ON JANUARY 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the now famous Roe v. Wade case, ruled that during the first six months (first two trimesters) of pregnancy the decision whether to abort a baby should be left to the mother and her physician. In Doe v. Bolton, the court effectively destroyed all safeguards for the fetus during the third trimester by permitting abortions for broadly defined "health reasons." The court defined health "in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age—relevant to the well being of the patient."¹

Since then "abortion on demand" has become accepted medical practice in the United States. It is the second most common surgical procedure, only slightly behind circumcision. Hundreds of clinics derive their primary income from non-therapeutic abortions.² Their annual gross earnings are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

These facts mark a radical change from the past. In 1968 there were about 18,000 legal abortions in the United States. In 1984 there were more than 1,500,000. Today nearly one of every three babies conceived in the United States is aborted. Of the 1.5 million legal abortions performed annually since 1980, fewer than 5% involved deformed, brain-damaged fetuses, or pregnancies that originated in rape or incest—though such cases were presented before 1973 as the chief justifications of abortion on demand. This means that more than 1.4 million normal, healthy fetuses have been aborted every year since 1981. More than 16 million have been aborted since 1973—nearly 7% of the current U.S. population.

A GRAVE MORAL ISSUE

The sheer magnitude of the abortion issue has given rise to what may be the greatest moral debate in our nation since the question of slavery in the nineteenth century.

Many arguments have surfaced in favor of abortion on demand, all centering on the mother's health, safety, or convenience.

For instance, during the late 1960s and early 1970s pro-abortionists presented evidence to state courts highlighting the dangers of illegal abortions by doctors and "back alley" abortions by people without medical training. Some women were exorbitantly charged, were raped by the abortionist, suffered unnecessary bodily harm, or even died from faulty surgical procedures. Pro-abortionists often argued that these problems could easily be avoided if "safe and legal" abortions were available.

In response, a few states and then the Supreme Court made landmark decisions removing major restrictions on abortion.

Yet all the arguments about the mother's safety, health, and convenience would have had little impact on the courts had they not been accompanied by the assertion that the fetus did not share the right to life that all other members of society share. Since the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons" from deprivation of life without due process of law, the major hurdle for pro-abortionists was convincing the courts that fetuses were not "persons. "Despite a woeful lack of objective evidence for their position, they succeeded.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court declared that "legal personhood does not exist pre-natally." It added that the woman has a "right to privacy" that includes her freedom to abort and that the "distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child" is reason enough to deprive the unborn of life.⁴ The court used similar arguments in Doe v. Bolton.

These decisions are based solely on the perspective of the woman seeking an abortion. The father of the unborn child has no rights. The unborn child is stripped of all rights until the moment of his birth.

Indeed, an abortionist who, at the mother's request, kills an unborn child in his mother's body—even during labor after a full-term pregnancy—acts within the law. But anyone who kills a baby one second after birth is subject to capital punishment in many states. The only difference is where the baby is at the time of death. Inside the womb the fetus is not a "person." Outside, the fetus is a "person." Nothing has changed in the fetus but its location.

Clearly the crucial question, then, is whether the unborn child is a person and so has a right to life.

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION

How does God's Word, the Bible, answer this question?

First, the Bible views the fetus as a person. Second, the Scriptures regard the unborn child as legally equal with its mother. Third, the Bible indicates that the quality of personhood is imparted to the child at conception.

The Fetus Is a Person

Such technical designations as "fetal tissue" and "product of conception" numb our minds against the actual identity of the unborn child. They picture the fetus as a mere growth on the wall of the uterus. From that perspective, abortion is simply removing unwanted tissue—not morally different from an appendectomy or a tonsillectomy.

But the Bible views the unborn differently. Unborn children are persons formed by the creative hand of God. In the most ancient Old Testament book, Job asks regarding himself and his servants, "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15).

Notice that Job uses personal pronouns (me, them, us, our) to describe himself and his servants as objects of God's creative handiwork in the womb. By using personal pronouns, Job postulates the personality of the fetus. He is a distinct person from his mother. Though he is dependent upon his mother, he is a separate individual.

Isaiah speaks of his own existence as an unborn child in terms of distinct personhood: "And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant  . . ." (Is. 49:5a). Again we see God's personal involvement in forming the child, and we see a new dimension of personhood in the description of God's plan and purpose for the prophet during his development in the womb.

This dimension of personhood is also brought to light by Jeremiah: "The word of the LORD came to me; saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations'" (Jer. 1:4–5). What elevated Jeremiah to personhood in the womb was not that he knew God, but that God knew him—not just intellectually, as one knows a fact, but in personal relationship. And God says He called Jeremiah while he was in the womb. This indicates the Lord's intimate identification with Jeremiah as a person during his prenatal existence.⁵

These Old Testament writers saw themselves as distinct persons in the womb, and God saw them the same way. They were not mere "fetal tissue" or "products of conception," the results of purely biological forces; they were human persons bearing the image of God.

The same view of the unborn appears in the New Testament. When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was in her sixth month of pregnancy, " . . . the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit" (Lk. 1:41). Then she said, "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (v. 44). Impersonal "fetal tissue" cannot "leap for joy." Joy is a distinctly personal emotion.

Is the fetus a person? The Bible says yes.

The Absolute Value of Persons

Some argue that the fetus is of less value than someone already born. Their argument is based on a faulty translation of Ex. 21:22–23: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life  . . ." (NASB).

Even this description is far removed from the modern practice of abortion on demand. The incident described is spontaneous and accidental. A modern abortion is intentional and planned.

But the literal meaning of the verses paints a different picture entirely. The Hebrew words yalad and yatsa, here translated "has a miscarriage," literally mean "the child (born one) comes out." The same Hebrew words also describe the live births of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:25–26). Thus the New International Version renders the Hebrew correctly as "she gives birth prematurely" (the marginal reading in the New American Standard agrees that this is the literal meaning).

Moses could have designated a miscarried child by using the correct word for it, shakol, as he did in Ex. 23:26. But he used an expression that clearly indicated that the child was born alive.

So the New International Version properly renders the verses:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . ..

Properly understood the verses impose a fine if the prematurely born child survives, as compensation for suffering by either mother or child. But if either the mother or the child were to die as a result of the incident, then the offender must pay with his life.

In short, these verses teach that the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child are of equal value before God and man: killing either brought the same penalty.

The New Testament, too, permits no special distinction between born and unborn children. The Greek word brephos may refer equally to an embryo, an infant, a baby, or a young child; it matters not whether the child has been born.⁶

Personal Life from Conception

When does human life begin? This question goes to the heart of the abortion debate.

King David wrote in Ps. 51:5: "Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." David is sinful from the moment of conception. And sin, like joy, is a quality of persons, not of non-persons.

The Bible teaches that human, personal life begins at conception. Abortion—the destruction of unborn human life—violates the Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13).

ABORTION VERSUS RECONCILIATION

The central message of the New Testament is that Jesus came to bring reconciliation between a holy God and sinful men (Ro. 5). God also brings peace between human enemies (Eph. 2). Christ desires mutual respect and love in all interpersonal relationships.

The attitude, "Better no child at all than an unwanted child" rules out the possibility of reconciliation. The chance of an unwanted child becoming wanted is not even considered. Yet thousands of couples, eager to adopt these "unwanted" children, remain childless because of abortion.

WHAT CAN A CHRISTIAN DO?

During the third and fourth centuries AD, Christians were an important force in ending abortion and infanticide. Surely we should seize the opportunity to stem the tide of brutality and slaughter again in our own generation.

What can we do?

First, we can become informed about the nature and extent of non-therapeutic abortions in our communities and nationwide. We should be aware of the medical procedures involved, of the risks to the mother from having an abortion, and especially of the physical agony experienced by the child during abortion. Such books as New Perspectives on Human Abortion, edited by Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D. (Frederick, Md.: Aletheia, 1981), help answer these questions. Much information is available at libraries and crisis pregnancy centers that help counsel prospective mothers away from abortion and protect the unborn.

Second, Christians must defend the unborn. God commands His people, "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (Ps. 82:3–4). Since we are trying to prevent violence, of course, we should not resort to violence. Bombing abortion clinics is both unwanted and counterproductive. Society must recognize that we are concerned, peaceful, legal, and above reproach in our actions.

We live in a democratic republic that provides numerous avenues for protecting its weaker members. Each of us, as a citizen, has recourse to his representative at every level of government. Responsible voting is an important part of the Christian's duty as a citizen. Enormous changes have been made in our laws by relatively small groups of concerned citizens.

What can we do on a more personal level?

Five years ago a concerned young mother in our church initiated a counseling service for problem pregnancies. Today eight other women from venous backgrounds assist her. They offer free pregnancy tests and exact information about what happens in an abortion. They also offer financial, moral, and educational support to those who choose to carry their babies to teen, and counsel the women about keeping their children or placing them for adoption. When prospective mothers learned that such help was available, scores elected to give birth to their children instead of aborting them. The agency now counsels ninety girls per month. Hundreds of such agencies exist around the country—but we still need hundreds more.

One area that needs creative thought is preventing unwanted pregnancies. Because of lax moral standards, the United States has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the Western world. Schools and communities have tried unsuccessfully to introduce "value free" sex education programs, and the result has been "value free" sexual activity—and unwanted pregnancies.

Why couldn't our churches offer sex and family education courses based on God's Word and His standards? Here is an area that challenges the thinking and talent of any Christian working with youth!

In the church Christians can also provide the most effective safety net for those who experience problem pregnancies by offering counseling, financial assistance, shelter, and—most important—love.

Many avenues are open to combat abortion. No Christian can be expected to be involved in all of them. But if each of us does what he can, relying on God's leading and strength, we will be able to save thousands of lives. Think about these words from Proverbs:

What will you do about abortion?

Louis Platt is an area representative for The Navigators where he conducted special studies on the ethics of abortion.