Abortion

Abortion has been with us throughout the ages. While first accepted as a necessary measure or “therapy” in saving the life of the mother, it has also been accepted in many countries as a means of population control, “quality of life” control (in the case of deformed fetuses) and reproductive control. It is often a choice for teens and women in economic hardship who do not have the resources to care for a child, as well as for women who are victims of rape and incest. In modern Western culture the justification and acceptance of this practice has widened as women’s rights and reproductive rights have come to the forefront. Often a woman’s request for abortion is justification enough for the procedure.

Medical Considerations

Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. It can be classified as either spontaneous or induced. A spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage, that is, the pregnancy ends usually due to various chromosomal or congenital defects, diseases or infections—of fetal or maternal origin. Unlike spontaneous abortion, an induced abortion is not a natural process of the body and involves a medical intervention. This intervention is of two types—therapeutic or elective—depending on the reason for the abortion. If the mother’s life is in danger, as in the case of cardiovascular and hypertensive diseases, an abortion might be performed for therapeutic reasons. An elective or voluntary abortion, on the other hand, is requested for reasons other than maternal health and is the most commonly performed type of abortion in the West today. It is estimated that approximately 25 percent of all pregnancies in the world are terminated by elective abortion, making this the most common method of reproduction limitation.

The method chosen for an abortion is commonly determined by factors like the duration of the pregnancy, the patient’s health, the experience of the physician and the physical facilities. The methods include (1) suction or surgical curettage; (2) induction of labor by means of intra- or extraovular injection of a hypertonic solution or other oxytocic agent; (3) extraovular placement of devices such as catheters, bougies or bags; (4) abdominal or vaginal hysterotomy and (5) menstrual regulation. About 75 percent of induced abortions in the United States are performed by suction curettage for a pregnancy of twelve weeks’ duration or less; these are usually performed in abortion outpatient clinics. There are, however, medical concerns about this spreading practice.

The two major medical reasons for limiting abortion today are fetal viability (which changes with technological capabilities) and medical consequences to the mother. Viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb, now stands at twenty-four weeks and can often be easily defined. Yet the consequences of an abortion procedure to the mother are debated and controversial. While most abortions, especially those done in the first trimester, are safe for women physically, the psychological sequelae have gone undocumented. Some reports deny serious psychological effects of abortion, but most cite overwhelming statistics indicating dire long-term negative effects, including guilt, shame, depression, grief, anxiety, despair, low self-esteem, distrust and hostility. Women with previous histories of psychiatric illnesses tend to be affected to a greater degree.

Both the Canadian Medical Association and the American Medical Association recognize abortion as a medical procedure available under the law. Recently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education called for compulsory abortion training for students of obstetrics (McFarland, p. 25). In contrast, the Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) opposes the practice of abortion.

Prolife Versus Prochoice

It is most unfortunate that the abortion debate is divided into two clearly opposing camps: the prolife and the prochoice, each entrenched in its respective uncompromising positions. The prolife stance holds the view that the fetus is a developing human being with intrinsic values and inviolable rights. She is as much a human being as the mother. So the sanctity of the fetal life in the womb, however developed, should have priority over the reproductive freedom of the woman. Abortion should be considered only when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. The basis of the prolife position is largely, but not exclusively, grounded on divine authority and the belief that human life is a gift of God.

The prochoice position does not see the fetus as possessing rights independent of the mother, who alone has the right to decide the fate of the fetus. This maternal right is in turn grounded in the principle of autonomy or self-determination, which provides the mother with freedom to make reproductive choices. The prochoice position also views access to abortion as necessary for women’s complete social equality. They see reproduction as the major obstacle to women’s competing successfully with men, and hence control of reproduction, including abortion, is necessary for equality. Any restriction of the availability of abortion is interpreted as coercing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will.

Personhood

While it is seldom disputed that a conceptus or a fetus is human, there is hardly a consensus as to when a human person begins. Personhood is still a crucial and practical issue, since modern society accords a person certain moral rights, such as the right to life. General philosophical criteria for personhood include any one, a few or all of the following: rationality, consciousness, self-consciousness, freedom to act on one’s own reasons, capacity to communicate with others and capacity to make moral judgments. Some hold that only when one or all of these qualities have been actualized should a human being be considered a person (actuality principle). Others feel that these qualities of personhood only emerge gradually in the course of fetal and early childhood development, so what counts in defining personhood is the potential that the human life possesses (potentiality principle). In this view fetuses and infants are recognized as having different degrees of personhood and therefore are given different measures of right to life.

The Bible does not use specifically the words person or personhood, but a biblical view of personhood can be established on the basis of a Christian doctrine of the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 reads: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule.’ . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Because God exists as three persons in communion, we also believe that human persons are created in his image to live in community. The most fundamental attribute of being in the image of God and human personhood, therefore, is relationality. God creates every single human person in order to relate to him or her. In response, every created human person seeks to relate to the Creator and other fellow creatures. Since each human being is created uniquely by God, every single human being is God’s image bearer. This is the ground for personhood, uniqueness and the right to life. Life is sacred because God creates a particular life for a unique relationship between him as the Creator and us as his creatures. This relationship begins when a conceptus is formed as God permits a human sperm and ovum to unite in the creation of a new unique life. How that life unfolds and whether all the inherent potentialities are actualized or not do not take away the intrinsic value of that life as God’s image bearer, a human person.

A Christian Response

Such a Christian understanding of personhood undergirds the proper attitude toward abortion. The sixth commandment in the Bible (not to kill; Exodus 20:13) carries the positive mandate of stewardship of all lives as sacred to God. This means not that the value of life is absolute (Matthew 24:9) but rather that no life is to be taken without an absolutely and unequivocally justifiable reason. As the Creator and Giver of life, it is God who ultimately has the sovereign right to take away life. So any attempt to terminate life, as in an abortion, must be done with the fullest sense of accountability before the sovereign God. For this reason the CMDS, both in the U.S. and Canada, in contrast to its secular counterparts, opposes the routine practice of abortion. Four main points are maintained in their position: (1) CMDS opposes abortion, yet supports alternatives; (2) CMDS believes abortion is in opposition to the Word of God, to respect for the sanctity of life and to traditional, historical and Judeo-Christian medical ethics; (3) CMDS believes that the Bible espouses principles that oppose the interruption of pregnancy (the sovereignty of God, the value of life over quality of life, moral responsibility in sexual conduct); (4) in the face of rights arguments put forth by patients and physicians alike, CMDS adheres to the final authority of Scripture, which teaches the sanctity of human life.

But resolving the dilemma of abortion takes more than ardently defending the sanctity of life in the unborn, for there is sacred life to embrace, though tragically unwanted, when abortion is opposed and denied. As a community that espouses Christian teachings and opposes abortion, we must be prepared to parent any children, not just our own, as a shared obligation. This means taking concrete steps to receive unwanted children into our families as a gesture of taking seriously the sacred lives God has created and exercising stewardship.

As a community of grace, Christians must, in addition to exercising the stewardship of life, honor our obligation of love. Love sees a woman seeking abortion as a neighbor in need of compassion. Regardless of whether abortion is given or denied, the pregnant mother, father and other members of the family will likely feel wounded. The Christian community must live out its spirit of koinōnia by developing various forms of care and support during such a difficult time and by providing a context in which repentance, reconciliation, healing and nurturing may take place.

Finally, the Christian community must not abdicate its responsibility in the prevention of abortion in our society. This must be achieved through education of our teenagers and young adults with regard to moral sexual conduct and responsible family planning. Sexual abilities are given to human beings to experience in part on earth what God is fully in eternity—love. Children, as a product of the love between husband and wife, are gifts from God to deepen the experience of love. No sex or childbearing outside the institution of marriage fulfills this divine intention. Christian education in the form of counseling is also important, and participation with a Christlike humility and patience in organizations such as Pregnancy Crisis Center enables a Christian community to resolve and persevere with the abortion dilemma.

» See also: Parenting

» See also: Self-Esteem

» See also: Sexuality

References and Resources

T. Beauchamp and L. Walters, eds., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1989) 181-239; S. McFarland, “The Abortion Rotation,” Christianity Today 39, no. 4 (1995) 25; F. Mathewes-Green, Real Choices: Offering Practical, Life-Affirming Alternatives to Abortion (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1994); M. L. Pernoll, ed., Current Obstetric and Gynecologic Diagnosis and Treatment, 7th ed. (Stamford, Conn.: Appleton & Lange, 1991); P. Ramsey, “Morality of Abortion,” in Life or Death: Ethics and Options (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968) 60-93; D. C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1987); N. Stotland, “Psychiatric Issue in Abortion, and the Implications of Recent Legal Choices for Psychiatric Practice,” in Psychiatric Aspects of Abortion, ed. N. Stotland (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, 1991) 1-16; J. R. W. Stott, “The Abortion Dilemma,” in Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1984) 2:187-214.

—Edwin Hui