Ever since 1973 and the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade, abortion has been one of the most controversial issues in American society. Although focus on abortion tends to wax and wane in the news cycle, over the past few weeks, it has been in the national spotlight once again. The thing that stands out to me most of all regarding not only (A) the recent legislation in New York allowing no restrictions whatsoever up to the point of birth, or (B) the recent comments by the governor of Virginia about making the newborn child “comfortable” before discussing with the parents what to do with it, or (C) the most recent bill that was struck down in Congress regarding trying to save a child after a failed abortion attempt, is the cold, hard cynical view I’ve come to have: I do not think either political party really wants to resolve the abortion issue at all. I believe the issue is just too inflammatory, and it riles up each political base too much, that both parties, in actuality, want to keep the controversy going because it helps turn out the vote every election.
The fact is that the abortion issue should have never been decided by SCOTUS. The judicial branch should never legislate policy from the bench. Nevertheless, the failure, cowardice, or political opportunism (take your pick) of the legislative branch for the past 45 years have resulted in our society now being so ideologically-driven and so hyper-partisan, that it is nearly impossible to even dream of a legislative solution to finally resolve the issue. Politicians in D.C. have been so successful in their playing the abortion issue like a political football, that neither side is even capable of seeing anything that doesn’t fit their ideological worldview.
In one of my classes today we got talking about this very thing. Amazingly, after just a brief and honest discussion, after laying out just a few facts and a few logical arguments, most in the room essentially agreed on how to solve the abortion issue. Because of that, I wanted to write a brief post that hopefully speaks some common sense. No flowery language, no long narrative—just to the point facts and some common-sense observations. So let’s just be honest about a few initial things:
- Pro-lifers, Governor Northam’s comments really weren’t giving a free pass to infanticide. They were about what to do with a nonviable fetus (i.e. one that would be unable to survive outside the womb due to fetal abnormalities but had nevertheless survived the abortion attempt). To take that and frame it as “All Democrats support infanticide” is, well, kind of inflammatory.
- Pro-choicers, if you cannot see how creepy and horrifying it is for Governor Cuomo and the New York legislature to be actively cheering a bill that allows abortion up to the point of birth for any reason whatsoever, you need to do some soul-searching.
- And no, pro-choicers, the reason why people are pro-life is not because they just hate women and want to oppress them. Believe it or not, pro-lifers really do care about the life of unborn children. To claim otherwise is to engage in dishonest inflammatory rhetoric as well.
So, let’s all try to stop purposely mischaracterizing and demonizing those who have a different view. There are numerous circumstances revolving around the abortion issue that render things very complicated. It is time we put down our ideological talking points and try to work through them. Now, let’s consider a few more things:
- For all the talk about late trimester abortion, the fact is that only 1.3% of all abortions occur after 21 weeks. In fact, there are only about 4-5 doctors in the entire country who perform late term abortions. In fact, 75% of all abortions happen in the first trimester. Bottom line: late term abortions are extremely rare, and when they do occur, they are almost always due to complications, the discovery the fetus will not be able to live outside the woman, or the woman’s life is in danger.
- The fact that pro-lifers have to realize is that there really are circumstances in which the choice is foisted upon the woman, and we need to acknowledge that and make concessions for it. I remember my dad telling me the story of when my grandmother unexpectedly went into labor with my uncle, and my grandparents ended up at a Catholic hospital for the birth. My grandfather was worried because in Catholic hospitals, if complications occurred, they would try to save the life of the baby before they tried to save the life of the mother. My grandfather didn’t want to lose his wife if it came down to it.
Also, on a personal note, when my former wife was pregnant with our son, we found out at the beginning of the second trimester that she had cancer. We were told that if they couldn’t get the right kind of chemo, that we might be forced to make a choice to either forego the chemo and have the child but knowing the delay would probably result in my former wife’s death or abort the child so she could go through chemotherapy. As it turned out, we ended up not having to make that choice, but I remember at that time realizing that there are times when the choice is foisted upon the mother—in those cases, we need to respect it.
All that being said, the fact is that most European countries allow abortion within the first trimester but have restrictions after that. The fact that pro-choicers in America seem to be against any restrictions of any kind boggles my mind. And no, the whole “It’s the woman’s body” isn’t a good argument once the fetus achieves viability. Interesting fact: many of the early Church Fathers addressed the abortion issue. And interestingly enough, Fathers like Augustine, although against abortion, made the distinction between an “unformed” fetus and a “fully-formed” fetus. They felt that although abortion at any time is a horrific tragedy, it shouldn’t be considered murder unless the child is fully-formed (i.e. viable). Bottom line, pro-choicers really have to acknowledge that at the very least, once the unborn child achieves viability—once it is fully-formed and is able to live outside the womb—that child is no longer just part of the woman’s body. That fact really should change the dynamic in dealing with the abortion issue, because after the unborn child has developed enough to be viable outside of the womb, it simply cannot be considered “part of the woman’s body.”
At the same time, pro-lifers, do you really think that as soon as the sperm fertilizes an egg, that that cluster of cells is a full-fledged human being and citizen of the United States? Really? If the fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the uterine wall and gets flushed out, should we have a funeral for it? Of course not. Common sense tells us that there is a vast difference between a fertilized egg and an unborn child in the third trimester. To equate the two as exactly the same is nonsense.
Finally, up until just about 100 years ago there were many more miscarriages and more deaths of the mother during childbirth. Yet now, because of medical advances, we in the modern world are now not only able to address those things and save more lives, but now, through things like contraception and the morning after pill, we are able to exercise much more dominion over the beginning of life itself. We, therefore, have a responsibility as God’s image-bearers to use this power in a responsible way.
Therefore, it seems to me that if we truly wanted to address and solve the abortion issue, we would do the following:
- Make contraception and birth control readily available across the board, so that women who do not want to have children could take steps to ensure that they never get pregnant in the first place.
- Make the morning after pill readily available as well. Making sure a fertilized egg does not attach to the uterine wall is not the murder of a human being.
- These two things alone should render the very need for the surgical procedure of abortion unnecessary in most cases.
- In addition, since the fetus in the first trimester is not fully-formed and not viable outside of the womb, abortion should be legal in that first trimester.
- After the first trimester (or the viability of the unborn child), abortion should only be allowed in certain cases such as the life of the mother is at stake.
- We want to respect a woman’s right to choose within certain parameters, but a moral society does not give carte blanche to allow fully viable unborn children to be aborted for any reason whatsoever. If a woman is given the means to avoid conception to begin with, if she is given three months to end the pregnancy for any reason, if she isn’t responsible enough to deal with the situation before the fetus becomes fully-formed and a viable unborn child, she does not have the right to take the life of that unborn child.
I actually think that most Americans would find something like what I just outlined to be wholly reasonable. Sadly, though, it seems the ones who are driving this controversy into further partisanship are the extremists who either think a newly fertilized egg is a full-fledged person, or that a viable baby in the third trimester is just a part of the woman’s body. If people insist on clinging to the most extreme position of either side, the current situation will only get worse. It will never get resolved.
Instead, we need to have the courage to admit to the obvious facts that demand that Congress make common sense legislation that: (A) provides the means to avoid conception to everyone, (B) gives a reasonable time for a woman to end her pregnancy early on, before there is even a question of viability, and allows for the reality of certain exceptions, and (C) respects the sanctity of human life and protects the life of the unborn child once it has achieved viability. No, it would not be perfect legislation, but it would be the best and most common-sense solution possible. And it would certainly be better than the mess we currently have. We should do the best we can, and then pray for God’s mercy in whatever way we are lacking.
Reasonable, logical, and pragmatic. Which, of course, it means it would never work in DC. Your comment about both political parties not wanting to resolve the issue rings very true as well. People do not vote on character or for the person that might be “best”, they vote based on a checklist of hot-button issues. Many (maybe most) conservatives I know vote purely on a candidate’s stance on abortion.
Comments Northam made on WTOP radio 1/30/2019 when asked about the Abortion bill:
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way,” Northam said. “And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”
There is a little ambiguity about “this particular example”: he might be referring to 3rd trimester abortions, he might be referring to babies with severe deformities, and/or a fetus/baby that is non-viable. Even assuming he is referring to only the last case, there are cases where a doctor declares a baby non-viable yet the baby survives.
Yes, but I think we do need to just remember that (A) like I said in the post, third trimester abortions are extremely rare to begin with, and (B) when they do occur, they almost always are because of some extreme circumstances. I get that. But I will add, though, that some of the current things coming from the pro-choice camp (i.e. that creepy video of the woman talking to children about how great abortion is) is absolutely horrific. We may allow it in the first trimester, before the fetus is fully formed, but it should never be celebrated. We’re dealing with human life. Of course, if one has a purely philosophical materialistic worldview, then human life ultimately is cheap–and you end up with videos like that creepy one.
I fully support these ideas. Its also important to note that when all abortions (including at first trimester were illegal, many women died from having terrible illegal abortions. So pro life ideas need to take that into account also.
I think a lot of pro-lifers are thinking all abortions are like what happens in a late trimester abortion, and don’t make the distinction between a newly fertilized egg and a fully viable fetus. At the same time, I can’t understand the push for making it legal in all circumstances at all times. It seems both sides aren’t taking a lot of things into account–all they see is their own ideology.
Note: My first comment did not go through. This is a rewrite.
I’m sorry Dr. Anderson, but you are gravely wrong on this issue. Pro-lifers are not “demonizing” pro-choice people by saying they support the legalized killing of babies. A “woman’s right to choose” and “women’s health” are euphemisms that disguise the truth, as is the term “pro-choice.”
No pro-lifer claims that a fertilized egg is exactly the same as a fully-formed infant. That’s a straw-man. What pro-lifers do say is that the value of a human life is the same in the first trimester as it is in the third, development notwithstanding. Also, while it might be snarky comment on your part, funerals do not decide whether an organism is alive or has value. If I throw my canary in the trash instead of burying it in the backyard, does that mean it wasn’t alive? Another example: if a man die in the desert and his bones are picked clean by vultures, does that mean his life had no value? Besides, by the time abortions take place the infant’s development is well underway. The reason pro-lifers say that life begins at conception is because if human life does not have intrinsic value right from the very beginning, then when does it pick up this intrinsic value? Who decides?
Continuing on that point, you say that since infants in the first trimester are not viable outside the womb and are completely dependent on the mother, it follows that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. However, a newly-born baby is still totally dependent on his or her mother and will be for several years. Sure, he can now survive outside the womb, but it will soon perish if not for the care of his mother or another adult. If “viability,” the ability to survive or live successfully, fully functional, is how we decide whether you can live or not, this logic can easily be extrapolated to the elderly, the crippled, the autistic, and the mentally-handicapped, many of whom can not survive without the help of another person.
As for your suggestion that birth-control, the morning-after pill, and other forms of contraception should be made readily available across the board so women won’t have to have abortions, nobody is entitled to birth-control, especially at tax-payer expense. It is not a right. Women are responsible for their own decisions. And if I may be sarcastic here for a second, there is already a perfect birth-control plan that works beautifully and doesn’t cost a red cent. It’s called chastity.
I don’t have ready-made answers for situations like those your ex-wife found herself in. Situations vary, and I do have the deepest sympathy for women who find themselves in such a position. However, I draw the line at taking innocent human life. The minute the suggestion is made that the blood of innocents is required to solve a societal ill or personal crisis, you have just crossed the line into territory where I dare not tread.
Your stance on abortion reminds me of the ’90s slogan, “safe, legal and rare.” Those days are now long gone and such moderate positions have only garnered us more and more bloodshed. I hope you will reconsider your position, Dr. Anderson.
Godspeed.
Hi Wiley,
Let’s see if I can quickly give a few responses to what you shared.
1. First, obviously a newly fertilized egg is human LIFE; but the question is whether or not that cluster of cells is an actual person.
2. Incidentally, I have heard some more extreme pro-lifers claim a newly fertilized egg is a citizen.
3. As a matter of the reality of living in a democracy, we need to realize that there is simply no way to pass anything that makes all abortions from the time of conception illegal. Therefore, Christians need to be smart and work toward limiting the very need of abortions in the first place.
4. I never suggested that birth control should be provided by the government at tax payer expense. I said it should be readily available so that those who don’t want to get pregnant in the first place would be without excuse. I’d much rather that women take steps to avoid getting pregnant in the first place than to abort a child in the womb.
5. Not all women who take birth control are single. Many married women might not want to have kids, or already have a few and don’t want any more. And so, if we have the medical ability to prevent conception from happening, so as to never get to the need of an abortion, why don’t we promote that?
6. And again, the clear reality of life is that there really are SOME instances where the choice is foisted upon you–I think that needs to be acknowledged.
7. My position is ultimately this: The surgical procedure of abortion is now largely unnecessary. We should do what we can to make it wholly unnecessary, while at the same time acknowledge there are extreme cases where it might be necessary. And since we live in a democracy where it is simply going to be impossible to ban it completely, let’s stop digging our heels in at ideological extremism that makes it impossible to even address the issue effectively at all. If given the choice of (A) doing nothing and letting things go as they now are, or (B) promoting the availability of birth control so that women who don’t want to get pregnant in the first place won’t, I’ll choose the latter. When you render the very need of abortion obsolete, you effectively end abortion.
The idea of life at conception is still very strong in the evangelical realm. My view is similar to yours. As you bring up as well, the concept of the sheer massive amounts of natural miscarriages over the centuries of humanity adds some theological questions assuming all those fetuses were actual humans.
I understand your point, but the fact is hormonal birth control can have health repercussions for many women & is not an across the board, risk free solution, especially given it has to be used regularly, whether orally or implant, & not on an as needed basis. Condoms, however, are readily available with no side effects – but they don’t work unless men actually use them. Maybe we should address their responsibility in the matter of conception as well.
Christian author and then professor of prelaw at Pepperdine University F. LaGard Smith wrote a book 25 years ago called *When Choice Becomes God.* His main argument in that book is that modern Americans worship choice. Large or small soft-drink? Regular or super-size meal? Caf or decaf? Ford or Chevy? House or apartment? Protestant or Catholic? He argued that this mentality had made it’s way into the abortion debate.
According to Christian apologist and author Nancy Pearcey in her 2018 book *Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality,* the argument has shifted from whether a given fetus is a human life, which almost nobody really denies anymore, to whether it’s a *viable* human life.
But that whole debate about what constitutes a *viable* human life gives me the creeps because it reminds me of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century and then the Nazis, who simply took the arguments of the eugenecists to their logical conclusions. Time was when *all* human life was sacred, now, apparently, some human life isn’t. But who gets to make that choice?
Also, what is the Orthodox Church’s position on contraception? Is it similar to the RCC?
Pax.
Lee.
Well, my comments are trying to argue for what is possible, given the fact that we live in a democracy where not everyone agrees on this issue. As a matter of reality, banning abortion outright across the board just isn’t possible. It is not going to happen. Given that, what arguments can be made to reduce even the need for the surgical procedure of abortion? For now, I think making birth control and the morning after pill readily available should render the surgical procedure largely unnecessary. And, to get that to work, I think we’ll need to allow the option very early on. At this point, if somehow we could put into legislation something that protected the unborn for the second and third semester, I’d take it.
Your suggestions are sensible and should be taken seriously. Good people must acknowledge that government can never be wise enough to predetermine what everyone should do in difficult circumstances. At the same time, some actions are so obviously wrong that government controlled by good people should seek to prevent them. Christians should demonstrate and teach morality beyond what government can or should enforce.
Christians should stop accusing everyone who has an abortion of murder. The ordeal of bitter waters commanded in Numbers 5 was expected to produce an abortion, if the accused woman was pregnant. (Understand the euphemisms.)
It was not meant for abortion. It is about the fertility of the woman. Miscarry is a mistranslation and is also a minority view within scholarship.
This isn’t a criticism, it’s just interesting. I found out recently that Carl Sagan’s view of when the cutoff for the legality of abortion should be is identical to yours
His argument: up until a nervous system develops, the biological life of the embryo is indistinguishable from the activity of any other organism, and the development of a brain marks the beginning of “truly human” physical activity.
I think that argument is hogwash. However, it is a little strange that one of the most famous atheists in recent memory, one of those people whose writings a lot of evangelicals were probably raised to fear, was more pro-life than supposed Methodist Hillary Clinton.
For the record, I dont want abortion at all. It is the taking of human life, after all. But given the fact that it is currently legal and 1/2 the country approves of it in one form or another, I think an argument should be made that can reasonably argue against mid-late term abortions. But yes, given what Sagan argued, Hillary’s stance on allowing abortions to the point of birth is positively horrifying.
I think there are 2 aspects to the question. 1) What stance should a believer in Jesus conclude from Scripture? and 2) What political compromise is better than what we have now, which is abortion up to just before birth? Those are distinct and different questions.
Part of the challenge is even discussing alternatives, as each side has different terminology.
I think a believer should be against abortion, but not birth control. However, there are groups that are against both, at least officially, and there are groups that are for both. In any case, any religious group can end up teaching whatever they wish in this area, as we see from what is actually the case.
But on the political question, I am willing to move the limit from just before birth to any lesser amount of time. The US is currently in an extreme position in regards to most of the world on this. Viability keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier, so that can be a moving target. When the baby first moves is one signal that is detected by the mother, but is also able to be fudged some. A heartbeat is one signal that is easily detected by anyone, also brain formation can be ascertained. One possible criterion is when it is determined that the baby can feel pain, after that, no abortion except for extreme cases. This political compromise may make no one happy, but that can be an aspect to compromise.
One thing I do think is that the Supreme Court should never have ruled as it did and it should retract its ruling to leave it to each state.
As Dr Anderson mentions, there are times when a woman will be confronted with a difficult, perhaps heart-rending choice.
I am a married Christian woman who is SO thankful I never had to make that choice, having never become pregnant thanks to the contraceptive pill. (Perhaps Wiley above considers I should simply not have had sex with my husband?)
Please, people! Don’t think or talk as though abortion is always a selfish choice or even just caused by “not wanting to have children”. There will be women like me where the firm medical advice is “must not get pregnant”. Why? For 14 years, soon after we were married in our late 20s, my husband was put on a medication called “methotrexate”. He had just been diagnosed with severe chronic psoriatic arthritis (by the way, this condition was also likely to be inherited as well as casting a shadow over his continued employment). Methotrexate is a drug also used in chemotherapy and is known to cause severe birth defects, even for a year of so after a partner’s discontinued use.
What if I had become pregnant and the fetus was found to have severe problems? Would it even had been a loving decision to continue?
So that is my own perspective, but I also have also seen the issue from another angle:
Christian doctors too have had to struggle with this. I am privileged to have an elderly friend who is an extremely keen and devout “born again” Christian lady. She is also a retired Professor of Gynaecology, who has saved the lives of countless women and established good practice in many countries including the Sudan, New Guinea, Ireland and Canada. She is from India – she described women walking for miles to her pop-up clinics to be sterilised — this a country where young children are often simply abandoned by desperate parents. A country in which she tried in vain to save women dying in agony from terrible infections after illegal abortions. As a Christian she really struggled with this moral issue.
Recently she confided that it was through a meeting she sought with the then Indian President, Indira Gandhi, that abortion was made legal in that country. After much prayer, and still confronted by the issue she came to the decision that she would do the procedure but only if the woman agreed to also be sterilised.
No, abortion is not an issue to be politicised or reduced to slogans on placards, seemingly with no compassion for the real people it actually affects.
Joel, thanks for being courageous enough to have the discussion. Most bury their heads in the sand and don’t discuss it. I appreciate your wiliness to find compromise, but if person A says 1+1=2, and Person B says 1+1=4, the compromise of 3 being the right answer is still wrong. “It” is either a person, or it’s not a person. The truth does not change when viability changes. To that end, calling out falsehoods is important on both sides. But unfortunately in today’s world many care more about feelings than facts. They feel they are right, therefore they stop listening. A closed mind works as well as a closed parachute.
One “alternative” that I’ve not heard discussed is the “Duty to Rescue” concept from Tort law. There are certain classifications of people that have a duty to rescue others. For example a boat captain can’t throw a stowaway overboard to certain death in the middle of the ocean. The same way a mother should not be able to abort her child to certain death.
Consider the Didache if you want to know about the early church fathers. https://youtu.be/Nga55KEVVF4?t=6 and https://youtu.be/jlXvMCIMM6Q