This post will kick off a potential new series of posts in which I explore the juxtaposition of Christianity and responsible citizenship in the United States of America. Many of the posts will likely be pared down versions of discussions I have had on Facebook or other online fora, edited here for readability and flow.
As Christians, we should strive to live our lives according to God's written, spoken, and revealed (through his son, Jesus) word. I believe that if American citizens, as a whole, lived out the scriptures, much of the so-called problems we face would fall by the wayside. The church as a nation would stand like a city on a hillside, which is what many of the original settlers from Europe hoped for when they moved here for religious freedom.
The founding fathers believed that for the freedom they were establishing to be protected, America needed to be a virtuous nation, and they also largely believed that religious practice inculcated virtue. That being said, America is by no means a Christian nation. America was not founded as a strictly Christian nation, and I certainly do not believe it resembles anything close to that now. Our country is much too materialistic and focused on the things of this world to be considered Christian (contra Col. 3:2).
Because Jesus came and fulfilled God's promises in the covenantal law, we are not bound to the sin and death that the law reveals. Further, the only command God has ever given to a nation to act a certain way or in accordance with his will was that given to Israel. Jesus's arrival and perfect life on earth, death on the cross, burial, and resurrection not only eliminated all of the ceremonial barriers between God and his people, but also made it possible for us Gentiles to be reconciled to God. Jesus is the great high priest (Heb. 4:14-16), and he enables us to have a personal relationship with our father in heaven. All of that is to say, the Bible first reveals who God is, and then reveals who we are, and finally reveals who we can be if we have faith in Christ our redeemer.
As individual Christians, we are tasked with living out Jesus's two greatest commandments, as instructed in Mark 12:28-34 (see also Mt. 22:34-40 and Lk. 10:25-37). The first (and often overlooked) commandment requires us to love—meaning sacrificially serve—God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Second, we are to love--sacrificially serve, but can also be read to mean "give the benefit of the doubt" or be charitable--our neighbor as ourselves. When a man in the Gospel of Luke asked Jesus who was his neighbor, Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), meaning it is not only those with whom we are friendly but also those with whom we would otherwise consider enemies, like the Judahites and Samaritans at the time.
My views on economic or public policy are grounded first in the belief that God is sovereign over all things and that he has placed certain people in positions of authority over the rest of us. That is a difficult reality for me to accept a lot of times, especially when those in power so often act unjustly. But I may advocate for social or governmental change without resisting or defying the authority God has ordained, and so I pay taxes and obey the law to the extent that it does not cause me to violate my conscience. When I deviate from the preferred policy choices of many it is because I do not see how that which is proposed will bring about the desired results. Abortion takes a short view on the sanctity of life that God has created and also denies that he has the power to provide for a woman (or young family) who feels incapable of caring for that child. "Medicare for All" will not lower costs or improve outcomes for the vast majority of people. Gun control does not lower incidents of gun violence and instead infringes on individuals' right to self defense, as well as punish people who have not broken the law. This article will expand specifically on the topic of abortion.
 |
| A human baby at 20 weeks, just before the 21-week cutoff for "viability" |
The Dehumanizing Effect of Abortion
For starters, I believe that humans—image bearers of God—have an inalienable right to life. Our Creator endows us with this right (among others) because we reflect His image (Gen. 1:27; 1Co. 15:48-49). And because all humans bear the image of God, we do not have the right to unjustly kill another human being (Gen. 9:6 states, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind"). The Bible calls such unjust killings—those committed with premeditation, criminal intent, or malice—murder, and it thoroughly condemns it (Ex. 20:13; Mt. 15:19; 1Jo 3:12). Further, the Mosaic Law prescribes a judgment of death for the taking of another human life (Lev. 24:17).
However, not everyone throughout church history has taken the position that abortion is murder. There's evidence that the early church through St. Augustine believed in delayed ensoulment, in which the soul does not attach to the developing child until a certain point after conception. Thomas Aquinas and others also believed that life did not begin until "quickening", or the time a baby's movements in the womb are felt by the mother. Thus, they did not see abortion prior to quickening as murder (though Aquinas still believed it was a violation of natural law).
Though I unequivocally believe that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life, and therefore a sin, Jesus’s death on the cross provides grace to cover the sin of any woman (or family) that would sacrifice the life of a child for personal or health reasons. Because grace covers the individual sin, however, does not mean that as a society we should advocate for the wholesale murder of human life. Sadly, that is a stance that we see all too often in our increasingly postmodern, post-Christian culture. Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine that targets teenage girls markets itself as the "young person's guide to saving the world," presumably while selling ad space for $3,000 outfits and handbags. But because of their far-reaching influence and social credit, they can push the Overton Window on abortion by publishing straw-man articles like "5 Abortion Myths and the Truth About Them". Noticeably absent from the list is any attempt to mythicize the accusation that abortion is murder. Instead, to downplay the loss of life and reframe the issue, we see the abortion advocates claim that abortion is "reproductive justice" (ironically, as it involves the termination of reproduction); a human baby is "a fetus"; and an embryo that contains human DNA and can only develop into a human being is "a parasite". The United States Senate couldn't even get half a dozen Democrats to vote to protect the babies that are born alive despite a failed abortion!
 |
| "Fetus" literally means "unborn offspring", yet the pro-abortion side uses the term to sound more medical or scientific than "unborn child". |
A Los Angeles Times article from almost 30 years ago details a study of "mainstream media" and its reporting on the abortion debate. Even back then, the media landscape skewed heavily in favor of pro-abortion over pro-life positions, even when it came to labeling the two sides. And by controlling the language used in the debate, or rather, allowing the pro-abortion side's preferred language to prevail, the cemented the shift toward a larger support for abortion rather than against it:
Because the media have generally, if implicitly, accepted the abortion-rights view that there is no human life to be "helped" before birth. That's why the media use the term "fetus" (the preferred term of abortion-rights advocates), rather than "baby" or "unborn child" or "pre-born child" (as abortion opponents prefer). Editors say "fetus" is medically correct, value-free and non-emotional. A "fetus" does not become a "baby" until it's born.
By dehumanizing the living being growing and developing inside the mother's womb, the pro-abortion side has taken a great leap toward normalizing its preferred method of taking life. It further reframed the immorality of abortion when it stopped talking about whose rights were at stake (mother vs. child) and started a conversation about whose choice it should be (woman vs. government). By changing the language, they have changed society's entire moral value system. According to abortion advocates, this is not a question about life, but a question of privacy.
The Legal Thin Ice that Abortion Rests On
What is ironic about American support for abortion is that even its constitutional basis is suspect. When the pro-life side argues that a human child in utero deserves the same right to life as any other human being, the argument is grounded in the fundamental right to life. This right is embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, and the Mosaic Law, just to name a few historic sources. The right to life is fundamental because without it, no other rights could spring forth. If we do not protect the sanctity of life, then how can we protect anything else?
The "right" to an abortion, on the other hand, is grounded in a legal quagmire based on a fictional Constitutional provision. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court created a "right" to abortion out of a "right to privacy" that is not based in any Constitutional provision. Of course, the rights held by the people extend beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, but if that were truly the case for abortion than it should have been grounded in the Ninth Amendment and not fabricated through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. The Due Process clause requires states to apply "due process" of the law before they may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. This requirement does not mean rights cannot be infringed; it simply means that the State must provide a fair process for implementing the infringement. However, abortion advocates insist that any infringement on having an abortion is too much (see discussion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey below).
The reason that the Court in Roe had to conjure the "right" to an abortion seemingly out of thin air is because it is not a natural right. By its very nature, a natural (or negative) right, such as the right to life or the right to liberty, cannot infringe on another natural right. In declaring a "right" to an abortion, the Supreme Court pits the fundamental right to life against this arbitrarily created right. It gives a person the legal authority to terminate another life, something that has never been recognized in any other natural right. The fact that it has been declared constitutional has nothing to do with its morality, as I have repeatedly stated.
Further decisions by the Supreme Court just added to the confusion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court took for granted the Roe's conclusion that the "right" to an abortion was found in the due process clause, relying on the judicial principle of stare decisis (to stand by things decided) to leave the decision relatively untouched. Stare decisis, a rule that protects judicial precedent, is not in and of itself a legal argument or justification. It is simply a principle that governs the application of the common law system that our American courts operate under. This principle is the reason that Plessy v. Ferguson remained on the books for 60+ years, and why unjust rulings will not be re-examined. That pro-abortion advocates hinge their entire legal argument on such an untenable position is remarkably telling.
Casey was a Pyrrhic victory for both sides: the pro-abortion side got a "win" but it came with restrictions on abortion under a new framework the Court imposed in the form of its "undue burden" test. The pro-life side lost the case since Roe was not overturned, but the Court largely limited 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions under a "viability" theory--the idea that a baby can live outside a mother's womb after a certain point. Once again, the Court inserted itself into a philosophical or moral argument, designating the point at which personhood (and thus the right to life) begins. (It should also be noted that the trimester framework that any pregnant family is aware of and tends to operate under is the result of the Court's decision.) When the Court divided a pregnancy into three trimester in Roe, it said that the a woman could terminate the pregnancy for essentially any reason up to the start of the second trimester. The third trimester has generally been off limits except to save the life of the mother.
Additional cases since the Casey decision in 1992 have typically expanded on the undue burden test, noting this or that restriction on abortion as too burdensome on a woman's attempt to obtain an abortion. Obtaining parental consent for a minor's abortion was not considered an undue burden in Casey (affirmed in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, although that wasn't the main issue), but spousal or partner consent was found to be an undue burden. Most recently, a Texas law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital was declared an undue burden in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). The underlying implication of the Supreme Court's undue burden test for abortion cases is that the child itself is a burden!
How Should Christians Think About Abortion?
A grown adult should have the authority to make personal choices about his or her life, but we shouldn't act as if that precludes consequences. Abortion advocates say that the government has no business in an individual’s sex life. I agree wholeheartedly! But when the natural consequence of unprotected sex results in human life, it should be the government’s role and responsibility to protect that life.
God gave the Mosaic Law to the Israelites to protect them. Although the Law looks outdated by many of our modern standards, the restrictions on sexual immorality, against certain foods, and for the preservation of life served to enable the Israelites to prosper, were they actually to honor the Lord and live by his commands. Of course, Jesus Christ's death on the cross brought forth a new covenant (Lk. 22:20), and we are no longer bound by the Law. We live by faith that Christ's death reconciles us to God, and we walk by the fruit of the Spirit and not the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:22-25). A person who walks by faith and in the Spirit "rejoice[s] in the Lord and delight[s] in his salvation" (Ps. 35:9). Because we are saved, obedience to the Lord's will should be our greatest desire. As David wrote in Psalm 19:7-9:
The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
God's laws are perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure, and firm. Jesus is righteousness personified! How could we ever assume that our ways are better than his?! And yet, when it comes to abortion we assume that we know more than God because science has advanced to such a stage that we can see the inner workings of a human embryo and know "that medical evidence tells us fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks." Never mind that a human embryo has the DNA of a human; it can only be a human and nothing else. Psalm 139:13 and 16 say, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. . . . Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." God revealed the concepts of DNA and human development over three millennia before scientists would even begin to think about them!
We cite scientific propositions as if they "perfect... trustworthy... right." Did you know that "fetuses under 24 weeks must be pain-free, because at that age the wiring doesn’t exist to send pain signals from nerves around the body to the cortex, the area of the brain where pain is experienced"? Apparently the ability to feel pain is the only thing that makes us human! But scientific discoveries have also revealed that human babies develop a heartbeat by day 23, and a number of scientists and medical professionals agree that human life begins with a single cell: the fertilized egg. The throwaway line about inability to feel pain is irrelevant because no one is arguing that life begins when we feel pain.
The difficulty with making abortion illegal is that it will almost undoubtedly result in criminal punishment for those who obtain or provide an abortion. The last thing a woman who is considering an abortion needs is the threat of prison or the death penalty looming over her. Such women (and their partners or families) need compassion and counsel when considering such drastic measures. The pro-abortion side argues that we overstate the seriousness of abortion, that it's actually safer than giving birth. But notice the subtle shifting of the goalposts in their point: safer for whom?
Even if the physical danger to women who have an abortion is minimal, the psychological and spiritual damage can be devastating. The way we think about life itself is changing, as the abortion industry "introduced a perverse cost-benefit analysis into our collective psyche—which seems to be leaking into other realms as well. The idea that each and every human being has intrinsic value is steadily being replaced by the notion that our human value is mainly utilitarian." How much longer until people in a coma are unpersoned because they can't feel pain? What about those who have severe mental or physical handicaps? As the modern eugenics movement ramps up, will those with certain genetic characteristics (gay? brown-eyed? red-haired?) be cast aside as undesirable? A resounding no, I say! "Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him." (Ps. 127:3)
Spiritually, we are elevating the idol of choice above the will of God. Who are we, the creation, to tell the Creator of all things that something is "unplanned" or unwanted? Rather than trust that God will use this pregnancy to grow us and draw us closer to him, we run from the consequences of our actions like Adam and Eve in the garden (Gen. 3:7-8). If we require strength to make it through nine months of pregnancy, God will grant us strength (Is. 40:29). If we need courage, he will encourage us (Dt. 31:6). Whatever we need, if we remain in him we need only ask and we shall receive (Jn. 15:7).
As Christians, we have a choice to make. We can either stand for the sanctity of human life, walking beside those in pain and helping them realize God's plan for them; or we can follow the ways of the world, asserting that we know what's best and denying the Lord's power to transform our lives.
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord. (Jos. 24:15)
