Summary: Indeed we are called to liberty (free will) but let none use or advocate or condone the use of that liberty as an occasion to the flesh (Galatians 5:13). Abortion is never godly except to save the physical (not psychological, emotional, or socio-economic) life of the mother when her life/health is in imminent danger as a matter of self-defense if the mother so chooses. Examples include imminent death and being permanently bedridden as discussed later. That self-defense measure should take place in a hospital not in an abortion clinic which means abortion clinics should not exist. Arbitrary abortions should be legally forbidden in our laws as all law should be righteous (Romans 13:1-7). Such abortions like all sin is worthy/important to repent from being mindful of God’s offer of forgiveness (Matthew 3:8-10, 1 John 1:9). In the case of abortions occurring due to conception during biblical fornication or adultery that is adding sin to sin. The biblical husband/male is the head of the wife/female principle certainly disallows the government position that the woman is the sole determiner of non-life threatening abortions.
Human life begins at conception. Conception establishes the existence of a baby child regardless of the technical/medical/scientific terms assigned during various stages of the baby child’s development. This is clearly set forth in Psalm 139:16 which says: “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” Here substance refers to the body, unperfect to embryoic stage of development, members to body parts such as arms and legs and continuance to the progressive development after conception. Note that God recorded the existence of the human before even one recognizable human body part (member) was formed.
With regards to the abortion issue, a baby is totally innocent and therefore is to be protected from others. A baby is not the property of the parents to be done with as they please (Galatians 5:13). One of the important tasks of government is to protect the weak against the strong through equitable opportunity. The person in the womb deserves that protection.
Rape is not sufficient reason to take an innocent’s baby’s life (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) for there are those who would adopt the baby. Incest is not sufficient reason to take an innocent baby’s life. For what we define as incest was necessarily a biblical practice at the beginning of humanity. How else could Adam and Eve have grandchildren? Of course, the principle of incest gives rise to the notion that God considers some righteous acts better than other righteous acts at certain points in time. For example, now that there are plenty of people not directly related, God has established a law based on the principle that it is better that a person marry someone other than his or her sibling, etc.
There are those that say if arbitrary abortions are illegalized then mothers will turn to “backroom” dangerous abortion places or methods to obtain abortions and risk the mother dying from unsafe abortive acts. Well to them I ask! Do we decriminalize a person’s use of illegal drugs such as cocaine for non-medical purposes because some overdose on such drugs in “backrooms” or other secret places? Do we provide a safe place for people to use cocaine to get high and have doctors there in case they overdose? Of course not! Abortion is no different. With respect to abortion as a part of healthcare benefits, healthcare is about saving lives not taking lives; any healthcare policy should be rooted in the saving lives principle.
What about those who wanted to have a good time but did not intend to get pregnant, no matter the age? Well, those who voluntarily have sex that results in pregnancy should press through the pleasure-pain of raising a child just as they pressed through the pleasure and maybe also pain of that sexual encounter. Families and churches should be bold enough to preach/teach accountability and responsibility. Society should hold them to such.
Generally, in the United States legal community, including the Supreme Court, there is what is called Roe’s three-part “essential holding” in reference to Roe vs. Wade 1973 US Supreme Court decision: First, a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second, the State has the power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering the woman’s life or health. And third, the State has legitimate interests from the pregnancy’s outset in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.
First observe that Roe vs. Wade does not deal with nature’s abortive results such as miscarriages or unintentional abortive results on the part of the mother. These are sometimes called spontaneous abortions. Roe vs. Wade was about Person A knowingly and intentionally causing the abortion of a child in the body of Person B. I don’t even think self-abortions are legal under Roe vs. Wade.
Assuming that there is agreement on the definition of viability, the second and third essential holdings are consistent with godly principles relating to the abortion issues provided life and health refers to physical life and physical health of the mother and viability is properly determined. This is due to the right to self defense. Indeed, mental, age, socio-economic, and emotional life/health are not sufficient reasons for allowing abortion as these do not qualify as physical life/health factors. Furthermore, viability must be defined as the ability of the baby to live outside the womb and that determination of ability is at a minimum made by more than one independent medical authorities under normal circumstances.
Moreover, if the baby can be birthed naturally or otherwise removed through C-Section or other means and there should be reasonable medical expectation that the baby will survive even if medical technology is initially needed to assist the baby’s outside the womb development then the baby shall be deemed to have viability; this provision does not apply if there is reasonable medical expectation that the baby can be neither birthed nor otherwise safely removed without causing loss of mother’s physical life or severe damage to mother ‘s physical health, e.g., causing her to be permanently bedridden. Bedridden gives me pause given that paralyzed people live but still it is something that law should leave up to the mother I believe.
However, the first essential holding is in direct violation of a number of godly/biblical principles. The first essential holding confers more rights to a woman than God confers upon her. Indeed, it violates the first principle of family which is that man is the head of woman, husband is the head of wife. Thus, the first holding essentially says the father of the child has no say whatsoever over the abortion even in the absence of any compelling medical reason. In other words the first holding says if the woman does not want the baby then she may dispose of it and it is her decision and her decision alone. This is unsound doctrine and is a case where a little leaven leavens the whole lump of family destruction and societal decay into moral depravity. A little sin grows however slowly or however quickly into greater and greater sin in our individual and collective lives. Yes, it is the woman’s body holding the baby. But the man helped put the baby there. More importantly, it is the baby’s body that society should protect against selfish adults and even non-adults. The argument that it’s the woman’s body and so she should be able to do with it what she wants lacks spiritual, intellectual, and legal integrity concerning pregnancy. Of course to abortionist and supporters the unborn is not seemingly human enough or not human at all.
The first essential holding also inherently discards the recognition that sinfulness of humanity will cause some to abort a baby out of convenience and selfishness. This is the same convenience and selfishness based sin that causes a man to rob and kill another person for money. There is no moral difference. Therefore, the first so called essential holding is morally evil and is not essential to a proper basis for abortion.
Abortion is a medical procedure certainly. But at its core it is a moral, psychological, and socio-economic issue. The only time an abortion should be considered is when the physical life or physical health of the mother is clearly in severe danger as that would be a case of self-defense. But statistics show that most abortions are rooted in adult conflict and/or money issues. Neither adult conflict or lack of money are righteous or even natural reasons to abort; they are satanic/evil reasons. Humans and governments find money to do everything else they should do so let it be for the babies in the womb. Let faith in God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob in Jesus name prevail over fear of lack. It is intuitively obvious as to the reason people get abortions. Most of those reasons are selfish. The morning after pill recognizes that truth.
Some say that even in a self defense claim the woman should have the faith to not abort. For me it is not a question of faith but a question of self defense and good old fashion common sense. It is the same common sense that Jesus used against the devil in Matthew 4:5-7 when the devil asked Jesus to jump off the pinnacle because Jesus knows God will send angels to catch him. But Jesus said to him Thou shalt not tempt the Lord they God. But if the mother wanted to risk her life to save the baby then I hold as a general rule she should be able to in law and the law should not force her to abort the baby. The reason is self defense is always a personal choice as it directly affects one’s own life against harm by a guilty party though unintentional guilt in this case. On the other hand, arbitrary abortions directly affects an innocent baby’s life.
In conclusion the following moral principles should be core basis for all legal and moral decisions regarding the issue of abortion:
It is godly reasonable to take another person’s life if one’s physical life or physical health is severely threatened. Therefore aborting a baby is justifiable as a last resort when the mother’s physical life or physical health is severely threatened as determined by one or both of the parents and at least two duly authorized and independent medical doctors that specialize in the mother’s medical ailment. In the case of an emergency room incident (or equivalent incident) only one such doctor is required when the mother’s physical life or physical health is clearly in severe danger and time is of the essence such that there is no time to obtain an independent’s doctor’s diagnosis. If the mother is a minor (i.e., under 18 years of age), then one or both parents or legal guardian of the minor shall make all required decisions on behalf of the minor. This principle extends to a minor who is the father. This is because godly principles establish that minors are responsibility of parents and are not sufficiently mature to make such major decisions. Minors have no privacy rights as long as they are minors. The aforementioned emergency circumstances shall apply to minors also.
The above condition is the only condition in which abortion should be legalized. No other abortions are morally justifiable and therefore should not be legally sanctioned. There are people who would adopt the child if unwanted by both parents. Laws should protect the unborn against arbitrary abortions since human sinfulness/weakness will lead many to abort unwanted babies; this is true of even those who are Christians.
I did a study on abortion in which I looked at both prochoice (www.prochoice.org) and prolife (www.nrlc.org) references. An objective analysis of both prochoice and prolife given reasons for abortion will bring you to the same conclusion. Indeed, aborting for monetary purpose is selfish and frivolous although prochoice don’t see it as such. Most abortion are not because the mother’s life is physically in danger. They simply don’t want to deal with the child and/or child’s father. It is just common sense that this is the predominant reason. These sources are listed in the References section below.
For 2015, the abortion ratio reported to the CDC was 188 abortions per 1000 live births. Of these, the highest percentages were by non-Hispanic white women (36.9%) and non-Hispanic black women (36%).
Thus, overall there is statistical equity between whites and blacks in general. However, for 2015 when we look at the critical transitional ages of 15-44 years old, statistical inequity arises as for that age group we have non-Hispanic white women having 6.8 abortions per 1000 live births and non-Hispanic black women having 25.1 abortions per live birth. So it seems at the more stable mature ages of 45+ white and black women abort at a statistically equitable rate. However, it is problematic that at the lower vulnerable ages, there is a four (4) factor statistical inequity.
Update August 10, 2021:
The US Supreme Court has scheduled to hear a case sometime during its October 2021 – September 2022 term involving the State of Mississippi which could end up overturning the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. The State of Mississippi is apparently asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade.
The State of Mississippi Legal Brief states: “Overruling Roe and Casey makes resolution of this case straightforward. The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation, with exceptions for medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. That law rationally furthers valid interests in protecting unborn life, women’s health, and the medical profession’s integrity. It is therefore constitutional. If this Court does not overrule Roe and Casey’s heightened-scrutiny regime outright, it should at minimum hold that there is no pre-viability barrier to state prohibitions on abortion and uphold Mississippi’s law. The court of appeals’ judgment affirming a permanent injunction of the State’s law should be reversed.”
I would rather the law prohibit abortion earlier than 15 weeks gestation and indeed at the point of conception except in those cases where the mother’s physical (not socio-economic) life is clearly in imminent danger of death. For me, the issue of severe fetal abnormality is applicable only when such abnormality clearly endangers the mother’s physical life to the point of imminent death of the mother; otherwise let the fetus either live or die naturally, No socio-economic consideration is applicable even in the case of fetal abnormaliity less integrity demands socio-economics be applicable when the fetus is normal. However, the Mississippi law 15 weeks prohibition is better than 16+ weeks prohibition.
State of Mississippi vs Jackson Women Health Organzation, et al, References:
Freedom of Choice Act (Proposed) – Is bad proposed legislation that does not fix what’s wrong with abortion legislation but instead potentially moves it further into unsound doctrine. Encourage congress to not pass this act but to instead fix what’s wrong with the abortion laws.
Pro-Choice Article of Women Who Have Abortions
The link is to a copy of info I took off the prochoice website earlier located at https://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/about-abortion/abortion-facts/. When one day confirming the link on 9/27/2020 on their website I noticed that they have redone their website and the document is no longer located where it was. Whether it is still there somewhere I don’t know. I will later look at their site to see.
But I have learned to make a copy of such info as I know organizations redo their sites and delete and/or move things around all the time. The document is based on data captured somewhere between 2000 and 2012 when I first looked at it. I am confident the information conclusions of that document is current as human nature has not changed. Again, common sense tells us that. Indeed, I don’t readily see anything stating otherwise on their current website.
Under the section entitled “MYTH: Women have abortions for selfish or frivolous reasons”, the article proudly says: “The decision to have an abortion is rarely simple. Most women base their decision on several factors, the most common being lack of money and/or unreadiness to start or expand their families due to existing responsibilities.” Those are selfish and frivolous (childish, flimsy) reasons and have nothing to do with the mother physical life being in imminent danger. Those reasons are about her mental and socio-economic life which to me do not qualify according to biblical principles (e.g.,1 Tim 6:10). So then, very very small percentage of abortions are for reasons where the mother’s physical life is in imminent danger. Even the abortion advocates admit. Of course, common sense tells us that first and foremost.