With many states passing “heartbeat” bills, I have seen many posts on social media stating that the banning of abortions is wrong. Women, such posts say, should have unlimited access to abortions, control of their own bodies, and complete freedom of choice in the matter. I would like to, in light of such claims, discuss the pro-life stance, acknowledging their concerns in the process, since such factors ought to be considered.
Bear with me before we begin, but I must defend my ability to speak on the subject. Often I have heard that, as a man, I should have no say or voice in this issue, since it involves women alone. This is, I would argue, an invalid argument for two reasons. Firstly, male children are killed in the abortion process and men are the fathers of all children; therefore, men are connected to the issue. Secondly, relatability has nothing to do with morality. While I am not a person of color, I should be able to speak out against the evils of racism, even though I am not a target of such attitudes. With these concepts in mind, let us proceed.
May I open this treatise with a statement of morality: murder is wrong. Now, I am a Christian, which means I believe that the taking of an innocent human life is an ultimate insult to our Creator, who hand-crafts each one of us with love. I believe that this human life begins at conception; to borrow an argument from John Stonestreet, there are only a few differences between a born child and an unborn child: location, level of development and dependency. With regards to location, it’s reasonable to assume that murder is wrong, regardless of where the child resides when it is committed. Concerning development: it would be wrong to murder a pre-puberty child just as much as a fully developed teenager; the child's individual biological development has no bearing on the issue. Finally looking at dependency: when somebody is in the ICU, we would still condemn a man who would shoot said invalid, even though the patient is completely dependent on machinery for life support. Considering these aspects, I would submit that the unborn child is just as much a person as those that are born. To take the life of an innocent person is murder, and murder is immoral.
This is a blunt statement of morality, which does absolutely nothing to consider the plight of a woman who is considering an abortion. This is so often overlooked by pro-life advocates, and it is to the viewpoint’s shame. When legislating or proclaiming right and wrong, we need to consider that we are not programming robots who have no fears, loves, dreams, or moments of weakness. I cannot, in good conscience, simply leave this statement as the conclusion. The women’s concerns must be addressed.
Let me first consider the issue of the control of a woman’s body. I am politically conservative, bordering libertarian, and I would argue that the government should have as little “control” over its citizens as possible. On this point, I have two comments. To begin with, except in cases of rape (which I hope to adequately address later in this post), the woman does have control of her body when she chooses to participate in sexual intercourse. She ought to know that such an act can result in conception, and she chooses to do so; in this way, she does have a choice. Secondly, on the topic of control: a murderer might condemn the government for “controlling his body” in the form of his trigger finger by outlawing homicide. The government should control citizens in situations of morality, in the same way that racism, sexism, and theft are all illegal.
A second argument for abortion-legality is the inability of the mother to provide for the child. I understand this concern – my wife and I have just had our first son, and the responsibility (financially, emotionally, and more) has only just begun to take effect. While we look forward to this phase of life, I understand the daunting task ahead, and I can only imagine its weight for a young, single, and/or unexpectant mother. A few thoughts on this issue, if I may. To begin with, I believe that the father should also be held accountable. Why is it – legally, culturally, socially – permissible for the father to be aloof? Men should be held accountable for their actions, including fatherhood; this weight should not be carried by the mother alone, but the aloof-ness of the father does not make this murder justifiable, even if it is understandable. Even if the child is going to live a deprived life, initially, this is not condemnation to death. We would condemn somebody going through slums and ghettos and murdering its inhabitants given their bleak financial or relational futures. Fortunately, there are numerous ministries and pro-life clinics (such as
Pathways Pregnancy Clinic, for which I had the opportunity to sit on their board of directors) that provide emotional, financial, and other types of support to mothers in these situations, and these groups ought to be supported.
A third, and extremely valid, consideration is that of conception through rape. This is a horrendous crime and one of the few transgressions that dictated the death penalty in the Bible. I shall truncate my comments on rapists there, as I could get very carried away with my negative opinion of such criminals. Regarding the mother and child of such a horrendous situation, I cannot imagine the emotional destruction that results from such a horrific experience; she had no choice in the matter, her body was violated, and a great violence was committed against her. In the aftermath of this, she now finds that she is pregnant, but why should the child be condemned to death because of the crimes of her father? Why should the unborn daughter be held accountable for her father’s act? We would not argue that the born children of rapists should be killed simply because their father is such; why should the unborn be condemned to such a fate?
The final consideration is that of a life-and-death situation, where the mother is in danger of death if the pregnancy were to continue. Ectopic pregnancies are a prime example of this situation – there are few known cases where the child, and often the mother, survive the ordeal. This, perhaps, is one such case where an abortion could be morally considered, though I cringe even as I type this. An innocent life is lost in either case, and that concept grieves me. However, these situations are rare, and even if abortions were legal in this situation, it does not give credibility to the legality of any of the aforementioned scenarios.
Attempting to address this issue in such a short length does not do the crisis justice. Our son spent the first week of his life in the Neonatal ICU to address an infection he had contracted. While there, we observed dozens of infants that had been born nearly 20 weeks early - still very much alive, human, and precious. The idea that these children could be killed - in some states’ proposed legislation, even after they are born - is horrendous. The slaughter of children is perhaps one of the most heinous crimes that humanity can contrive. I empathize with the mothers that find themselves in a difficult situation mentioned above, but to kill a child is a terrible thing. This is not political, this is not patriarchal, this is not a power grab - as a Christian, my goal is to support these mothers and save these innocent babies. To legislate infants' destruction is not to be celebrated - it is to be mourned and reversed. For this reason, I am pro-life.
