible should be read like any other text - is that certain passages, when understood in this light, result in a belief and attitude that abortion is morally wrong.
Thus any attempt by non-evangelicals to argue that "the Bible is no longer relevant", or that "the Bible doesn't have to be interpreted that way" runs into problems at a very basic level. Modern philosophical bases for textual criticism, including deconstruction theory and postmodernism, are generally not held by these Christians.
See also:
[edit] Quoted Biblical passages
The practice of abortion is not mentioned explicitly in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. For many Evangelicals, however, enough Biblical material exists to believe strongly that abortion could be classified as murder. The closest thing to abortion in the Bible is miscarriage due to violence on the women in the Old Testament which is not treated like murder (Exodus 21:22).
[edit] Psalm 139:13-16
Click here to read Psalm 139
These four verses are perhaps the most quoted part of the Bible when dealing with Abortion. In these verses, the Psalmist speaks of God creating the Psalmist's fetus in the womb of his mother. Some people argue that the language the Psalmist uses indicates that a fetus is considered to be a human being.
Many evangelicals would argue that if God sees a fetus as a human being, then any termination would result in the death of a human being. Because this death was deliberate and indiscriminate, the argument would then focus upon abortion as a form of murder.
It could be pointed out that God only recognised the Psalmist as a human being while he was still a fetus, and that making the correlation that God therefore sees all fetuses as human as being a logical fallacy. This is typically countered by the argument that such a belief is not present anywhere else in scripture, and that other verses support the original assertion.
[edit] Jeremiah 1:5
Click here to read Jeremiah 1
God speaks to Jeremiah and says that he "knew" Jeremiah not only before he was born, but before he was even conceived. This verse, although specific to Jeremiah, suggests that God recognised Jeremiah as human before birth. This verse supports the argument outlined in Psalm 139:13-16 above.
[edit] Luke 1:41 and 2:12
Click here to read Luke 1:39-45 Luke 2:8-21
The Greek word for baby, brephos (βρεφος), is used interchangeably for both the fetus and a newborn baby in these two verses. In 1:41 it is used to describe the fetus, while in 2:12 it is used to describe a newborn. Furthermore, the child mentioned in 1:41 (John the Baptist) is said to have leaped in his mother's womb on hearing the voice of the Virgin Mary with child. This attribution of human actions to fetuses by the author(s) of this verse is seen as refuting any suggestion that the embryo or fetus is not a living human being with a soul.
The biblical argument against abortion is supported by the two different uses of brephos since it makes the fetus synonymous with a newborn.
[edit] Biblical passages cited as supportive of abortion
Note: In general, evangelical Christians would consider these passages, when cited as being supportive of abortion, as being taken out of context in order to support the conclusion.
[edit] Genesis 2:7
Click here to read Genesis 2:5-9
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
This scripture concerning the creation of the first man has been interpreted by those who deny that the fetus is a living human being, as allowing or teaching that ensoulment (receiving a soul) and being "alive" (living) occur only after the time when a person first breathes air, not when his body is otherwise fully formed. The passage describes the creation of the first human being, not the process of conception or birth.
[edit] Exodus 21:22-23
Click here to read Exodus 21:20-25
" 22"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." English Standard Version
This scripture describes the steps that should be taken against anyone who harms a pregnant woman by causing an untimely birth, even accidentally. As it appears in English translations, the verse holds a person accountable if actions result in a miscarriage and subsequent harm to the child.
Those who deny that an unborn child is a living soul point to the fact that "her children come out" refers to a miscarriage resulting in stillbirth, and note that the person or persons who caused the abortion are not treated as murderers, but rather, are fined as if a piece of property had been lost, and not a life. They deny that the "harm" in verse 23 means damage resulting to the child, and argue that it is a mistranslation for "blame" (i.e., if it can be determined who is to blame, then he shall pay the fine).
[edit] Numbers 5:11-31
Click here to read Numbers 5:11-31
In the fifth chapter of Numbers, starting with verse 11, a test is established for any woman suspected of adultery: she is taken by her husband to a priest and made to drink "bitter water". According to verses 21, 22, and 27, if she has committed adultery, "her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot". According to verse 28, however, if she has not committed adultery, she will be free to have children: "And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." Some interpret this test of a married woman for the crime of adultery as a test for pregnancy, inferring that the "bitter water" is an abortifacient.
[edit] Job 3
Click here to read Job 3
In the third (and later, the tenth) chapter of Job, upon suffering the cruelty of Satan, Job laments that he was ever born alive at all. Of particular interest are verses 11-17:
Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, with kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves; or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
Four times in this passage, death before birth is mentioned: "died...from the womb", "give up the ghost when I came out of the belly", "hidden untimely birth I had not been", and "infants which never saw light". Job complains that such an early death would have been preferrable to the misery of his life, which some construe as an argument for the abortion of unwanted children.
[edit] Ecclesiastes 6:3
Click here to read Ecclesiastes 6:3-6
"If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he."
This lament argues that a life cut short before birth is better than that of a man miserable and forgotten, a soul unimproved despite the abundance of his life. It is marshalled by some as an argument in favor of ending unwanted pregnancies.
[edit] Ezekiel 37:1-14
Click here to read Ezekiel 37:1-14
This passage describes a resurrection of dead bones by the breath of God. As with Genesis 2, some cite this passage in favor of the argument that human life begins at birth, at the first breath, and not in the womb.
[edit] Hosea 9:14-16
Click here to read Hosea 9:14-16
O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
In this passage, Hosea asks God to punish the wicked by denying them the live birth of children. He prophesies God's answer, that he will destroy the wicked and their descendents, vowing that if they are born he will kill them himself. The pro-abortion argument notes that if God may end the lives of the unborn as punishment for wickedness, they are not being judged for their own acts but for those of their parents, so that it is alleged to follow that the unborn are not fully persons in their own right but rather, the life of the unborn is part and parcel that of the parent.
(This section is still under construction. Additional entries are anticipated from Psalms, etc.)
[edit] Evangelical teaching on specific situations
A typical Evangelical position on abortion is founded on the assertion that a human life begins at the time of conception, and that this life should be given the due consideration of human life. It follows, therefore, that Evangelicals with this view see abortion at any stage of pregnancy to be an unacceptable act of the taking of a human life. Human life is sacred, as humans are unique in being made "in the image of God." (Genesis 1:27 - NIV) [1] Any attacks on human life therefore would be attacking an image of God. Murder is prohibited (Exodus 20:13 - NIV) [2] without any exceptions. In the typical evangelical view, the mother's own body does not belong solely to herself. Rather, she has responsibilities to God, so that she cannot rightfully do anything she wishes with her body. Likewise, the unborn life cannot be terminated based solely on her desires, although it resides in her body. A related argument using opposition to moral relativism as a premise is to argue as follows:
- Suppose we do not know whether an embryo is or is not a human being in the moral sense. Now, if the embryo is actually not human, and we erroneously prohibited abortion, the error (violating the civil rights of the woman) is not as great as the alternative error. The alternative being to permit abortion when the embryo is human, which would be sanctioning murder.
Nuances in the pro-life position sometimes arise based not on the question of the human life of the fetus, but rather, on the perceived responsibility of the pregnant women for her condition - for example, an unmarried harlot who voluntarily engages in unprotected sex might be seen as more "at fault" for her condition (and hence, more morally obligated to continue her pregnancy and more deserving of the punishment of childbirth) than a married woman whose sincere birth control efforts met with accidental failure. Likewise, an otherwise virtuous woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape or involuntary incest might be perceived as less culpable for her condition than a whore or wanton woman who was "just asking for it." An additional nuance involves the extent to which the state should become involved though in specific situations. Typically, evangelicals support outlawing abortion; however, depending on the circumstance, exceptions (which could nevertheless be argued as immoral) might be made based on the observation that human law is only meant to set a "lowest common denominator."
It should be noted that Evangelical Christians are not the only religious group to hold the view that the life of the fetus is paramount, and agreement among Evangelicals on this general idea does not necessarily constitute an agreement among them on the proper position to take on specific situations wherein the culpability of the pregnant woman is at issue.
By way of contrast, the most consistent pro-choice position is that a woman is sovereign over her own body, and hence, is in the best position to make moral choices related to continuing her pregnancy (or not) at any time. Nuances in the pro-choice position sometimes arise based on differing understandings of when a fetus is sufficiently developed to warrant consideration as a human life worthy of protection.
[edit] The inability of the woman to care for a child
Due to physical or psychological state, or simply due to socioeconomic background, some pregnant women may conclude that they will be unable to care for a child (or additional children). Some non-evangelicals would counsel these women to have an abortion, rather than bring the child up into a dysfunctional family where the child would be neglected and/or abused.
Evangelicals would argue that the life of the fetus or embryo should not be ended simply because the woman cannot look after a child. Their argument would be that the woman in question be cared for during pregnancy, and that she be supported in every way to ensure that she is able to care for the child in her own way. Alternatively, they would argue for giving the baby up for adoption.
As a means of providing practical help to encourage women to not abort, Evangelicals have established crisis pregnancy centers to provide free pregnancy tests, information on adoption and against abortion, referrals to social service agencies, and baby-related items such as furniture, baby and maternity clothing, and supplies such as food and diapers.
[edit] Pregnancy as a result of rape
The question of whether or not a pregnancy that is the result of a rape should be forced to be continued until childbirth is sometimes difficult for Evangelicals to agree upon.
The Evangelical pro-choice argument is that the woman should be able to choose whether or not to abort the fetus because she did not choose to engage in sexual activity. So the violinist argument actually could apply.
The pro-life Evangelical argument is that the woman's lack of consent to the rape (and hence, the pregnancy) and the fetus's (assumed) lack of consent to its own termination are not morally equivalent. The fetus must be shown preference, since the existence of one life overrides the violated consent of the mother.
[edit] Pregnancy as a result of incest
 |
Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
Although sometimes similar to rape (above) when the woman is under the age of consent, this situation is additionally problematic for some non-Evangelicals because of the purported genetic problems that are sometimes caused by incestual pregnancy, and for some Evangelicals because incest is (somewhat) forbidden in the bible.
Biblically, incest is prohibited in both Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 27, and yet, incestuous unions that result in pregnancy are carried to term (and produce biblical heroes) in Genesis 17 and 20 (Abraham and his sister Sarah; their child was Issac), and Exodus 6 (Amram and his aunt Jochebed; their children were Aaron and Moses). Interestingly, Isaac was an ancestor of Jesus Christ (according to Matthew chapter 1).
True Evangelicals would still argue that the incestuous pregnancy be brought to full term because the fetus is, in their opinion, a human being. But as with pregnancy as a result of rape, some quasi-Evangelicals do not hold to this view and would allow this an exception in any legislation that would outlaw abortion in all other situations, despite the fact that this exception would have killed Isaac and therefore stopped Jesus from ever being born.
[edit] Severe physical and/or intellectual disability
Because of recent advances in medical technology such as ultrasound and genetic testing, foetal abnormalities can often be detected early in a pregnancy. These abnormalities include severe physical and/or intellectual disabilities that would afflict the child should the pregnancy be carried to term. The option a vast majority of women take is to abort the pregnancy to prevent the creation of a child who will suffer.
The logic of this action is similar to euthanasia in that it seeks to prevent unnecessary suffering. Evangelicals nominally reject this notion, and would argue that mercy killings are nowhere sanctioned in the Bible. For Evangelicals, support is prescribed for the parents as they bring up the child in difficult circumstances, for as long as the child survives. As there are no exceptions for the prohibition on murder, "euthanasia-based" abortions are also unacceptable. Furthermore, an argument has been made that there is a certain good in bearing at least some types of suffering; development of character, increased reliance on God, and such being the typical cited ones. A slippery slope argument has also been made; namely, if "severe" disability justifies an abortion, then where would that leave other disabilities? What constitutes "severe disability?"
In actual practice, the abortion rate of detected defective fetuses is enormous. In the case of a detected Down Syndrome fetus, for example, the abortion rate is 91-93%, apparently regardless of the religious beliefs of the parents.
[edit] Ectopic pregnancies
This is one area where the vast majority of evangelicals would agree that termination is the only option. An ectopic pregnancy, where the fetus "implants" in the fallopian tubes instead of the uterus, will (almost) inevitably result in the death of the woman unless the embryo is removed. This necessarily results in the death of the embryo, but is permitted because of the theological principle of double effect. Catholics have further developed this doctrine, resulting in certain treatments being permissible (such as removal of the fallopian tube) while prohibiting others (such as taking methotrexate to induce an abortion).
Very rarely, a nontubal ectopic pregnancy may occur in which the fetus implants in the abdominal wall instead of a fallopian tube (or some other part of the body). These pregnancies are high-risk but occasionally a living child may be delivered. Click here to read a medical report of an abdominal wall pregnancy with a successful outcome for both the mother and child. What would be considered the proper course of action in this case is unclear, considering the high risk and the human lives at stake.
Other pregnancies in which the woman will clearly die unless the embryo or fetus is terminated (or transplanted) could fit into this category.
[edit] In vitro fertilisation
Evangelicals are not fully opposed to IVF but many are suspicious of problems that may result from it - namely the potential death of many embryos, or the death of the woman before the embryos are implanted. An argument has been made that it is hubris to believe in the innate superiority of one's one genes; as such, if one is infertile and one desires children, a superior alternative would be to adopt rather than go to extremes to conceive.
[edit] Embryonic Stem Cell Research
In general, embryonic stem cell research is condemned, again because of the view of the embryo as fully human. Since the prohibition on murder is absolute, the purported benefits of said research cannot be used to justify any research where embryos are sacrificed, just as intentional human sacrifice for the sake of experimentation is impermissible regardless of the potential benefits.
[edit] Human Cloning
Evangelicals are generally opposed to human cloning because it may result in the manipulation and subsequent death of an embryo. In addition, due to the view that each human being is created in the image of God, human cloning is condemned because it threatens human individuality. As long as human embryos are created and/or destroyed, it does not matter whether the process is labelled as "reproductive" or "theraputic."
[edit] Biblical law and Christian Reconstructionism
Reformed churches have historically taught that the "moral law", which is binding on all people by their creator, was republished on Mount Sinai as the Ten Commandments. Other laws were given to the Jews, which set them apart from other people, some of which also elucidate the principles of the moral law but are not obligatory for other nations in their given form. Westminster Confession of Faith, 19:5, for example, reads
The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it ...
Beginning in the mid-1960s, led by Rousas John Rushdoony, a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (who later left that denomination), a small movement of Reformed scholars began to exercise influence within conservative Reformed denominations, and in the wider circle of the evangelical movement. Rushdoony's movement, called Christian Reconstructionism, built on the traditional Calvinist view of the general applicability of the moral law. The Reconstructionists expanded upon the "general equity" of the statutes and sanctions of the Mosaic system of case law in rather unprecedented detail, suggesting specific applications of the Biblical law to modern practice of law and offering a pointed critique of modern culture, society, and statecraft.
After World War II until Roe v Wade, evangelicalism was largely apolitical. The landmark Supreme Court decision was an important factor, however, in awakening evangelical conscience; coinciding with the maturation of the Reconstructionist thesis, among other Evangelical responses to the religious and social developments of the 1960s youth culture, feminism and the sexual revolution. By no means alone, Reconstructionism is one influence that added to the formation of a new political activism, which first began to be noticed in the "born-again" Presidential campaign of Jimmy Carter, and then in the formation of the Christian Right with the founding Christian Voice in 1977 Moral Majority in 1981, and the Christian Coalition in 1989.
Because of its radical nature, Reconstructionism (dubbed Dominion theology by critics) has been of particular interest to sociologists. Its influence has been traced as a formative influence of the Religious Right, to Evangelical leaders such as James Dobson. Dobson himself is a member of the Church of the Nazarene, drawing from the rich social activism of the Wesleyan heritage and the Holiness movement. However, writers have found connections also from the Reconstructionists, or other Reformed writers and activists, such as Francis Schaeffer, not only to Dobson but also to other leaders of the Religious Right. The aim of these writers is to explain, by evidence of connection to Reconstructionism, how the Christian Right developed its moral objectives, which it in turn is trying to impose upon the rest of society. Abortion is, naturally, one of those issues. In the view of some critics, the influence of Reconstructionism is very wide indeed.
On the basis of principles drawn from Biblical law, and the belief that it is an abiding moral standard for all people, many Evangelicals not only believe that abortion is wrong, but actively work to remove any law that allows it. Abortion therefore stands as a rallying point for many Evangelicals, as well as a standard by which to judge politicians and political parties.
Christian Reconstructionism is rejected by practically all Evangelicals, and by far the majority know nothing about it. As noted, this movement did not originate the idea that the moral law found in the Bible (the Ten Commandments) is in some way an obligation for all people, or that the issue of abortion is implicated in this belief. Roman Catholicism also holds this view, and the Catholic argument of the popes, especially John Paul II, are much better known than that of Reconstructionism. Nevertheless, the connections to some important leaders of the Evangelical political movement are documented.
The Evangelical movement continues to be averse to tying political action to the mission of the churches. However, in the case of abortion and euthanasia, a strong argument has been found for the necessity of unified action, which has been instrumental in forging alliances that would have been unlikely in earlier generations, such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
An earlier Evangelical and Fundamentalist disinterest in politics is eroding, in large measure in response to the social acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. However, many Evangelicals still argue that, while all sin is wrong, the church is only responsible for its own people. When it comes to abortion, these separationists naturally expect their members to follow their religious teachings, but those outside the church and in general society - "unbelievers" - cannot have God's laws imposed upon them by political means, including prohibiting abortion. Separation of church and state, interpreted as avoidance of politics, is still held by many, such as the Mennonites, Seventh-day Adventists and many Baptists and others, to be a crucial and traditional religious principle, leading some to withdraw also from voting on the issue, in addition to disapproving of political activism centered on abortion. Their answer to abortion is not to impose God's laws on unbelievers, but preach the Gospel to them in the belief that God will use the message to bring them to a change of heart and into the church. Once they have become "believers", then they become subject to God's laws. Of course, the same principle applies for a political separatist, in issues such as adultery, murder, battery and theft.
This idea is backed up by 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, where Paul excoriates the Corinthian church for allowing sexual adultery to go unhindered in their midst. He commands them to expel the offending church member and to have nothing to do with sexually immoral people. But Paul then goes on to point out that such a command only applies to sexually immoral people within the church, not in society generally. In verse 12-13, Paul concludes by pointing out that God judges those outside the church, while (the church) should judge those inside. Reconstructionists themselves also, while believing that the state ought to implement biblical law, warns that politics is not a primary instrument of social reform. Instead, they emphasize reform of the Christian family, as the basic building block of human society.
[edit] Neoliberalism and evangelicalism
The link between conservative Christian faith and market economics has been around at least since the Cold War, when the atheistic communists openly attacked the influence of religion on public life, actively restricting freedom of religious expression across Russia, China and Eastern Europe. It is due to this link that Evangelicals have often embraced Neoliberal economic thinking, which sees smaller government as more desirable.
Support of small government by evangelicals in the pro-life movement strikes critics as contradictory, on the assumption that larger government could alleviate some pressures toward abortion, and could improve the lives of unplanned children. Liberals can also be seen as hypocrites as they support individual "choice" regarding abortion yet support "big government," which infringes on individual's rights.
