Introduction
Both sides of the abortion issue contain legal, ethical and social considerations that provoke great emotions. Thus far at least, man’s law has judged abortion legal and by extension ethical because laws are generally considered the measure of society’s moral standard. God’s law, as interpreted by some from the Holy Bible, has ruled abortion unacceptable. It is no surprise to anyone that others draw different conclusions from the pages of the Bible. Some believe abortion to not only have legal merit but it morally preferable to the restriction of abortion rights. This faction adeptly justifies their stance in man’s law the U.S. Constitution and God’s law, the Bible. Of course Man’s law can change with a slight adjustment in the Supreme Court and Fundamentalist Christians argue no such justification exists in the Bible. This discussion examines the differing interpretations of God’s and Man’s laws as it applies to abortion.
God’s Law Permits Abortion
God’s commands are more clearly defined for the ‘orthodox’ Christian. ‘Thou shall not kill’ is straightforward and non-ambiguous i.e. don’t kill babies. The reason society has allowed abortions to be semi-accepted within the culture is that for some Christians, the implications of God’s commands are not as obvious. Some extend this Commandment to include the death penalty, others do not. Some believe life begins at conception and others when a baby takes their first breath therefore abortions are not taking a life and God’s command is not violated. The Bible is progressively becoming viewed as a moral guideline by a growing number of parishioners and the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. According to The Divine Command theory (DCT), God’s words are the basis of morality and should be followed to the letter. Still, even for the most conservative Christian, the command not to kill is somewhat subject to interpretation. Can people kill animals for the pure sport of it or only as a food source? It is not difficult to understand how God’s words can be considered open to analysis but the difficulty of the abortion issue is that the breadth of the interpretation is very wide.
The DCT is clear and non-negotiable for some but for others, its tenets remain subjective and vague. If a person rejects the DCT, this does not imply that they believe morality to not be founded by God but that His commandments are not the foundation of morality. For example, “according to Natural Law Theory, God created the world and all its physical laws and this includes the laws of morality; and we can gain knowledge of these laws even if we do not believe in God and know nothing about his will and commands.” (Felis, 2007) If a person accepts the Natural Law Theory, God’s commands are still valid within this reasoning and should be adhered to because, if for no other reason, that they are widely accepted as sound moral advice if not the basis for morality.
Given that the DCT is beyond reproach, the concept of morality as understood by the individual may be skewed because of a lack of understanding which tends to distort the commandment’s message to the receiver. “A person’s moral view combined with certain plausible assumptions might have unforeseen implications that are incompatible with some of that person’s particular moral judgments” (Velasquez, 2002). While true, this argument is often erroneously used to explain why those who subscribe to the DCT oppose abortion. The claim is based on the premise that the fetus constitutes a person and is arguable therefore the conclusion that abortion is in moral conflict with God’s law is also arguable. This reasoning applies to other issues such as homosexuality. Those that consider homosexuality to be in opposition to God’s law and unnatural may have an inflexible view of what is unnatural. As evidence, persons who are gay believe their lifestyle to be perfectly natural. Of course, the majority of society does not agree with this viewpoint and God’s law specifically forbids homosexuality. Natural Law Theory reasoning cuts both ways however. An individual may believe, for example, that abortion is acceptable in the eyes of God and not morally wrong because it is not immoral to destroy something that is not aware it exists and a fetus is unaware.
Good advice for those that have varying views of when life begins, oppose or support legal abortions, believe homosexuality is natural or unnatural is not to blindly accept the established ideology whether spiritual, political or personal in nature. Throughout the history of the world, many strongly held opinions were commonly accepted by the majority of the population such as the idea that black persons or Jews were subhuman, the earth was flat (according to the Bible), a monarchy was the best form of government and women were to be subservient to their husbands in every way. It’s very likely that some of peoples strongly held opinions today are as grossly mistaken as well. While some moral opinions are seemingly unchangeable, others are less so. Those of all opinions would be well-served to maintain an open mind to other opinions with regard to questions of morality and a willingness to question their own beliefs. “Even if one does not change one’s moral views, one will at least better understand one’s own moral views and those of others, and be better able to defend one’s own views rather than simply being dogmatic” (Velasquez, 2002).
The DCT assumes that God created man therefore retains an unconditional entitlement of man’s obedience consequently man should act upon God’s commands. If one perceives that an omnipresent God indeed exists and has bestowed upon man commandments to live by, it is only rational that man obeys these laws. Following God’s commandments many times involves making moral decisions based on what is clearly right or wrong. At other times, right and wrong cannot be defined in simple terms of black and white. Life choices are sometimes complex and the answer to a question of God’s law and morality are ambiguous and hidden within shades of grey. Sometimes, adhering to the DCT means deciding which of God’s commands to follow when they conflict. As an example, “what if a woman’s husband demands that she get an abortion? Should she follow the command to submit to her husband, or the command not to kill?” (Fackler/Bunn, 1998). This is a realistic dilemma that women face every day in a country that allows legalized murder of its youngest citizens.
Man’s Law Permits Abortion
Various studies through the years have proven that abortion is an abhorrent physical, psychological and moral option for all concerned yet the ‘right to choose’ still exists because the Supreme Court has stated it cannot determine for certain when life begins. We have been at a 30-plus year impasse since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 which legalized abortion in the U.S because the court system is unclear regarding when human life begins. The ‘Roe’ decision invalidated any state law that restricted a woman to have an abortion or a doctor to perform an abortion during the first three months (first trimester) of a pregnancy. It also restricted abortions during the second-trimester unless a woman’s health was in jeopardy. (“Roe v. Wade” 1997).
Two questions arise when debating whether the Constitution legally protects a woman’s right to have an abortion performed. The first involves reasoning whether the fundamental interests of women are affected by the restricting of abortion. The other inquires if laws preventing legal abortions are justified even if the Constitution does in fact address this issue. Answering the first question is rather simple. Courts regularly hear cases so as to decide whether or not the rights of an individual are protected by the Constitution. If courts are engaged in recognizing if the fundamental rights of individuals are protected, then the personal interest of a woman being forced by the government to have an unwanted child certainly applies. Though the constitutionality regarding the Roe decision can be easily argued, it must be acknowledged that since the issue remains intensely controversial more than 30 years after, opponents may be justified in believing the right to an abortion should not be thought of as fundamental. Fundamental rights reprove basic truths in the functioning of a society. Rulings preventing the segregation of the races are now accepted by the public therefore can be viewed as fundamental rights. Abortion rights do not enjoy this universally held view so it is fair to debate the issue even on legal grounds though that is seldom the arena for debate. It is understood, however, that the majority of Americans do agree with the Court’s decision and believe it to be a fundamental right.
God’s Law Disallows Abortion
The Bible does not provide any assistance to the debate as it does not speak specifically of abortion, a practice that was seen as unthinkable even in those barbaric times and “childlessness was seen as a curse” (Anderson. 2003). From the perspective of the religious ideologue, the life of a human, from the time of conception, should be considered equally as viable as any individual. Consequently, the right of life as well as the social definition regarding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ types of deaths should apply to potential lives which possess a future value of life, the same as any living person. Denying a being their future is murder. Unnatural, premature deaths that are considered justifiable by society include those that occur during war-time in addition to those that result from ‘mercy killings’ and the death penalty. Outside of these instances, society generally acts to protect all life even animals that have at least a chance of future potential. This is demonstrated by the life-saving techniques employed without question or hesitation in the case of people who wanted to end their life. Society will not allow it because it is simply wrong by any standard to end a life with potential. ‘Pro Choice’ advocates counter this seemingly universal truth by saying just because a person has great potential doesn’t mean that they will achieve greatness in life therefore a potential life is not yet a life. They also argue that because a fetus is unconscious disqualifies it for being considered a person. Of course, emergency medical treatment is administered to unconscious people in an effort to save their life. Society mourns the death of the young more so than the old. Taking the life of a potential person who possesses an inherent value of life and is of the very youngest of society is in opposition to this widely accepted societal value. (Marquis, 1989).
The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Americans also are in favor of legal abortions. If a democratic government sanctions an act, its society sanctions it as well. In essence, many Christians are endorsing murder in opposition to Gods’ Constitution, the Ten Commandments. The Divine Command theory embraces a simple concept, that “the moral rules contained in God’s Word are good, true, and obligatory.” (Fackler, 1998). God’s rules, as written within the texts of the Bible, are the paramount, if not the only dependable method by which Christians should seek answers to questions regarding morality. According to the theory, Christians are presented practically no situation in life that justifies disregarding scriptural doctrine. In the Book of John, Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (Holy Bible, 1999). In the Book of Matthew, Jesus reinforced this statement. “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Holy Bible, 1999). Those Christians who adhere to the DCT trust God and obey his words even when this route seemingly will lead to less than desirable outcomes. (Fackler/Bunn, 1998).
Man’s Law Excludes Abortion
The Constitution does not directly address the issue but simply because the word ‘abortion’ does not appear, the Constitution is still the origin for legal precedence for this issue. The liberal interpretation of the Constitution in this matter (7-2 in favor) is at the heart of the legal issue. Because the Supreme Court has become more conservative in terms of overall ideology since 1973, many believe that soon this interpretation will more closely resemble Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion regarding Roe v. Wade. There are those that argue that if the courts cannot decide when life begins and because the Roe decision has yet to be overturned even though it was not based on a solid constitutional reasoning, then the Congress, not the courts should decide matters such as this which have weighty moral implications.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written by men who believed in God, men who thought prayer was important, that life was sacred, and that many of our current-day controversial practices, such as homosexuality and abortion, were biblically and morally reprehensible. The reality that a few of our Founding Fathers were deists, rather than theists, does not change the fact that these documents were written by and for a generally theistic people. According to John Adams, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (Beach, 1998). Today, however, popular culture has forgotten that our nation was founded, in large part, on Christian principles, and that the Constitution was written for a “moral and religious people.” We are, of course, free to practice our own religious beliefs, but our present society has become obsessed with the idea of tolerance. Everything is to be tolerated – with the exception of Christianity.
Legal abortion enables fathers to force their will on mothers. Some women resort to abortion in desperation because they fear continued abuse. That fear is substantiated as women who refuse to abort have been subjected to serious abuses which have escalated to murder if the women still persists in her refusal. Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women and for what other motive could there be? “Sixty-four percent of women surveyed report being pressured by others into unwanted abortions.” (Reardon, 2002). There is little freedom of choice for women who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy. The women themselves usually wish to bring their baby to full term. Other powerful influences in her life such as husbands/boyfriends, parents and friends are generally the forces that exact pressures on her to terminate the pregnancy. Most often, the father of the child, not wishing to accept responsibility, may beg or even threaten a woman until she agrees to the abortion. “In 95 percent of all cases the male partner played a central role in the decision” (Zimmerman, 1977). If the causes and affects of abortion were packaged in any other form, it would be illegal besides simply being immoral and unethical.
Conclusion
It is important that those of each opinion understand the opposing viewpoint if they truly wish to debate the topic rather than simply insist that their own viewpoint is correct. Only in this way can the national debate proceed with any hopes of resolution. If both sides understand the issues of the other, the emotional aspect can be lessened and replaced with reasonable conversations. The ideological divide will never be bridged but the debate whether abortion should be legal or not is a matter for the courts, as are all legal matters. Roe v. Wade was and is a case that brings out emotions on both a moral and legal basis. The Supreme Court’s decision cannot be called a mistake like the critics call it unless those critics are willing to totally ignore legal procedure and the words of the Constitution itself. Abortion is legal and considered a right guaranteed by the Constitution but an appointment or two to the Supreme Court could swiftly take away the right at the federal level.
Those opposed to legal abortions are also in the same camp that opposes programs that aid the impoverished and abused children who are the result of unwanted pregnancies. They point to ‘Christian morals’ and ‘family values’ as justification for the loss of liberty, discrimination of the poor and the increased cases of injured women. The first flaw in the pro-life argument is referring to the zygote, embryo and fetus as simply the ‘fetus.’ Various valid opinions are espoused as to the exact point where life begins in biological terms, but those of the pro-life opinion dismiss science in their argument and concentrate on the morality of abortion based on the prevailing value of life giving examples of unrelated life and death situations. They believe that the potential life growing in a woman is more important than that woman’s rights to make decisions regarding her body. They may have a morally just position but have also disregarded the law of the land in addition to science in the formulation of this opinion.
References
- Anderson, Kirby. (2003). “Arguments Against Abortion.” Leadership U. Web.
- Beach, W. (1988). “Christian Ethics in the Protestant Tradition.” Atlanta: John Knox Press.
- Fackler, Mark & Bunn, Christopher. (1998). “Is It Ever Right To Do Wrong? Making ethical decisions when commandments seem to collide.” Discipleship Journal. Vol 104
- Felis, George. (2007). “What Atheism Isn’t, Part 2: Atheism and Morality.” The New Humanist Magazine. 2007
- Holy Bible (King James Version). (1999). New York: American Bible Society.
- Marquis, Don. (1989). “An Argument that Abortion is Wrong.” Northern Arizona University.
- Reardon, David C. (2002). “Aborted Women, Silent No More.” Springfield, IL: Acorn Books. pp. 11-21.
- “Roe v. Wade: 1973.” (1997). Women’s Rights on Trial. 1st Ed. New York: Thompson Gale.
- Velasquez, Manuel. (2002). “Philosophy: A Text with Readings.” New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Chapter 7, Section 4.
- Zimmerman, Mary K. (1997). “Passage Through Abortion.” New York: Prager Publishers.