The Pro-life Response To The Violinist Argument (To Abort Or Not)

             Just as a brick isn’t a house, so too the single-cell human embryo isn’t a human being, so just as it’s no big deal to get rid of a brick, it’s no big deal to destroy the human embryo; so said Canada’s leading abortionist Dr. Henry Morgentaler. The flaw in this pro-choice argument is that the brick does not grow into a whole house whereas the single-cell embryo grows into a fully functional human being. If there was a brick that had the potential to grow into a whole house, then no sane human will destroy that brick! This was the response by Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen in his book Untangling Popular Pro-Choice Arguments. ¹

            The moral of this pro-choice argument is that it exposes the depravity of even the most intelligent who propose devious and ludicrous arguments to promote their malicious cause. But to be fair (to the detractors of Historic Christianity) that’s not always the case.

            The Violinist Argument - a thought experiment - is a compelling argument for abortion because it concedes the fact that the embryo is a fully human person. Greg Koukl cites the violinist argument proposed by Judith Jarvis Thompson:²

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, “Tough luck, I agree, but you’ve now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,² which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

            In a nutshell, the Violinist argument permits the kidnapped person to unplug from the violinist, even if the unplug would result in the death of the famous violinist. This permission is then extended to the pregnant mother who can choose to abort her unborn child. This, according to the violinist argument, is morally permissible.

            What are the native fallacies in the violinist argument?

            Greg Koukl offers three important differences between pregnancy and kidnapping:³

(1) The violinist is artificially attached to the kidnapped person, whereas the unborn baby is not surgically connected to the mother. Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon in human beings.

(2) Unplugging from the violinist is different from abortion. Unplugging involves the withdrawal of the treatment whereas the instance of an abortion is a homicidal act against the unborn. Abortion is not merely a withdrawal of treatment to the unborn; it is an act of killing a human person.

(3) The relationship between the mother and the child is significantly different from that of two strangers in the violinist argument, one of which was kidnapped! Parents have special obligations to their children. So the mother is obligated to care for and protect her unborn.

            To conclude, the violinist argument, although seemingly compelling, is riddled with fallacies. Hence the violinist argument cannot reasonably defend the pro-choice position.

Endnotes:

¹https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/untangling-pro-choice-arguments-author-interview

²https://www.str.org/w/unstringing-the-violinist

³Ibid.

Read the article entitled “Suffer the Violinist: Why the Pro-abortion Argument from Bodily Autonomy Fails” if in case you desire to dig deeper. (https://www.equip.org/article/suffer-the-violinist-why-the-pro-abortion-argument-from-bodily-autonomy-fails/)

Websites last accessed on 6^th September 2021.

Where Does Our Soul Come From? (When Can The Fetus Be Aborted?)

 

            The Bible uses the word ‘soul’ (Hebrew nephesh; Greek: psuche) in at least four different ways:¹

            1. As a synonym for a person (Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22; Acts 2:41).

            2. The form of life man possesses in common with animals, which ceases to exist at death (Genesis 1:20,24; Psalm 78:50; Matthew 6:25; Luke 14:26).

            3. Emotions or inner thoughts of a man (Deuteronomy 13:3; Psalm 139:14; Matthew 22:37).

            4. The immortal part of a man that never dies (Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Matthew 10:28).

            The soul is the immortal part of our body.

            With regards to the origin of the soul, William Lane Craig explains that it is more plausible that God creates the soul for every human being that HE creates:² [Emphasis Mine]

...there have been traditionally three competing views as to the origin of the soul. One would be Creationism. This would be the view that God immediately creates the soul...The second view is Traducianism. This is the view that the soul is produced by the souls of the parents...So the soul is not specially created by God ex nihilo or out of nothing. Rather just as the parents’ bodies engender the body of their offspring, so their souls engender the soul of their offspring. One soul is produced or generated by the parents’ souls. The third view would be the Preexistence view which is the view that souls preexisted their embodiment in human bodies...This was a Platonic view that there is a realm of souls that exist prior to their incarnation in the world, and then God puts these souls in particular bodies.

Which of these views is the most plausible? Well, again, I think apart from the Preexistence view (which I think is clearly unbiblical), biblically there really is no way to tell whether you should be a Traducian or Creationist. But it seems to me that Creationism is more plausible than Traducianism...

            So the soul is created by God. But, at what point does HE create the soul?

            This question is relevant because it concerns the issue of abortion.

            Consider these two verses from the Bible: [Emphasis Mine]

            Jeremiah 1:5: ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...”” (ESV)

            Psalm 139:16a: “Your eyes saw my unformed substance...” (ESV)

            It is rather plausible to infer from these verses that God knows every human being from the time of their conception – even before they were formed in the womb. Ergo, God places the soul at conception.³

            Herein we should realize that abortion, at any time, is a sin against God because at the time of conception, the soul is placed, so when the soul is placed, the fetus should be considered as a fully human person.

Endnotes:

¹https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0207.pdf

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-man/the-doctrine-of-man-part-8/

³https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0207.pdf

&

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-man/the-doctrine-of-man-part-8/

Websites last accessed on 30^th July 2021. 

Animal Rights, Veganism & Abortion (Considering Abortion From The Perspective Of Veganism And Animal Rights)

            We live in a time and age in which a vegan is glorified and a pro-lifer (anti-abortionist) is condemned by the secular world! The moral values of the secular world seem to have its feet firmly planted in midair.

            This situation confuses many Christians – the young and the old. Youngsters seem to think that being a vegan is to be kind to the animals. While this may be true, they, on the other hand, believe that the mother has the right to choose whether or not to continue with the pregnancy.

            Animal life, today, has a greater value than human life. Or so it seems!

            What does the Bible say about animal rights?

            Steve W Lemke, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, in an article entitled ‘Does the Bible Affirm That Animals Have Rights?’ says:¹

No, Scripture never specifically grants rights to animals. The Bible doesn't assume that animals have intrinsic rights, even the right to life. Unlike humans, animals were not created in the image of God. God made humans the pinnacle of His creation, with inherent worth and greater capacities than animals. He appointed humans to subdue and rule over all animals (Gn 1:20-31). God specifically approved the use of animals as food for humans (Gn 9:1-3; Lv 11:2-3).

Since animals have lesser value than humans, they shouldn't be given the rights accorded to human beings, and human life should never be sacrificed to save animal life.

Yes, the Bible affirms that humans have a moral obligation to treat animals humanely. Although animals are clearly not equal in worth to human beings, they have value since God created them as "good" (Gn 1:20-25). So, as part of our God-given stewardship, we shouldn't abuse or pointlessly harm animals. Scripture uses the same word to describe the animating force that God gave animals (nephesh, Gn 1:20-21, 24, 30) as it does in describing how He breathed a living soul into persons (Gn 2:7).

Unlike animals, human souls have unique capacities: self-awareness, abstract reasoning, an orientation toward the future, freedom, moral responsibility, and the capacity to have a relationship with God. Animal sacrifices presuppose that animals have value (Lv 4-6; Heb 9:11-28). Animal pain is a matter for moral concern because God cares for animals (Gn 7:2-4; Ps 104:10-30; 147:7-9; 148:7-10; Mt 6:26; Lk 12:6-7, 24).

Although God gave people permission to eat animals after the flood (Gn 9:1-3), this may have been a concession to human sinfulness. Vegetarianism practiced in the Garden of Eden (Gn 1:29-30; 2:16), and the prophecy that natural predators will live together peacefully in the future (Isa 11:6-8), suggest that the eating of animal flesh isn't God's ideal.

Scripture calls upon humans to treat animals humanely. The Mosaic law forbade the heartless treatment of birds, promising long life to those who don't abuse animals (Dt 22:6-7). Other regulations were given for the welfare of farm animals (Dt 22:1-4, 10; 25:4). Humane treatment of animals is a characteristic of godly living (Pr 12:10).  

            It’s quite clear that we are called to treat animals humanely. There is no doubt about it.

            But how could a vegan, who cares for plant and animal life, care less about human life?

            Interestingly, one of the basic defenses put up by the vegan camp to justify abortion is that plant and animals are sentient beings (having the power of perception by the senses e.g. able to perceive pain). They contend that fetuses are not sentient beings. Hence they find justification in killing (aborting) fetuses.

            If this argument is valid then it should apply to an adult human as well. A person in a coma (in a vegetative or in an unresponsive state) is generally considered to not feel pain. Is it then valid to kill this person because he/she cannot feel pain?  

            God is the creator and sustainer of life. This implies that only God can create or take life off the earth. However, even if euthanasia is to be considered, it could only be on the basis of administering medical support to merely extend one’s life when medial support is no longer helpful to a dying patient or when treatment is more burdensome to the dying patient. 

            If euthanasia is contemplated from within the Christian context, it would be predicated on the fact that death should not be resisted by medical means because a Christian’s eternal destiny is beyond death. For a Christian, death is a good death, for it ushers him/her into God’s presence.

            So if euthanasia is considered on a vegetative comatose patient, then it is not considered on the basis of pain, but on the basis of resisting death and eternity.

            If we merely think about pain as a reason for euthanasia, then scientists would inform us that even a comatose person in vegetative condition can exhibit signs of consciousness and feel emotions (cf. the case of Rom Houben²). Therefore, arguing for abortion based on ‘pain’ cannot be justified.

            It’s one thing for a secular person to consider abortion, but for a Christian to consider abortion is something else entirely.

            In fact, a very plausible argument can be made to justify that Christians who endorse abortion are not Christians, to begin with. Here’s an excerpt from my blog entitled ‘The Christianity of Abortion:’ ³

Chelsea Clinton, in an interview on September 13, 2018, said that as a deeply religious person, banning abortions would be unchristian to her.¹…

…Matt Walsh, in response to Chelsea’s comments on abortion, termed her as a Satanist:⁵

…The point is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Life. He gives life to our children and commands us to care for the precious gift He has bestowed. It is the most twisted kind of heresy to suggest that God may breathe life into your child and then raise no objection if you crush the child's skull and throw his body in a medical waste dumpster. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," says the Book of Jeremiah. "Children are a gift from the Lord," says Psalm 127.

… Let us remember, also, that Jesus Christ was Incarnate as an unborn child. He was a "fetus," to use our modern term. A stage of human development cannot be anything less than sacred after the Lord Himself lived through that stage. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes God Himself was once unborn. For this reason, no religion on Earth is less compatible with abortion than Christianity. You cannot be a pro-abortion Christian. It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't work.

Satanism, on the other hand, is deeply compatible with the pro-abortion view. The two go hand-in-hand, a match made in Hell…

It's not hard to see why satanists not only support abortion but consider it sacramental. Through abortion, a woman places her own comfort and convenience above the life of her child. She declares that her child's very humanity is contingent upon, and subordinate to, her desires. Pro-aborts are quite explicit about this. If you ask them when life begins, they'll tell you it begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. They ascribe Godlike power and authority to the individual. What else can we call this but the deification of the self? It is textbook satanism.

            Abortion is predicated on choice – the choice of the mother and maybe even the father. Such people remain in control of their lives, thereby they choose to abort.

            Being a Christian is also predicated on choice. A person chooses to believe in Christ. But in this instance, when a person chooses to believe in Christ, that person willfully surrenders his/her choice or submits his/her life to the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

          When the Lord Jesus rules our life, HIS choice becomes our choice. Our choice gets lost in HIS. From this time onwards, a Christian chooses to obey the Lord Jesus and the commands that are taught in the Bible.

            Christianity is not about having a strong social outlook. Christianity is all about loving God and being obedient to HIM and HIM alone. When we love God, we cannot ignore the social concerns of our world. However, caring for social concerns cannot supersede our obedience to God. Our allegiance is to God and to the sanctity of human life.

        Therefore, the entailment of the true Christianity is to hold a high view of God, obey HIM and HIS commands. Hence, true Christians oppose abortion. Those Christians who support abortion may not be Christians, so their deep religiosity does not matter to us.

Endnotes:

¹http://christian-victory.blogspot.com/2012/02/does-bible-affirm-that-animals-have.html

²https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-we-tell-if-a-comatose-patient-is-conscious/

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-christianity-of-abortion.html   

Websites last accessed on 28^th February 2019.

The Christianity of Abortion

            Chelsea Clinton, in an interview on September 13, 2018, said that as a deeply religious person, banning abortions would be unchristian to her.¹

            It is one thing to say that banning abortions would be unchristian, for this could be a belief of a naïve Christian. But it’s entirely different to claim that as a deeply religious Christian, she knows for certain that banning abortions is unchristian. This statement presupposes Christianity’s advocacy for abortion, hence the greater significance.

            Chelsea’s utterance on abortion is not new!

            Christian leaders have, in the past, claimed that abortion is a blessing. In her sermon entitled, “Our Work is Not Done,” Rev. Dr. Katherine Ragsdale, president of Episcopal Divinity School (EDS) in Cambridge, MA, said, “When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

            “And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.”²

            The notion that abortion is a blessing or that banning abortions would be unchristian is not a teaching of the Historic Christianity. Those who subscribe to Historic Christianity believe that abortion is a sin against God.

            Evangelist Franklin Graham slammed Chelsea’s claim, “…Legalizing abortion hasn't added anything to our country, it has only taken away. It has cost this nation more than 60 million lives — lives precious to God…Just think of the contribution these people would have made. There will be another high cost. I believe God will judge America for allowing the heinous murder of our own children in the womb…”³

            A young Christian, who observes both sides of the abortion debate, may wonder whether abortion is Christian or unchristian. So it is pertinent to examine the Christianity of the person who subscribes to abortion. What would such Christianity entail?

            But before we head in that direction, let us, for a moment, recollect a concise argument against abortion:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value.

            2. The developing fetus is a human being from conception.

            3. Abortion is a murder of a human being.

            4. The Bible teaches that the murder of human beings is a sin against God.

            5. Hence, Christians should not abort their fetus.

            Christians who endorse abortion are progressive Christians. They do not subscribe to the tenets of Historic Christianity.

            I covered this theme in an earlier blog post of mine entitled, “Why Do Christians Support Abortion?” Here’s an excerpt from that article:⁴ (Emphasis Mine)

Those who lead the pro-choice group or those who fervently support abortion would subscribe to progressive Christianity. In other words, they would no longer believe the tenets of Historic Christianity. Abandoning the tenets of Historic Christianity allows the individual Christian to do anything that he/she feels is right.

In order to justify their feelings or emotions, these pro-choice leaders would misinterpret the Bible. They assert that the Bible does not condemn abortion, since the word abortion is not present in the Bible as against the 3000 Bible verses that mandate social justice, “…in the New Testament, there is no direct teaching on abortion. Jesus does not address the topic specifically and not one of His parables talks about ending a pregnancy. Neither do any of Paul’s letters mention abortion. Abortion was very prevalent in many of the places Paul visited – we know this from other historical texts, and as he mentions in his letters, these cities were brimming with prostitution and illicit sexual activity. In fact, Paul never had a problem speaking out on any topic he believed followers of Christ should pay attention to! This makes it very interesting that abortion was obviously not a topic of enough priority for Paul to mention…”5

If abortion could be endorsed through this mode of reasoning, then by the same mode of reasoning a whole host of sins could be endorsed. For instance, watching porn or smoking could be endorsed, because pornography and smoking are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.

Rebecca Todd Peters is a Christian who fervently supports abortion. She is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and professor of religious studies at Elon University. She is also a progressive Christian.6

…Rebecca Todd Peters says, “Progressive Christianity, for me, and for many people, is about focusing on what the social teachings are in the Bible, in the traditions, in the church, that help us think about and address the social problems we see in the world. That’s very different from an evangelical understanding of Christianity, which is about salvation. I actually don’t care that much about salvation. That’s not my primary concern. My primary concern is about the world that we live in, and how we make a more just world. That’s the tradition of the social gospel.” (Emphasis Mine).7

Christians reject Christ if they are not concerned about salvation. The Lord Jesus did not come to preach social justice to the world. HE came to die for our sins so that those who believe in Christ would live forever.

The cross is the central aspect of Christianity.  If Christians claim that they are not concerned about salvation, then they are not really aligned with Christ. If they are not aligned with Christ, then their Christianity could be unequivocally questioned. So would it be accurate and reasonable to conclude that those Christians who support abortion are not Christians, to begin with?

        So Chelsea Clinton may be deeply religious. But she may not be a deeply religious Christian, who subscribes to Historic Christianity.

       If Chelsea endorses abortion, she could also endorse adultery, pornography, prostitution, polyamory etc. She could just about endorse any and every sin because her worldview entitles her to this abominable privilege. This is the entailment of her Christianity.

       Progressive Christians could call themselves Christians – that’s their call. But they are not Christians!

     Matt Walsh, in response to Chelsea’s comments on abortion, termed her as a Satanist:⁵

I sincerely believe she is a satanist and my only regret is that I didn't also call her a heretic. "Satanic heretic" would have been a more apt description. And she is far from the only satanic heretic in our culture.

Pro-abortion "Christians" are heretics because they claim a God who endorses violence against children. Well, I suppose that's blasphemy as well as heresy. Perhaps "blasphemous satanic heretic" is the technically correct term, but after a while it just gets redundant. The point is that Jesus Christ is the Lord of Life. He gives life to our children and commands us to care for the precious gift He has bestowed. It is the most twisted kind of heresy to suggest that God may breathe life into your child and then raise no objection if you crush the child's skull and throw his body in a medical waste dumpster. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," says the Book of Jeremiah. "Children are a gift from the Lord," says Psalm 127.

… Let us remember, also, that Jesus Christ was Incarnate as an unborn child. He was a "fetus," to use our modern term. A stage of human development cannot be anything less than sacred after the Lord Himself lived through that stage. Christianity is the only religion in the world that believes God Himself was once unborn. For this reason, no religion on Earth is less compatible with abortion than Christianity. You cannot be a pro-abortion Christian. It's like trying to square a circle. It just doesn't work.

Satanism, on the other hand, is deeply compatible with the pro-abortion view. The two go hand-in-hand, a match made in Hell…

It's not hard to see why satanists not only support abortion but consider it sacramental. Through abortion, a woman places her own comfort and convenience above the life of her child. She declares that her child's very humanity is contingent upon, and subordinate to, her desires. Pro-aborts are quite explicit about this. If you ask them when life begins, they'll tell you it begins whenever the mother wants it to begin. They ascribe Godlike power and authority to the individual. What else can we call this but the deification of the self? It is textbook satanism.

            Abortion is predicated on choice – the choice of the mother and maybe even the father. Such people remain in control of their lives, thereby they choose to abort.

            Being a Christian is also predicated on choice. A person chooses to believe in Christ. But in this instance, when a person chooses to believe in Christ, that person willfully surrenders his/her choice or submits his/her life to the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            When the Lord Jesus rules our life, HIS choice becomes our choice. Our choice gets lost in HIS. From this time onwards, a Christian chooses to obey the Lord Jesus and the commands that are taught in the Bible. 

            Christianity is not about having a strong social outlook. Christianity is all about loving God and being obedient to HIM and HIM alone. When we love God, we cannot ignore the social concerns of our world. However, caring for social concerns cannot supersede our obedience to God. Our allegiance is to God and to the sanctity of human life.

            Therefore, the entailment of the true Christianity is to hold a high view of God, obey HIM and HIS commands. Hence, true Christians oppose abortion. Those Christians who support abortion may not be Christians, so their deep religiosity does not matter to us. 

Endnotes:

¹https://www.christianpost.com/news/chelsea-clinton-as-a-deeply-religious-person-banning-abortions-is-unchristian-to-me-227384/

²https://www.str.org/blog/abortion-blessing#.W6ujCnszZhE

³https://www.christianpost.com/news/franklin-graham-blasts-chelsea-clintons-claim-60-million-abortions-added-3-5-trillion-to-economy-226877/

⁴http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-do-christians-support-abortion.html

⁵https://www.dailywire.com/news/36056/walsh-people-are-mad-i-called-chelsea-clinton-matt-walsh

Websites last accessed on 28^th September 2018.

Why Do Christians Support Abortion?

            Supporters of abortion seem to think that they have a right to abort because abortion is placed under the reproductive justice framework. Reproductive justice framework “offers a new perspective on reproductive issues advocacy, pointing out that for Indigenous women and women of color it is important to fight equally for (1) the right to have a child; (2) the right not to have a child; and (3) the right to parent the children we have, as well as to control our birthing options, such as midwifery…”¹

            If the Bible speaks against abortion, then Christians cannot support abortion, irrespective of reproductive justice. However, a group of Christians passionately support abortion. Why?

            Before we consider the reasons behind Christians supporting abortion, let us examine the biblical position on abortion.

            The Bible teaches against abortion, because: “(1) God is actively involved in the creation and sustenance of the fetus from conception (Jeremiah 1: 5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 139: 13-16).

            (2) Bible uses the terms ‘conception’ and ‘birth’ interchangeably (Job 3:3; Jeremiah 1:5; Isaiah 49: 1; Psalm 51: 5), implying the fetus as a person from birth. In fact, Psalm 51: 5 states a continuity of personal identity (as a sinner) from conception to birth. The Greek term for a baby, ‘brephos’ is applied to a child in the womb (Luke 1: 41-44) and a newborn baby (Luke 2: 16), for Christ’s incarnation was recognized from the time of conception.

            Thus, it is evident that the Bible affirms the personhood of the fetus from conception, and that God is actively involved in fashioning the fetus from conception. HE knows us even before our conception. If a man kills the fetus, then it’s not only equivalent to killing a full human being, but it’s also equivalent to rebelling against God’s design of a human from conception (cf. Exodus 20: 13). Man sins when he rebels against God. Since abortion is a sin against God, a man should not abort his unborn baby.”²

            Christian Q&A website, Got Questions, states that a Bible-believing Christian cannot remain in the pro-choice group, “The Bible is clear that all human life is created by God for His purpose and His pleasure (Colossians 1:16), and a Christian who truly wants to know the heart of God must align his or her viewpoint with God's. When we start justifying evil according to our understanding, we dilute the truth of God's Word. When we rename adultery an "affair," homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle," and murder of the unborn a "choice," we are headed for serious trouble. We cannot redefine what it means to follow Christ. Jesus said we must first "deny ourselves" (Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23). Part of denying ourselves is letting go of comfortable lies the world has fed us. We have to let go of our own understanding and allow God to change us (Proverbs 3:5-6)…

            … The Bible is clear: since God is the Creator of human life, only He can determine who lives or dies. And every person who claims the name of Christ has the obligation to make certain his or her views line up with His Word. Is it possible for a born-again Christian to be pro-choice? Yes. Is it likely that such a person will remain pro-choice? Not if he or she is allowing God’s Word to transform and renew his or her mind (Romans 12:2).”³

            If the Bible is against abortion, why do some Christians support abortion?

            Fundamentally, the pro-choice Christian groups affirm the women’s right arguments in favor of abortion. Some of these arguments are:

1. “women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies

2. the right to abortion is vital for gender equality

3. the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential

4. banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists

5. the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy”⁴

            Within the group of Christians who support or espouse abortion, there are the leaders and the followers. A lay Christian, who may or may not have an opinion on abortion, should understand one significant attribute of the leaders who espouse abortion.

            Those who lead the pro-choice group or those who fervently support abortion would subscribe to progressive Christianity. In other words, they would no longer believe the tenets of Historic Christianity. Abandoning the tenets of Historic Christianity allows the individual Christian to do anything that he/she feels is right.

            In order to justify their feelings or emotions, these pro-choice leaders would misinterpret the Bible. They assert that the Bible does not condemn abortion, since the word abortion is not present in the Bible as against the 3000 Bible verses that mandate social justice, “…in the New Testament, there is no direct teaching on abortion. Jesus does not address the topic specifically and not one of His parables talks about ending a pregnancy. Neither do any of Paul’s letters mention abortion. Abortion was very prevalent in many of the places Paul visited – we know this from other historical texts, and as he mentions in his letters, these cities were brimming with prostitution and illicit sexual activity. In fact, Paul never had a problem speaking out on any topic he believed followers of Christ should pay attention to! This makes it very interesting that abortion was obviously not a topic of enough priority for Paul to mention…”⁵ 

            If abortion could be endorsed through this mode of reasoning, then by the same mode of reasoning a whole host of sins could be endorsed. For instance, watching porn or smoking could be endorsed, because pornography and smoking are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.

            Rebecca Todd Peters is a Christian who fervently supports abortion. She is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and professor of religious studies at Elon University. She is also a progressive Christian.⁶

            Liberal or progressive Christians supporting abortion would generally have a very low view of salvation. Rebecca Todd Peters says, “Progressive Christianity, for me, and for many people, is about focusing on what the social teachings are in the Bible, in the traditions, in the church, that help us think about and address the social problems we see in the world. That’s very different from an evangelical understanding of Christianity, which is about salvation. I actually don’t care that much about salvation. That’s not my primary concern. My primary concern is about the world that we live in, and how we make a more just world. That’s the tradition of the social gospel.” (Emphasis Mine).⁷

            Christians reject Christ if they are not concerned about salvation. The Lord Jesus did not come to preach social justice to the world. HE came to die for our sins so that those who believe in Christ would live forever.

            The cross is the central aspect of Christianity.  If Christians claim that they are not concerned about salvation, then they are not really aligned with Christ. If they are not aligned with Christ, then their Christianity could be unequivocally questioned. So would it be accurate and reasonable to conclude that those Christians who support abortion are not Christians, to begin with?

            Finally, the hypocrisy of those who fervently support abortion is unraveled by the Christian apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, “At Ohio State University, I did an open forum on a radio talk show. The host was an atheist.

            From the start, the callers were antagonistic. I could feel the tension as soon as the lines lit up. One angry woman caller said, “All you people have is an agenda you’re trying to promote.” Referring to abortion, she said, “You want to take away our rights and invade our private lives.”

            Abortion had not even been brought up.

            “Just a minute,” I replied. “We didn’t even raise the subject.”

            I said, “Can I ask you a question? On every university campus I visit, somebody stands up and says that God is an evil God to allow all this evil into our world. This person typically says, ‘A plane crashes: Thirty people die, and twenty people live. What kind of a God would arbitrarily choose some to live and some to die?'”

            I continued, “but when we play God and determine whether a child within a mother’s womb should live, we argue for that as a moral right. So when human beings are given the privilege of playing God, it’s called a moral right. When God plays God, we call it an immoral act. Can you justify this for me?”

            That was the end of the conversation.” (Emphasis Mine).⁸

Endnotes:

¹https://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/courses/fileDL.php?fID=4051

²http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-dilemma-of-abortion.html

³https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-pro-choice.html

⁴http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml

⁵https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-truth-about-christianity-and-abortion_us_58f52ed7e4b048372700dab5

⁶What is Progressive Christianity?

            It can be hard to define progressive Christianity because it’s an umbrella term for a lot of different beliefs. But I think my friend and fellow blogger, Alisa Childers (who was once part of a progressive Christian church) hit the nail on the head when she summarized it this way in a recent post:

            A lowered view of the Bible

            Feelings are emphasized over facts

            Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretation

            Historic terms are redefined

            The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

            Here’s the danger. To the untrained ear, the progressive Christian message can sound a lot like biblical Christianity. There’s talk of God, Jesus, the Bible, love, and compassion. If a child has never learned to think more deeply about theology and what the Bible actually teaches, they can easily mistake progressive Christianity for biblical Christianity.

            And progressive Christianity often teaches an incomplete or false gospel.

(Source: https://crossexamined.org/progressive-christianity-is-as-much-of-a-threat-to-your-kids-

faith-as-atheism/)

⁷https://www.thenation.com/article/a-christian-argument-for-abortion-a-qa-with-rebecca-todd-peters/

⁸https://rzim.org/just-thinking/reaching-the-happy-thinking-pagan/

Websites last accessed on 18^th May 2018

Birth Control: A Christian Perspective in Sexual Ethics

A young woman uses a birth control pill and seeks to know if her act was sinful or not. A newly married couple desire temporary birth control to avoid early pregnancy. They believe the Bible’s teaching that children are a gift from God, so they seek advice about the validity of birth control from a biblical standpoint. Likewise, couples who believe their family is just the right size, may seek permanent birth control. Being in their forties and done with having children, they believe their family is just the right size. These real life questions seek not blind dogmatism, but reasonable answers to quench our soul’s thirst to please God by remaining on the godly side of ethics.

To gain better understanding, two questions should be answered: Is birth control acceptable, and if so, which methods are within the biblical framework?

In general, culture and religious adherents desire birth control for they deem it acceptable. However, the Roman Catholic teaching forbids birth control. Aquinas in his work Summa Contra Gentiles candidly rejected the practice of contraception, for it was ‘unnatural’ and a grave sin. Aquinas firmly believed that procreation is the natural physical outcome of a sexual intercourse.¹ Thus, any moral disputes regarding birth control is more from a religious standpoint, since nonbelievers take birth control for granted. However, since 1951, the Roman Catholic Church has provided official backing for the ‘rhythm’ method (sexual intercourse during the infertile phases of a woman’s reproductive cycle). The unreliability of the rhythm method, however, is a valid concern.

Does the Bible prohibit birth control? Scott Rae emphatically denies any form of biblical prohibition against birth control. He states that Onan’s crude form of employing birth control (Genesis 38: 9-10) was not to fulfill the duty and the responsibilities associated with raising a child.²

Some religiously mandate procreation to be the duty of man, thereby imposing religious shackles on birth control. However, marriage was primarily designed by God as a union of two individuals into one flesh. Procreation was the secondary aspect of marriage. Sexual intercourse has a twin purpose, ‘generative’ (to produce life) and ‘relational’ (enriching a marriage relationship). The generative purpose cannot always be attained because of various reasons such as, medical conditions, age of the wife etc. Thus, “married couples can have sex without procreation without violating any moral norm,” states Scott Rae.³

Some religious adherents could contend that God’s purpose for marriage was to ‘fill the earth’ (cf. Genesis 1: 28). A mere glance at the recent population statistics and its future predictions is concrete enough to present a persuasive case for the earth being ‘houseful’ now! Thereby the mandate to ‘fill the earth and subdue’ is already realized. This entails that the married couples who choose not to have children for all the right reasons need not be morally guilty for violating this biblical mandate.

The Bible is silent about the size of a family. When or how many children a couple should have is not stated in the Bible. One can argue either for a generous or a tight spacing between children. But stewardship is the key essence in spacing between children. If a couple decide to employ birth control techniques to avoid bearing children in tight spacing, one can argue that this couple is doing good to their own home (to pave way for proper parenting) and their society (not taxing the world’s resources). We can also justify this from the perspective of the family’s economical situation. If a family cannot provide for two children in a tight space of two years, then they need only to bear one. Having many children in an unaffordable situation damages the family’s financial situation, and thereby the peace and the health of the family. Thus birth control to space out or stop having children in a family is a profitable act of stewardship.

There is another delicate divine side to birth control. A couple can decide to use birth control to be good stewards of their God given resources. However, the sovereign God can overrule birth control procedures and gift this couple with a child. The birth of an unplanned or unwanted child does not offer the couple any incentive to abandon or neglect the child. They should trust in God to provide for the holistic wellness of this child.

The sovereign God who overrules birth control enforces birth control through HIS creational intent - the menopause of a woman, where she stops releasing eggs monthly. Thus the same God who mandated procreation also terminates procreation in HIS creation. Or we could infer that there is a God-ordained time limit for a couple to bear children.

If temporary birth control is ordained by God, there should be no valid reason against permanent birth control for the right reasons. There could be medical reasons prohibiting a woman from bearing children or a couple may even decide against having more children. In such instances, women or men may rightly employ permanent birth control. But what method of birth control can be employed?

Any ‘contraceptive’ method (preventing conception) is morally acceptable. But ‘abortifacient’ (causing abortion) methods are morally problematic. “IUDs prevent implantation, and RU-486 causes an implanted embryo to evacuate the uterus. Both are problematic from the view that embryos have full moral status” writes Scott Rae.⁴ (My previous blog “The Dilemma of Abortion” offers an insight into the moral problems in abortion.)

What about birth control pill or the morning-after pill? Many women use a birth control pill to avoid pregnancy. There is a contraceptive aspect to these pills which is not problematic (suppressing ovulation and thickening the cervical mucous to prevent sperm from fertilizing the egg in the case of birth control pill, and a very high dose of oestrogen & progesterone in the case of morning-after pill). Some medical professionals argue that there is an abortifacient aspect to these pills, which if proven, presents a valid moral problem. But the presence of an abortifacient aspect still remains inconclusive. If one considers usage of these pills, it is wise to consult a morally credible physician and be honest with him/her about your moral values and concerns about birth control. It is not a matter of one’s personal preference, but it is a matter of one’s conscience, which is consumed by God, until medical science proves the nature of these pills.

Thus, one can employ contraceptive methods for birth control, since sexual intercourse between married couples has a primary creational intent which is to enrich a marriage relationship.

In today’s world we see, read, and hear of unmarried youngsters gulping birth control pills to satisfy their sexual lusts. This reality has to be dealt with by considering the ‘premarital’ aspect of the sexual intercourse, and not the ‘birth control’ aspect. I will communicate my comprehension about premarital sex in my next blog.

The good Lord will always bless and keep you and yours. Amen.

References:

¹ Richard Higginson, Dilemmas: A Christian Approach to Moral Decision-Making, p87-89, 1988.

² Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3^rd Ed, p287-288, 2009.

³ Ibid., 288.

⁴ Ibid., 289.

⁵ Ibid.