The Abortion Controversy

One of the greatest moral issues of our time—and one of the most controversial—involves the question of whether a woman should have the right to have an abortion and thereby end the life of an unborn child.    The two major candidates for President of the United States have completely different positions on this issue.  John McCain believes that life begins at conception, and he proudly identifies himself as a “pro-life” candidate.   Barak Obama has said he does not know when life begins because, in his own words, it is above his “pay grade”, but he proudly identifies himself as a “pro-choice” candidate.   “Pro-life” means you are opposed to taking the life of an unborn child, and “pro-choice” means you favor giving women the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.  

McCain favors overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Roe v. Wade, which interpreted the Constitution to give women the right to abort an unborn child, even though the Constitution is silent on this issue.    Because the Constitution is silent on this issue, McCain believes the question of whether abortions should be legal or illegal should be left to the states rather than decided by judicial fiat.   Obama supports the decision in Roe v. Wade and does not want to see it overturned.   Although he does not know when life begins, Obama believes women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  Obama even supports a gruesome procedure known as a partial birth abortion and condemned a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning such abortions.  Moreover, Obama, while a state senator in Illinois, voted against a bill that prohibited killing a child who was born alive during an attempted abortion.   His attempts to explain his vote have been weak and unconvincing to me.   

Who is right on the subject of abortion?   My own views regarding abortions have changed over time.   As a grandfather, I have shared the excitement of my children and their spouses when they have seen a picture of their unborn child in the womb or heard their unborn child’s heartbeat for the first time only a few weeks after conception.   In my opinion, the ability to hear heartbeats and the sonograms available today make it indisputable that life begins at conception.   

Most of us have known women who have had miscarriages.  When a woman has a miscarriage, she grieves—and we grieve for her and with her—because she has “lost her baby”.   This is the common terminology used to describe the loss suffered by a woman who has had a miscarriage.   This past Sunday, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution contained an article about a pregnant woman who “lost her unborn child” in an automobile accident.   If a woman who has had a miscarriage has lost her baby, and if a woman involved in an automobile accident loses her unborn child, then what happens when a woman has an abortion? 

Those who are in the “pro-choice” camp must believe that (1) a fetus is not a human life, or (2) that a fetus is a human life but this life has no rights, or (3) that the rights of this new human life are superseded by the rights of the mother to choose whether or not to deliver her baby.   As to the first point, it is impossible to justify the position that a fetus is not a human life in light of the scientific knowledge available today.  As to the second and third points, if you adopt either of these beliefs you are left with the problem of identifying the stage in the development of a new human life at which he or she begins to have rights deserving of protection under the law.  

My son Matthews is a philosophy professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota.    He told me about Peter Singer, an infamous ethicist from Princeton University.   Singer is a strong advocate of a woman’s “right to choose”, but he also recognizes that consistency requires him to advocate the permissibility of infanticide as well.   In his book entitled Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, 1979), Singer wrote at pages 122-123: 

“I have argued that the life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc., and that since no fetus is a person no fetus has the same claim to life as a person.  Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus.  A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being, and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year old.  If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and that the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.” 

I think Singer’s views are frightening, but he at least recognizes the inconsistency on the part of those who favor a woman’s right to have an abortion but oppose infanticide.    

I once had a Sunday School teacher who was a distinguished professor at a well-known divinity school.  He jokingly said he believed in the right to abort a child through age 18.  His comment was intentionally absurd and was designed to demonstrate the intellectual dilemma faced by those who are willing to take a human life in order to protect a mother’s right not to have a baby she does not want.   

I think it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade regardless of who is elected President.    Even if the decision were overturned, however, this would not mean abortions would become illegal.   It would be up to each state to decide whether to make abortions legal or illegal.    Moreover, women would still have a choice even if Roe v. Wade were overturned and even if the states thereafter decided to outlaw abortions.  Women would be able to choose, as they can today, to abstain from engaging in unprotected or irresponsible sex that could lead to an unwanted pregnancy.   The question is not whether women have the right to choose, but whether they should exercise their right to choose before or after a new life has been created.   Whether or not abortion is outlawed, a woman will also be able to choose, as she can today, to give birth and let someone adopt the child she does not want.  

Many of those in the “pro choice” camp think people who oppose abortion are religious zealots.  Even though I am a religious person, I view abortion as a moral issue that should concern everyone regardless of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.  

What do I think about the millions of women who have already had an abortion?   It is not my role to judge them.    If God disapproves of abortion, as I believe He does, then He has already forgiven women who have had an abortion and who have requested forgiveness.   I believe in a loving and forgiving God who is more concerned about how we are living our lives today and how we will live our lives in the future than He is about our sins of the past.