Abortion and
the Virtue of Humility
Genesis 2:4-7
and Psalm 139:13-16
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” To turn Dr. King’s phrase around, we may say: Our lives truly begin the day we speak about things that matter. My friends, today our lives begin.
Today we begin addressing issues in our Radically Moderate Christian series by confronting the thorny, contentious, emotionally explosive topic of abortion. Let me say that I understand that abortion is a sensitive topic for many of you present today. Some of you have had abortions and regret them. Some of you have had abortions and continue to think that it was the best decision you could have made, and you’d make it again. Some of you have pressured your wife, daughter or girlfriend to have an abortion and you feel terribly guilty about your behavior. Some of you have wanted to have a baby, wanted your wife, daughter or girlfriend to carry to term, but stood by, helpless, as the choice was taken out of your hands. Some of you perceive the issue of abortion from a passionately pro-life conviction. Some of you perceive the issue of abortion from a passionately pro-choice conviction. All of us need help if we are to honor one another as brothers and sisters in Christ in the midst of this conversation, so let us begin with a word of prayer.
Gracious God, Lord and giver of life, more intimate than our own breath, breathe into us the new life of Holy Spirit, that guided by your Word and led by your Spirit we may find the courage to be humble toward – and gentle with – one another.
*****
When does life begin? That’s the question, right? If we know when life begins, we will know if abortion is ok or if it’s murder, right? Well, yes, that’s basically correct, but more nuanced questions will serve us better in this conversation. When does human life, as opposed to biological life, begin? When does ensoulment occur; that is, when are we imbued with those spiritual qualities of our humanity such that it can be said we are made “in the image of God”?
What rights does a woman have to her own body? That’s the question, right? If we understand a woman’s rights, then we will know what legal choices she should be offerred, right? Well, yes, that’s basically correct, but again more nuanced questions will serve us better in this conversation. In a secular society, does a religious minority, or even a religious majority, have the right to dictate their moral views, derived from their religion, upon those who do not believe? Is not the right of self-determination in matters religious a foundational concept in our society?
*****
As Christians in a secular society, these are only some of the questions with which we are obliged to struggle. And struggle we must, for how we respond to these questions affects millions of people. How, then, shall we proceed? Let’s start by looking at Scripture.
Over here on the right [note: I am physically moving to the congregation’s right] we read the Bible’s clear, consistent view that we are created by God and known by God even from the womb.
For you created my
inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. (Psalm 139:13).
Before I was born the
LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1)
"Before I formed
you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed
you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
In a loud voice
Elizabeth exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the
child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should
come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in
my womb leaped for joy. (Luke 1:42)
Over
here on the left [note: I am physically moving to the congregation’s left] we
read the Bible’s compelling view that without breath and blood, there is no
life.
The LORD God formed the
man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)
“This is what the
Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these
slain, that they may live." So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath
entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet. (Ezekiel 37:9-10)
For the life of a
creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for
yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.
(Leviticus 17:11)
We also have, over here on the left, the
interesting point of law in which a fetus is valued less than an adult.
If men who are fighting
hit a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but there is no serious injury to the
woman, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the
court allows. (Exodus 21:22)
What
we have here are two views of how Scripture deals with the issue of
abortion. One view says that God is the
author and giver of all life and that life begins in the womb; clearly God knew
the psalmist, the prophets and John the Baptist from the womb. Another views
says that God is the author and giver of all life but that truly human life
begins either a) when the first breath is taken, or b) when blood enters the
fetus, but in any case c) the fetus is not as legally protected as an adult. Hmmm, where does that leave us? I’ll let you decide for now.
*****
Let’s
look for a moment how Christians throughout the ages have looked at the issue
of abortion; sometimes getting some historical
perspective can help us counter other hysterical
perspectives. Did you know that the earliest Christians were against
abortion? Not only were the early
Christians against abortion, a common practice in the Roman world, but so
pro-life were the early Christians that they would “adopt” unwanted babies that
had been left by the roadside, which also was a common practice in the Roman
world.
On
the other hand, the dominant position of the Christian Church throughout
history has been of a more liberal bent.
The earliest Christians were against abortion for the first four
centuries, then for the next thirteen centuries the dominant idea was to
tolerate early stage abortions; included in the list of folk who tolerated
early stage abortions were such theological luminaries as St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas. During this stage in the life of the Church, from the fifth to
the seventeenth centuries, it was believed that “ensoulment” occurred either at
40 or 90 days, or somewhere between the middle and the end of the first
trimester.
Then,
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, under the leadership of Pope
Pius X, the same pope who brought us the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of
Mary, and roughly during the same historical period as Queen Victoria of
England, the doctrine of “simultaneous animation,” what we would call “life
begins at conception,” was (pardon the pun) conceived and became the dominant
theology. What we see here is the
Church holding different positions, but holding them sequentially. It is only
in the last fifty years or so that the church has been held multiple positions
simultaneously regarding abortion. So, where does that leave us? I’ll let you decide for now.
*****
In
our generation’s debate, we have information that no other generation of
Christians had: we have the knowledge of human gestation. When does human life begin? At what point of
gestation does ensoulment occur? There
are a variety of possibilities. [Note to reader: I will begin this section
walking to the far right of the congregation and, with each new possibility
described, move to the left of the congregation.]
Some believe ensoulment occurs at conception. After all, an unique DNA code is formed separate from either mother or father; the “intrinsic biological nature” of the zygote is human; and it must be asserted that the zygote is merely the earliest stage of human development. Others believe ensoulment cannot occur at conception because the nueral tube, what becomes our spinal column, does not form until the biological life within is 14 days. Until such time, twins are possible. If a soul is given at conception and then the life splits, what happens? The twins don’t each share half of soul, do they?
Some believe ensoulment occurs with the presence of blood, for, as Leviticus reminds us, “the life of a creature is in the blood.” The presence of blood occurs around day 18, after the formation of the nueral tube, and blood begins to circulate within the fetus around day 28 with the beginning of the heart beat. The transition has been made from embryo to fetus; limbs have begun to sprout. It could be that we have a human life at such a time.
Some believe ensoulment occurs with the presence of brainwaves. After all, clinical death is defined by the loss of this kind of cerebral activity, why not use similar criteria to define life? The problem with this definition, strong as it is, is that brain waves in a fetus occur developmentally. Immature brain waves begin at six weeks, while higher brain waves occur at six months. Clinical death is defined by the loss of these higher brain waves, so maybe it should be said that we are authentically human at six months time and even possibly by six weeks.
Some believe ensoulment has possibly occurred around three months, when the fetus begins to move and has certainly occurred by five months around the time of viability when the fetus can live outside the womb, has an awareness of his or her surroundings and can feel pain. Those who argue for a ban on all abortions after the stage of viability make a most persuasive case: it is irrational to say that a mother’s desire to carry to term makes a five month old fetus worthy of extraordinary measures, neo-natal care and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in order to save “the baby,” while the same mother, if she had no desire to carry to term would be carrying something other than authentically human life.
Some
believe ensoulment occurs with the breath in the same way that Adam was merely
dust until the Spirit breathed life into him (Genesis 2). This is – and has been for two millennia –
the dominant position of the Jewish faith. So, where
does that leave us? I’ll let you decide
for now.
*****
I hope you realize by now that we
will not solve the thorny issue of abortion today. Certainly, much more could
be said to draw out issues in the debate.
Left unspoken has been any analysis of the legal issues involved with
abortion, what legislation has been passed, what legislation has been put
forward but not yet passed or how legislation has been interpreted by the courts.
Also left unspoken has been any discussion of women’s
experiences. This is a most grievous
omission in the sermon. At the heart of
the pro-choice movement are women’s experiences of trauma and tragedy because
safe abortion practices were withheld or denied them before Roe v. Wade. Some of you who are women may be thinking,
“Of course you haven’t given women’s stories attention, Brad, you’re a
man.” Guilty as charged. But before we justly condemn me for
insensitivity, let me ask one question in my defense: whose stories should I
tell? Should I tell the horrific
stories of women subjected to back alley abortions? Or should I tell the poignant stories of women wracked by years
of guilt because they had an abortion?
Should I tell the stories of women terrorized by fathers because their
daughters had the temerity to get “knocked up”? Or should I tell the stories of
depressed and suicidal women who desire only to be forgiven for “killing my
baby”? Ladies, with all due respect,
whose stories should I tell?
The correct answer of course is that all stories should be told, should be heard, should be listened to and respected. And when we demonstrate the courage to tell our stories and the greater courage to listen to and respect those whose stories are told, then we will discover common ground and shared values. We will discover that Christians on both sides of the issue believe not only that God is a God of life but that God is also a God of compassion. When we have the courage to tell each other our stories and listen to and respect those whose stories are told, we will discover that Christians on both sides of the issue are seeking to express the will of God in and through their lives. Be honest: as you listened to me recite the evidence from both sides of the debate – the biblical evidence, the historical evidence and the scientific evidence – didn’t you think that one side had stronger evidence than the other? I’m guessing you did. I did! But be honest again: as you listened to me recite the evidence, did you not come to realize that “your” side wasn’t the only side, that of course you are right (of course!) but others might not be so wrong?
*****
Here is my proposition for the radically moderate Christian: the theological virtue of humility. Humility is what is needed desperately in this debate; the humility to think, even for a second, that you might be incorrect, although you probably aren’t, of course. But you might. Do you have the moral courage to be humble, to think such a thought, even for a second. If you have such moral courage, here is what I suggest:
· For those of you who are pro-choice” in order to protect a woman’s right to choose to be involved or uninvolved with the human life within her, what rights for choice would you offer to the sperm donor (aka, the biological father)? Do you give him the same option of opting out?
· For those of you who are pro-life and desire the Supreme Court to mandate carrying to term, what legal requirements would you mandate for government to provide assistance to mother and child?
· For those of you who are pro-choice: what limits on a woman’s choice can you imagine being reasonable from an ethical perspective?
· For those of you who are pro-life: what rights for a woman to choose can you imagine being reasonable from an ethical perspective?
The radically moderate Christian understands that “God alone is Lord of the conscience and faithful, intelligent Christians will sometimes disagree.” In our good-faith disagreements, is it truly necessary to demand that only our side of the debate is mandated? Compromise is not a dirty word in this context; indeed, the virtue of humility demands that we be open to such.
It is the stated goal of some that abortion be “safe, legal and rare.” Really, is that such a bad goal? For those of you who are pro-life, isn’t a nation where abortion is rare better by far than the current state of things? Will you not give a little ground to create a social, political and moral situation where abortion is rare? For those of you who are pro-choice, can you not accept reasonable restraints on a woman’s autonomy in order to guarantee that abortion remains safe and legal? We must not stand idly by while the extremists paint this debate in the colors of black and white, for the Lord of the conscience asks that we debate this in the colors of light and of love.