Abortion, Murder, and Ethical Precision
As has been reported in recent headlines, the Supreme Court will be reviewing the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization - a challenge to Mississippi law which outlaws abortions past 15 weeks. The case has the potential of undoing the ruling of Roe v. Wade.[1]
Whenever the subject of abortion is brought to the surface of public conversation, a whirlpool of debate and ethical consternation forms. Certain questions give us pause and leave us feeling uncertain. We ponder, “Are women who get abortions no different than the common murderer?” We ask, “What about those who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy?”
In the face of moral complexity, we are bound to experience at least some initial uncertainty. In fact, this is what my fellow authors and I wrestled with when we composed the Enduring Resolution on Human Dignity. How would we morally assess abortion in the light of Scripture? What kind of qualifications could be offered in the mortal circumstances of a crisis pregnancy?
Our conclusions were distilled into a tight and precise resolution, with each word carefully weighed, to offer clear and simple touchpoints for definition:
“Be it further resolved that we affirm that the intentional abortion of a child is a form of murder (Exodus 21:22-25)”
Intent and Murder
Exodus 20:13 commands us not to murder and Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that forced miscarriage is an instance of murder based on the penalty that may apply - “life for a life.”[ESV] My working definition of murder is “the intentional taking of a human life without justifiable cause.” This matches well with God’s command to the people of Israel that they should “not kill the innocent and righteous.”[Ex. 23:7 ESV] Murder is not assigned in instances of just self-defense or in the case of just war.[Ex. 22:2] To kill because of unintentional negligence is an instance of manslaughter. [Ex. 21:29] To kill someone under accidental and blameless circumstances is simply an instance of tragedy.
By this standard, it is clearly intent which determines whether an action which results in the death of another should be categorized as murder. In the case of the unborn person who dies, abortion could be used as a term to describe circumstances in which his or her death is unintended.
Natural or accidental causes would apply here. Likewise, it would apply in medical interventions which put the unborn in foreseeably fatal circumstances by an early and/or perilous separation from the mother. The goal of such an intervention would be to save the life of the mother and/or the unborn child’s own life. The intent is not the death of the child.
Abortion takes on a different character when the death of the child is intended. At the same time, the motives behind intentional abortions are varied. They range from cool and calculating to tragically misinformed. Some intentional abortions are performed because it is suggested that a doctor must directly kill the child to perform a life-saving intervention for the mother. This is simply incorrect. In such cases, medical professionals bear the greatest blame for misconstruing the options available to mothers; they are likewise guilty of betraying their duty to do no harm to their unborn patients. Even in these circumstances, the form of murder is present because there is the intent to kill without justifiable cause. Unlike an attacker, the child bears no malicious intent toward the mother and is perfectly innocent. Parents cannot avoid all moral blame by pleading ignorance - they must ask doctors tough questions and get second opinions when possible.
While wrong, such an abortion differs from the one performed with cool indifference, and between the two, there is a wide range of greater and lesser indictment. In a world in which abortion is illegal, should there be circumstantial penalties?[2] Yes. But what such penalties should be is not plainly obvious because the act is not clearly equivalent with the person who hunts down another with a gun. It is for this reason, in considering the language for the resolution, that I suggested that intentional abortions be described as a “form” of murder. This seems to offer the nuance that is required. If we claim that the unborn are human beings, then we must call intentional abortion murder. At the same time, the varied motives behind abortion and the range of moral comprehension by those who utilize abortion demands some qualification of that assignment. Accordingly, as a form of murder, abortion should be judged on all the relevant details, on a case-by-case basis.
Danger in Imprecision
This kind of precision is required because imprecision can unjustly burden consciences with guilt or justify faulty lines of ethical reasoning. In either direction, disregarding intent has this effect. Those who have not directly sought the abortion of their child should bear no such guilt for their passing. Conversely, those who intend the abortion of their child cannot deny their guilt, even as a means to the end of saving the life of the mother.
Consider the consequences of doing otherwise. If it is justified for a mother to directly kill her child to save her own life, what prevents that logic from operating beyond the space of the womb? If chased by a bear, why couldn’t a parent toss their toddler to the grizzly to save their own life? In war, why shouldn’t a soldier divulge the identity of a spy to save his own life? Endless scenarios can be imagined.
In the case of a life-threatening pregnancy, the medically ethical procedure is the one which only removes the child from the mother’s body without fatal intent and does not directly, and thus preemptively, kill the child. This approach indicates that it is the location of the child which is the threat, not the child himself. This kind of separation may unintentionally (but foreseeably) result in the child’s death. Even so, it succeeds in offering just treatment to the unborn person - he is treated as an innocent person rather than as a violent threat that would justify a response of violent defense. (see this medical ethics journal article for a more thorough account on this point)
As for the Sinners and the Saints
Thankfully, it is not the business of the Church to preside over human courtrooms. Our only possible business in relation to the state might be to advocate for greater justice and mercy as needed in such judgments. This advocacy could only properly derive from our central business - the Gospel of Christ.
Legal or illegal, intentional abortions can be forgiven on account of Christ’s sacrifice for those who believe. We must emphasize this again and again in a culture that believes moral fault can only result in being eternally “cancelled.” The Church should be filled with people who have had abortions - not because abortion is commendable, but because every person, regardless of their past, can be commended before God in Jesus Christ. If you are one of these persons, please remember or receive for the first time His grace. Confess and repent of your sins, place your trust in the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, pledge your allegiance to his rule and reign, and gain for yourself a new beginning. God wants you with Him and so should the Church.
[1] Amy Howe, Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade, SCOTUSblog.com
[2] It would be unjust for a court of law to retroactively exact penalties upon those who acted within the rule of law and whose moral comprehension was obscured by that same law.