Abortion is an emotive issue.
Varied descriptions of the same act carry different emotive contents.
Evacuating the uterus sounds very different from ‘scraping out the baby’.
Spontaneous and natural abortion is distinguished from human intervention to end a pregnancy.
Such intervention may be by drugs or surgical procedures.
Some contraceptives like the intra-uterine device or coil and the RU486 drug act as abortifacients (causing abortions) expelling fertilised eggs.
From specifically the Roman Catholic perspective, all contraception (Birth Control), even what prevents fertilisation, is unnatural.
In many countries, abortion is legal under specified circumstances.
Usually, permission from at least two physicians is required, and some timescale, e.g. 24 or 28 weeks, is set as the upper limit for performing abortions legally.
Even in Australia the age limit varies, plus there is a distinction between ‘medical abortion’ (9 weeks/63 days gestation), and ‘surgical abortion’.
The following is a list of legal ‘abortion access’ for the different states and territories across Australia.
(https://www.msiaustralia.org.au/abortion-law-in-australia/)
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT): Abortion access is legal at any pregnancy gestation.
New South Wales (NSW): Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
Northern Territory (NT): Abortion is legal under 24 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
Queensland (QLD): Abortion is legal up to 22 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
South Australia (SA): Abortion is legal for up to 22 weeks’ and 6 days gestation. After 22 weeks’ and 6 days gestation, abortion is only permitted in certain special or emergency circumstances.
Tasmania (TAS): Abortion is legal up to 16 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
Victoria (VIC): Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
Western Australia (WA): Abortion is legal for up to 23 weeks’ gestation. Beyond this abortion is only accessible in certain special or emergency circumstances.
While ‘certain special or emergency circumstances’ again varies state by state, here are some broad interpretations:
(Tasmania) If the doctor believes that continuing the pregnancy would cause greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person than if the pregnancy were terminated and if the doctor has consulted with another doctor who reaches the same conclusion. The doctors must consider the person’s physical, psychological, economic and social circumstances and at least one of the doctors must specialise in obstetrics or gynaecology.
(South Australia) The approval of two doctors is required if continuing the pregnancy would cause great risk to the life, physical or mental health of the pregnant person or if there is a risk of foetal anomalies. The requirement for a second opinion is waved in cases of emergency.
Abortions must not be performed for the purposes of gender biased sex-selection.
In Northern Territory (NT), An abortion will be performed in an emergency if a medical practitioner considers it necessary to preserve the life of the patient.
In Queensland (QLD), an emergency is where doctor considers it necessary to perform an abortion to save the person’s life or “the life of another unborn child”.
In other countries, such as across India, surgical abortions may be up to 40 weeks.
Specific conditions often refer to risks to the mother’s life, to her social and psychological well-being, to the social, psychological and economic wellbeing of other children, and when the foetus is thought to be abnormal.
This last category will grow as we are better able to diagnose congenital abnormalities.
In such cases, abortion prevents the suffering of the abnormal individual and of the family and carers.
While this may be true, it also implies a particular view of human worth, i.e. that handicap and abnormality make life not worth living and calls in question society’s view of normality.
Doctors are thus permitted to perform abortions legally.
There is a conscience clause which allows doctors and nurses to refrain from taking part, but this creates great problems in a medical unit and has discouraged many from becoming specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology.
In practice, this legal permission has become almost abortion on demand, and doctors find it very difficult to refuse requests for abortions.
The language used to describe the foetal life itself can carry value. Some talk of embryos (potential humans), as opposed to foetuses (people with potential).
Part of this is disagreement about when life begins.
For some it begins at fertilization, when the sperm and the egg unite and the full genetic potential is in place, but the possibility of twinning and the over 40% loss of fertilized eggs in the normal monthly cycle without any suggestion of pregnancy are adduced as evidence against this.
Research in embryology and infertility uses 14 days as a cut-off point for experimentation on embryos, on the grounds that the individual is formed near that point as the primitive streak develops with the capacity to register pain.
Implantation, when the fertilized egg fastens on the wall of the womb, is the next option, which allows the use of the coil – which many argue is vital for population control in the Third World, where it is the most effective contraception.
Then quickening, when the child moves within the womb, or viability, when high technology medicine can preserve life, are selected.
Medical practitioners favour viability as the point when a clear patient becomes the responsibility of the doctor. With advances in intrauterine surgery, this line will not only continue to be reduced from 24 to 21 weeks but be questioned as genetic engineering and manipulation become more viable.
In practice, many doctors adopt a developmental life of the unborn, recognizing that as the foetus develops there is greater claim made on the rest of us by the foetus.
When viable, the foetus can be considered as a patient to be cared for in the same way as the mother.
Others, however, suggest birth, stressing that the Genesis account links life with the breath of God, and some claim that genuinely independent existence is necessary before we have human life in its fullness.
This latter view links with moves to define human life in the ‘having of certain fundamental capacities’ rather than in biological terms.
The modern debate rejects all discussion of ensoulment, which was the traditional basis for asserting the value of foetal life. The arbitrariness of the moment of animation and the alleged difference between male and female ensoulment make the traditional view difficult to propound in a secular society.
Even if we could agree about when life begins, that would not in itself solve the dilemma of the value implicit in or attached to human life at its various stages.
The heart of the abortion debate seems to rest on a decision between the rights (Rights, Human) of the mother and the rights of the child.
The status of the child thus does have significance for there to be rights involved.
Legal decisions about inheritance in utero, and the awarding of damages for accidents which happened in utero, seem to suggest that the foetus does have legal rights.
In contrast, the women’s movement in particular has argued that every woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.
It is hard to accept such claims, for society limits the freedom of all its members and their autonomy by restricting what people are allowed to do with their bodies.
Laws about seatbelts, motor-cycle helmets, pornography and prostitution embody such limits.
The lesser claim is that in a situation of conflict of interests, the rights of the woman should have precedence over the rights of the father or of the child.
Courts have usually found in favour of the mother rather than the father and the foetus.
This would justify the rare occurrence of aborting the foetus when the life of the mother was at risk.
More commonly, in situations of crime or incest, abortion has been legally justified on the grounds of the woman’s right over that of the foetus.
Those opposed to abortion stress the need to protect the innocent and the principle of the sanctity of life.
The Christian perspective
The principle of the sanctity of life is clearly established in God’s Promise to Noah (Genisis 9).
Genesis 9 (New King James Version)
So God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Bring forth abundantly in the earth
And multiply in it.”
8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying:
9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,
10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth.
11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
14 It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;
15 and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
And in the ‘Ten Commandments’ – Exodus 20:1-17 (New King James Version)
1And God spoke all these words, saying:
2“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3“You shall have no other gods before Me.
4“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
5you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
8“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
13“You shall not murder.
14“You shall not commit adultery.
15“You shall not steal.
16“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
17“You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour’s.”
The Old Testament does picture God as permitting and requiring the taking of human life in terms of warfare and the death penalty for specific crimes.
Some see this as justifying the killing only of the guilty and not of the innocent; others as a basis for a consistent, ‘seamless robe’ of the sanctity of life in every situation.
The Bible as a whole clearly states that life comes from God as his gift and that we are answerable to him for what we do with our own and other people’s lives.
Such responsibility means that we shall all answer before the judgment* seat for our actions and failures to act. Thus, any and every taking of life is a most serious business and requires justification to God.
Some suggest that in a fallen world there may be situations where no matter what we do it will be evil. Thus, in extreme settings, the taking of life may be the ‘lesser of two evils’, remaining an evil which needs confession and repentance.
This may be reflected in the Old Testament, where a distinction is drawn between the loss of a woman’s life and a baby as a result of an accident.
Exodus 21:22-23 (New King James Version)
22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
In the one case, the legal requirement is a life for a life, but in the case of foetal life, a fine is required.
Though exegetically ambiguous, at most this shows a distinction between foetal and fully developed human life but does not in itself justify abortion.
Indeed, it is clearly seen as a wrongdoing requiring recompense, even though this is in the setting of accidental death and not, as in modern abortion, where death is the intention.
The calling of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah while in the womb, and the detailed description of foetal life as portrayed in Psalm 139, offer a clear picture of God’s concern for and intimate involvement with human beings from before conception.
Psalm 139 (New King James Version)
O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off.
3 You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.
5 You have [b]hedged me behind and before,
And laid Your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is high, I cannot attain it.
7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,”
Even the night shall be light about me;
12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.
13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.
17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;
When I awake, I am still with You.
19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
While there is no doubt about God’s role in the creation of life, these passages are all written from the perspective of psalmist and prophets looking backwards.
All of their life has been in God’s hand, and they testify to that.
Whether we are able to look forwards from every embryo to the person they would be, if other things were equal and nothing else happened, is less certain.
In the New Testament, after the annunciation by Gabriel to Mary, the now newly pregnant Mary goes to visit the six-months-pregnant Elizabeth.
She describes how the child in the womb (John the Baptist) leapt at the coming of the Saviour’s mother.
Luke 1:39-45 (New King James Version)
Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah,
40 and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth.
41 And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”
This seems to point to foetal awareness in John and the foetal identity of both Jesus and John.
The same note of backwards looking reflection matters here, for the physician Luke records what happened to those who were known as John the Baptist and as Jesus.
Whether the forwards projection or the generalisation from such a unique, doubly miraculous event can in itself justify a high view of foetal life is more debatable.
The early church and its successors firmly held to the need to defend the unborn and the inviolability of the foetus, once it was ensouled.
The modern debate has moved on, and Christians may disagree, but not about the central need to preserve the principle of the sanctity of life, and limit the idea that people are free to please themselves with regard to their own bodies regardless of the impact on others.
This is not a patriarchal imposition, but a recognition that the vulnerable need to be protected.
Within the Catholic community, abortion has sometimes been justified on the basis of the ‘double effect’ argument.
If the aim of an operation (e.g. an abortion) is to save the life of the mother, then that primary effect and intention are morally acceptable; the second or double effect is the death of the child.
While still ultimately responsible, if the doctor’s primary intention was to preserve the woman’s life and there was no alternative, then a doctor may be considered to be morally justified in ending foetal life.
Current issues
With increasing technological and genetic advances, the problems will continue to grow in this area.
Selective reduction, where healthy implanted embryos are destroyed to avoid multiple births in infertility treatment, is now common.
The use of foetal tissue from aborted foetuses raises moral questions about the integrity of the foetus and who should give permission for such work, if it should be permitted.
Some regard this as a means of bringing some good result out of an evil situation, while others regard this as ‘playing at God’ and reducing the value and integrity of human life.
As our capacity to measure and manipulate foetal and embryonic life grows, so will the moral dilemmas.
Christians must remember that behind the dilemmas are real people facing unwanted pregnancies, bringing up handicapped children, or coping with the long-term results of rape and incest.
The need to offer genuine assistance to the unmarried mother, to the mother who already has a large family and no proper means of support, to the parents of handicapped children, and to those who have been criminally assaulted should be part of the Christian response regardless of our own attitude towards abortion.
Such loving care may well decrease the number of abortions. Likewise, Christians must reflect on their responsibility in a society where human life is regarded cheaply.
It is proper to ask what kind of society we become when human life is regarded as disposable; all of us may then be vulnerable.
The prophetic proclamation of the principle of the sanctity of life must be matched by concern for those who do not and cannot accept that standard.
Practical help with practical alternatives must be produced.
In political terms, Christians are free in a democracy to work for a change in the abortion laws and to persuade society of the evil of abortion on demand.
They do not have the right to inflict their morality on society.
This creates a tension for politicians and law-makers who are Christians.
Do they refuse to accept anything but the ideal they believe in, or are they willing to work by a process of compromise at reducing the conditions and time-scale for abortions, thus killing the abortion law by a series of reductions?
As part of restraining evil in a pluralist society, many will feel that saving the few is better than saving none, and that, in time, science will show the integrity of human life from its earliest stages.
Leave a Reply