Pro-life Perspectives: Applying Biblical Wisdom
July 17, 2022
*NOTE: See HERE for a video addressing 5 follow-up questions on the issue of abortion.
Text to be read: Proverbs 31.8-9
Preface
· Continue our series on “A Theology of Life”
o Responding to our cultural moment
· Difficulty of subject of abortion feel like I need to say multiple things at once, and you can only say one thing at a time
· Sean, last week addressed those women who had abortions
o Men too!
o The gospel is real holy blood has been offered for your forgiveness of sins—all of them!
· This sermon is addressing the ideas within the abortion debate
o Yet, I know there are very real emotions and life-stories involved
PRAY for sermon
Introduction
· Proverbs and wisdom relevant to the issue at hand
o Proverbs 1.3 “To receive instruction in wise behavior, righteousness, justice, and equity.”
§ Key concepts in the abortion debate in our culture!
o Proverbs 21.30 “There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the Lord.”
§ God’s perspective is the true and reasonable one
§ Views and perspectives not in alignment with God’s will not stand
· They are foolish and incapable of sustained rationality
o Proverbs 21.22 “A wise man scales the city of the mighty and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.”
§ Tactical wisdom here
· Needed in intellectual “combat” as well
§ Need to understand the truth
§ And understand the central focus of the other side
§ Two aspects:
· Promote truth
· Refute error
· What’s at stake in our current cultural moment?
o From the biblical perspective innocent human life and justice
o Proverbs 31.8-9 “8Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. 9Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”
o Proverbs 24.11-12 “11Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back. 12If you say, ‘See, we did not know this,’ does he not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does he not know it who keeps your soul? And will he not render to man according to his work?”
Goals of this Sermon
· Two big goals
o (1) Outline the basic pro-life perspective and its rationale.
o (2) Briefly describe one of the two major ways abortion rights are defended and offer some brief responses.
· Why do we need this?
o (1) Understand the issues of our time
o (2) Communicate effectively
§ Inside the church discipleship
§ Outside the church proclamation of truth; stand for truth
Pro-life perspective: structure and rationale
· Structure of the pro-life argument (one way to outline it)[1]
o Biological aspect: A new human being comes into existence at conception.
o Moral aspect: Human beings are created equal and possess intrinsic dignity and worth.
o Political aspect: Governments exist to, at the very least, protect innocent human beings from lethal force.
· Conclusion of the argument:
o “Abortion is a grave moral evil, an act of violence against the most vulnerable members of the human family. Every abortion ends the life of an innocent human being in the womb, a child who, because he is human, necessarily possesses intrinsic worth and dignity and thus deserves to have his life protected.” --Ryan Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis[2]
· Presentation of argument
o Biological aspect
o Political aspect, and then…
o Moral aspect most controversy here!
Biological Aspect: A new human being comes into existence at conception
· Last week’s sermon: the biblical case cumulative argument
o There is no corresponding biblical case for the alternative!
§ Sometimes there are a few texts brought up or some theological concepts, but they do not have the cumulative force of the presentation offered last week
· Out of the three premises we’re looking at today the Biological aspect is the easiest to defend!
o Popular arguments on social media may still dispute that life begins at conception
o But the scientific evidence is clear and widely acknowledged![3]
§ Note: The scientific evidence was clear in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided!
§ Last week Pastor Sean listed out several scientific authorities on this issue.
o Informed defenders of abortion concede this point!
§ “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo Sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” --Peter Singer (Princeton ethicist who defends abortion and infanticide)[4]
· Q: If this point is recognized as true by even abortion-rights thinkers, how do they still justify abortion?
o We will see how they argue for this in a bit… under the “Moral Aspect”
Political Aspect: Governments exist to, at the very least, protect innocent human beings from lethal violence.
· Bible teaches this… already quoted Proverbs 31.8-9—words of King Lemuel, which his mother taught him (Proverbs 31.1)
o Proverbs 31.8-9 “8Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. 9Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.”
· Notice the language: “at the very least”
o There can be debates on how extensive the government should be involved in all sorts of issues relevant to pro-life issues
o “Achieving consensus will be easier on the measures necessary to prohibit abortion—no pro-lifer can support lethal violence in the womb—but there is a legitimate diversity of views about which measures best address the so-called demand side of abortion… Pro-lifers can hold a range of views on, for example, paid family leave or child tax credits. We should debate these policies on the merits, not use them to cast others out of the pro-life movement.”[5] --Ryan Anderson & Alexandra DeSanctis
· Some quick comments on a few objections:
o “Changing the law doesn’t change hearts.”
§ Correct. Even God’s law does not change the heart of sinful humans but it is still a good law that is reflective of God and his character.
· See Romans 7.7-13
§ The codified law can and does teach and constrain and influence.
· A change in the law regarding the protection of the pre-born will accurately educate a population on the matters of righteousness and justice.
· Laws against rape and yet people still rape but we don’t conclude that the legalization of rape is something to be pursued!
· “We should note that it is difficult to police and enforce laws against, say, texting and driving, but (in Canada) the law works to discourage texting and driving. Law has a teaching role. The point: If an action kills or threatens to injure innocent others, a law against the action is not unreasonable, even if no 100% effective.” --Hendrik van der Breggen[6]
§ God judges nations for their national sins. The removal of an unjust law and the codifying of a just law may turn away the judgment of God.
· Jonah Ninevah’s repentance
· Amos 1-2 judgment on nations surrounding Israel
o Amos 1.13 “Thus says the Lord, ‘For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gildead in order to enlarge their borders.’”
· Isaiah 10.1-2 “1Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, 2so as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of my people of their rights, so that widows may be their spoil and that they may plunder the orphans.”
· Psalm 94.20-21 “20Can a throne of destruction be allied with you, one which devises mischief by decree? 21They band themselves together against the life of the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”
o "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?" Such thrones there are, and they plead a right divine, but their claim is groundless, a fraud upon mankind and a blasphemy of heaven. God enters into no alliance with unjust authority, he gives no sanction to unrighteous legislation. "Which frameth mischief by a law?" They legalise robbery and violence, and then plead that it is the law of the land; and so indeed it may be, but it is a wickedness for all that. With great care men prepare enactments intended to put down all protests, so as to render wrong-doing a permanent institution, but one element is necessary to true conservatism [endurance], viz., righteousness; and lacking that, all their arrangements of the holders of power must come to an end, and all their decrees must in process of time be wiped out of the statute-book. Nothing can last forever but impartial right. No injustice can be permanent, for God will not set his seal upon it, nor have any fellowship with it, and therefore down it must come, and happy shall be the day which sees it fall. –Charles Spurgeon (on Psalm 94.20)
o “Changing abortion laws will not help—women will still get abortions.”
§ This is a pragmatic argument, but the pro-life argument is a moral argument. “The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t a bust because it didn’t effectively end slavery in all the states. Abortion is a moral evil like slavery is a moral evil. Any law reducing access to it should be welcomed.”[7]
§ Texas’ “Heartbeat Law” 60% drop in abortion rates in Texas[8]
Moral Aspect: Human beings are created equal and possess intrinsic dignity and worth.
· This is the key premise most dispute here!
· A living human being is a person worthy of moral value.
· “In other words, a living human being is a person—and living human beings are persons because they are living human beings. Being a living human being is a sufficient condition for personhood.” --Hendrik van der Breggen[9]
· It is this personhood which grants moral status one ought not to extinguish this innocent life
· Scott Klusendorf and S.L.E.D. lots of factors are, thus, irrelevant to personhood[10]
o S—Size: True, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean that they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.
o L—Level of Development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than the adults they’ll one day become. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more [of a right to life] than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.
o E—Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.
o D—Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.
· Pro-choice thinkers (some) focus on the L (Level of Development)
o Separate human life and personhood
o Prenatal human is…
§ Biologically human life but not…
§ A human moral person with intrinsic value
o “a fetus cannot be considered a member of the moral community, the set of beings with full and equal moral rights, for the simple reason that it is not a person, and that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity… which is the basis for membership in this community.” --Mary Ann Warren
o “I will argue that a fetus, whatever its stage of development, satisfies none of the basic criteria of personhood, and is not even enough like a person to be accorded even some of the same rights on the basis of this resemblance. Nor, as we will see, is a fetus’s potential personhood a threat to the morality of abortion, since, whatever the rights of potential people may be, they are invariably overridden in any conflict with the moral rights of actual people.” --Mary Anne Warren[11]
o Radical separation of human life from personhood = “Personhood Theory”
Personhood
__________
Human Life
o Criteria of Personhood “the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity in the moral sense” (Warren)
§ Consciousness
§ Reasoning
§ Self-motivated activity
§ Capacity to communicate
§ Self-concepts & self-awareness[12]
o “Thus, since the fact that even a fully developed fetus is not personlike enough to have any significant right to life on the basis of its personlikeness shows that no legal restrictions upon the stage of pregnancy in which an abortion may be performed can be justified on the grounds that we should protect the rights of the older fetus; and since there is no other apparent justification for such restrictions, we may conclude that they are entirely justified. Whether or not it would be indecent (whatever that means) for a woman in her seventh month to obtain an abortion just to avoid having to postpone a trip to Europe, it would not, in itself, be immoral, and therefore it ought to be permitted.” --Mary Anne Warren[13]
o “And I think that a rational person must conclude that if the right to life of a fetus is to be based upon its resemblance to a person, then it cannot be said to have any more right to life than, let us say, a newborn guppy…”[14]
o Other philosophers offer additional criteria, but the result is the same
§ The prenatal human being is not accorded the right to life since she does not meet the personhood criteria.
· What can we say in response to this?
· Examine where Personhood Theory leads; what are the consequences that follow from this theory theory has several problems!
o Ethical problems with the theory
o Philosophical problems with the theory
o Historical injustices committed with this theory
· Ethical Problems with Personhood Theory
o Personhood criteria offered are so advanced that even newborns do not meet them JUSTIFIES INFANTICIDE!
o Mary Anne Warren, Michael Tooley, Peter Singer all recognize this
o Recent example: 2013 Journal of Medical Ethics article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
§ “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”
§ They use Personhood Theory…
§ “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her… Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.”[15]
§ Any reasons that justify an abortion, justify infanticide…
§ “In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.”[16]
· Philosophical Problems with Personhood Theory
o Personhood Theory Functional Criteria
§ If and only if an entity functions in a certain way, then we can consider the entity a person
o Again, it proves too much…
o If these personhood criteria are necessary conditions for personhood, then what about human beings…
§ Asleep
§ Unconscious
§ Temporarily comatose
o Do these humans cease to be persons in these conditions?
o When they come out of these conditions are they a new person or the same person as prior to the condition?
o Functionalist criteria are not adequate to determine who is a person and who is not.
o “Consequently, it seems more consistent with our moral intuitions to say that personhood is not something that arises when certain functions are in place, but rather is something that grounds these functions, whether or not they are ever actualized in the life of a human being.” --Francis Beckwith[17]
o “The pro-life position is that human beings are valuable subjects of rights in virtue of what we are, not in virtue of some attribute that we acquire some time after we have come to be.” --Patrick Lee[18]
o Debate concerns the following issue:
§ (1) Do you have to exercise these Personhood Criteria to be a human? Or…
§ (2) Can a human person have these capacities but not expressed immediately?
§ Even pro-choice thinkers recognize that (2) is possible
· In the cases of sleep, unconsciousness, and being temporarily comatose
§ “But there is sense in which human embryos and fetuses also have a capacity for higher mental functions.” --Patrick Lee
§ “The human embryo has within herself all of the positive reality needed to actively develop herself to the point where she will perform higher mental functions, given only a suitable environment and nutrition, and so she now has the natural capacity for such mental function.” --Patrick Lee[19]
· Looked at ethical problem (infanticide) and philosophical problem with Personhood Criteria view…
· Historical injustices committed with this theory
o Whenever people have denied personhood to a segment of the human population (Jews in Nazi Germany, African Americans in 17th-18th century America, Native Americans, etc.) the results have been horrific and evil.
o “Note that every single time that we have divided the human family into those who have basic rights and those who do not, we have made a terrible mistake. When Germans did this to Jews, when ‘true believers’ did this to ‘heretics,’ when Soviets did this to dissidents, all these cases, we look back and recognize moral mistake. Now too, some propose to divide the human family, granting privileges and immunities to those like us, but denying them to the less powerful, the vulnerable ‘other.’ Whenever in the past we have chosen the ‘exclusive’ view over the ‘inclusive’ view, we have made a horrible moral mistake. If we are to learn from the painful lessons of history, we will choose the inclusive view that all human beings, even those who are not like us, should be included within the scope of protection. Although human beings in utero are not like us, not powerful, unable to protect themselves, and as vulnerable as a human can be, these characteristics do not change in the least the fact that they are just as human as any of us. History teaches us that we have always made a mistake in the choosing the ethics of exclusion.” --Christopher Kaczor[20]
· Ethical, philosophical, and historical arguments Personhood Theory with its Functionalist Criteria is WRONG
o More that could be said…
o All objections have not been answered…
o But in broad strokes we’ve seen the outline of the Pro-life argument and some responses to one major way that some argue against the pro-life view.
· In review…
· Structure of the pro-life argument (one way to outline it)[21]
o Biological aspect: A new human being comes into existence at conception.
o Moral aspect: Human beings are created equal and possess intrinsic dignity and worth.
o Political aspect: Governments exist to, at the very least, protect innocent human beings from lethal force.
· Conclusion of the argument:
o “Abortion is a grave moral evil, an act of violence against the most vulnerable members of the human family. Every abortion ends the life of an innocent human being in the womb, a child who, because he is human, necessarily possesses intrinsic worth and dignity and thus deserves to have his life protected.” --Ryan Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis[22]
· Some resources:
o Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments
o Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing
· End where we began… with Proverbs
o Proverbs 21.30 “There is no wisdom and no understanding and no counsel against the Lord.”
o Proverbs 21.22 “A wise man scales the city of the mighty and brings down the stronghold in which they trust.”
· I hope this sermon has helped in fulfilling and living out this wisdom.
[1] This formulation comes from Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2022), 19-20.
[2] Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, 20.
[3] "The Origin of Human Life at Fertilization: Quotes from Medical Textbooks and Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature" by M. L. Condic (September 2017)—online: https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Condic-Sources-Embryology.pdf-old.
[4] Quoted in Christopher Kaczor, “Abortion as Human Rights Violation,” in Kate Greasley and Christopher Kaczor, Abortion Rights: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 91. Kaczor is quoting from Peter Singer, Writings on an Ethical Life (New York: Ecco Press, 2000), 127.
[5] Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, 233.
[6] Hendrik van der Breggen, Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments (Amazon KDP—Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020), 108.
[7] Josh Howerton, “Debunk 8 Abortion Myths,” The Gospel Coalition (July 5, 2022)—online: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/8-abortion-myths/.
[8] “Abortions in Texas fell 60% in the first month after its new law took effect,” NPR (February 10, 2022)—online: https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079963293/abortions-in-texas-fell-60-in-the-first-month-after-its-new-law-took-effect.
[10] See Scott Klusendorf, “How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less,”—online: https://prolifetraining.com/pro-lifer/how-to-defend-your-pro-life-views-in-5-minutes-or-less/.
[15] Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2013), 262.
[16] Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2013), 262.
[17] Francis J. Beckwith, “Abortion, Bioethics, and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4.1 (2000), 18-19.
[18] Patrick Lee, “A Christian Philosopher’s View of Recent Directions in the Abortion Debate,” Christian Bioethics 10 (2004), 14.
[19] Patrick Lee, “A Christian Philosopher’s View of Recent Directions in the Abortion Debate,” 14-15.
[20] Christopher Kaczor, “Abortion as Human Rights Violation,” in Kate Greasley and Christopher Kaczor, Abortion Rights: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 132-133.
[21] This formulation comes from Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2022), 19-20.
