Many Christians believe abortion is morally justified in cases of rape and incest – what I call “pro-life with a footnote.” I spoke extensively on this in part 16 (episode 23) of my podcast series on abortion, but wanted to say a bit more about this here.
This position fails to understand the logic of the pro-life position. We are opposed to abortion because the act of abortion (1) unjustly (2) takes the life of an (3) innocent, (4) valuable (5) human being. All five of these points are still true when a baby is conceived via rape or incest. The circumstances under which a human being is conceived does not change what is conceived, so the unborn is still human, still valuable, and still innocent even if he was conceived by an act of moral violence. Abortion would still take the life of the human conceived under such circumstances in the same manner it takes the life of humans conceived under other circumstances. As such, it would still be unjust to kill the baby conceived by rape or incest. Pro-lifers are opposed to murdering all innocent, valuable, human beings no matter how they came into being, and thus pro-lifers ought to be opposed to abortion under all circumstances.
Those who believe abortion is morally justified in cases of rape and incest are not only abandoning the logic of the pro-life view, but they are also giving pro-abortion advocates an open door to argue for abortion rights. Here’s why. Once you admit that there are some circumstances under which it is morally permissible to kill innocent, valuable, human beings, then why, in principle, could it not be morally permissible to do so in other circumstances as well. This is particularly the case when the reason why you think abortion is morally justified in cases of rape and incest is because of the emotional hardship of the mother. If one form of emotional hardship justifies abortion, why not others?
Does not a mother experience emotional hardship at the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy? Don’t financial concerns and relationship concerns cause emotional hardship? Who are you to say that one form of emotional hardship justifies abortion but another does not? The pro-lifer will have a hard time explaining why one is justified but the other is not for the simple reason that his allowance for abortion in cases of rape and incest is not a principled exception. It is based on emotion, not reason. If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, then there is no justification for abortion, period. It makes no more sense to talk about morally permissible abortions than it does to talk about morally permissible slavery. It makes no more sense to talk about morally permissible abortions than it does morally permissible infanticide. Can you imagine if we said we are opposed to killing two year-olds except in cases of X, Y, and Z? People would think we are morally insane, and for good reason. There can be no exception. Killing any two year-old is morally evil, period. Likewise, every abortion is a morally unjustified act of murder. We ought to be opposed to killing valuable, innocent children under all circumstances.
Thinking to Believe 
January 29, 2023 at 12:55 pm
“This position fails to understand the logic of the pro-life position. We are opposed to abortion because the act of abortion (1) unjustly (2) takes the life of an (3) innocent, (4) valuable (5) human being.”
The question is, why do you believe that an embryo is a “valuable human being” in the first place? Sperm and ova are alive and they’re human, but we don’t consider their loss to be tragic. Why should a gamete not be valued as human life, while a zygote is? It’s not like there is any real support for this view in the Bible. The only thing the Bible says about abortions is that they’re permissible, at least in some cases. There were abortions even in biblical times, so wouldn’t the Bible be clear about abortion being murder if it actually were? Finally, why should an embryo take precedence over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy?
I fully support the right for a pro-lifer to choose to not have an abortion. It’s their choice. So why not let women choose for themselves whether to have an abortion. It should be their choice as well.
Honestly, I don’t understand this obsession conservative Christians have about abortion. Jesus never said anything against it. What he DID rail against was divorce and remarriage, yet you hardly hear a peep from Christians about banning divorce.
LikeLike
February 6, 2023 at 10:01 pm
Derek, you are confusing parts with wholes. Gametes, like blood cells and skin cells, are parts of a human beings, but not a human being. A human being refers to the whole, integrated organism. That’s the difference between a gamete and a zygote. A zygote is a new, unique, individual, whole human organism. It is entirely different in kind from a gamete.
The Bible does not permit any abortions. As for why it is not spelled out in a specific command, I cannot say, but it is clear that only two things need to be affirmed by Scripture to clearly deduce that abortion is morally wrong: (1) Humans are divine image bearers while in the womb; (2) It is wrong to murder any divine image bearer. Both are clearly taught, and therefore it follows that abortion is morally wrong.
As for why the right to life takes precedence over a woman’s right to choose, this should be obvious. The right to life is the most fundamental right of all because all other rights depend on the right to life. If one has no right to life, then they have no other rights. When two rights conflict, the more fundamental right wins. But think about this even more deeply. A woman is more burdened by a newborn than she is with pregnancy itself. So why doesn’t the mother’s right to bodily autonomy trump the newborn’s life? Why can’t the mother kill her newborn if she deems his life to be a burden to her autonomy? Hopefully you would agree that no justification she could offer could actually justify her murdering her newborn. So why would any of those same justifications justify her killing the exact same entity earlier in time? What is the moral difference between an unborn human being and a born one? Freedom of choice is a good thing, but no one has the freedom to murder another human being.
LikeLike
February 11, 2023 at 4:06 am
“Derek, you are confusing parts with wholes. Gametes, like blood cells and skin cells, are parts of a human beings, but not a human being. A human being refers to the whole, integrated organism.”
Exactly…but a zygote isn’t a whole, integrated organism either. A newborn baby has 3 trillion cells, an adult and an old person both have 50 trillion cells, and all three of them have arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes, ears, skin, a heart, circulatory system, liver, stomach, intestines, nervous system and a brain. A zygote has exactly NONE of these.
The only thing a zygote has in common with a human being is a set of genes. All it has is EXACTLY what two separate gametes have, and nothing more. Thus, a zygote is far, far closer to a gamete than a human being. So how is it rational to consider gametes disposable (well over 99% of eggs and 99.9999999% of sperm are simply discarded without a second thought), but the instant they come together suddenly they are a human being deserving all the rights of personhood? And to dispose of a zygote is suddenly *murder*?? Does that honestly make any sense to you?
“The Bible does not permit any abortions.”
But that’s not true either:
• Numbers 5:24-27 He SHALL make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her … he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: WHEN SHE IS MADE TO DRINK THE WATER THAT BRINGS A CURSE AND CAUSES BITTER SUFFERING, IT WILL ENTER HER, HER ABDOMEN WILL SWELL AND HER WOMB WILL MISCARRY.
So God actually teaches priests to use abortion as a form of punishment for infidelity.
“As for why it is not spelled out in a specific command, I cannot say,”
Considering how abortions were commonplace long before the Bible was written, don’t you think it unlikely that God would have left that out if he considered it murder? That would be a gross oversight, don’t you think?
“but it is clear that only two things need to be affirmed by Scripture to clearly deduce that abortion is morally wrong: (1) Humans are divine image bearers while in the womb; (2) It is wrong to murder any divine image bearer. Both are clearly taught, and therefore it follows that abortion is morally wrong.”
I think that is the crux of your problem: you regard a zygote as a human being deserving of personhood—and thus consider deliberately expelling a zygote to be murder—when there is essentially no justification for claiming a zygote is a person. This is why even the majority of Christians don’t consider abortion to be murder.
“As for why the right to life takes precedence over a woman’s right to choose, this should be obvious. The right to life is the most fundamental right of all because all other rights depend on the right to life.”
But don’t you see that that EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be made for gametes? By NOT requiring women to have every single egg fertilized (or at least attempted), the result is the same: the ending of potential human life. I know you won’t go there, because you know that gametes MUST be considered disposable—not just because it would otherwise lock women into eternal pregnancy until it killed them, but because there are hundreds of thousands more sperm than eggs, so the system is BUILT to cause the deaths of the vast majority of gametes.
So I can see you arguing against abortions in the third trimester (unless there are extenuating circumstances, like a baby that can’t survive or needing to save the life of the mother). I can definitely see a moral argument there (even though I personally think violating bodily autonomy is far more immoral). But to argue that a single-called zygote is an actual PERSON who deserves full legal protection, that killing a zygote is MURDER, and that a woman should be forced to be a gestation machine whether she wants to or not…that’s a dystopian horror I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
And the saddest part is it wouldn’t actually reduce the number of abortions…just the number of legal abortions. Back-alley abortions would dramatically increase, like it was pre-Roe v. Wade. And more women and children would end up in poverty.
“Why can’t the mother kill her newborn if she deems his life to be a burden to her autonomy?”
Simple: She can give the baby up for adoption. Once a baby is born, it is an independent human being not dependent on the mother’s body to survive. Of course babies are helpless and need to be cared for, but it’s no longer dependent on the mother. Someone else who wants to and can care for the baby can take over at that point. That makes all the moral difference in the world, because bodily autonomy is not violated.
“Freedom of choice is a good thing, but no one has the freedom to murder another human being.”
Again, YOU are the one defining a zygote as a human being, rather than just the second step in a loooong journey of gradually increasing personhood, from disposable gamete to precious newborn baby. I suggest you don’t advocate for stripping away a woman’s self-agency by letting binary dogma override what is clearly an analog process. That’s a choice YOU are making, not one your God and the Bible compel you to make.
LikeLike
March 20, 2023 at 6:44 am
“It makes no more sense to talk about morally permissible abortions than it does to talk about morally permissible slavery.”
I’m sure some think that’s exactly what the 13th amendment does: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
LikeLike