Abortion Is a Private Matter
Abortion: Defined, Beliefs and Short History
Abortion as referenced herein is the removal of an embryo or a fetus from the womb of the mother by other than natural birth. The removal could be by mechanical or by chemical means. The legitimacy and the value of the act or its result have been discussed since the beginning of recorded history. As a matter of faith, this writer holds that the performance of an abortion constitutes an act of murder thus embracing the most conservative of three positions regarding abortion.
In an article, “The Bible and Abortion: The Biblical Basis for a Pro-life Position” by Rich Deem, he points out that, “Many Christians believe that the Bible is silent in regard to God’s view on life before birth. Although the Bible does not specifically define when life begins, it does give us enough information to formulate a solid biblical position.”
The Bible is replete with accounts of the ancients who credit God with creating life in vivo, e.g. Job 31:15: “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” Or Psalm 139:13-16: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”
My position is thus sustained by my faith that human life begins at the moment of conception. Science has confirmed that the embryo then evolves at about the eighth week of the gestational period into the fetal stage; maturation continues and at about 22-23 weeks it is possible for this tiny creature to survive in human form outside the womb.
What does the Bible say about Abortion?
The Bible goes on to say in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.”
Every Jew and every Christian recognizes this as one of God’s Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Before some environmentalist or some animal lover starts the inevitable argument, it would be well to first define what makes human life different from that of the animals.
The Bible says that God created three kinds of creatures (credit Rich Deem):
- Creatures which possess bodies (Hebrew - basar, Greek - swma) only
- Creatures which possess bodies and souls (Hebrew - nephesh, Greek - psuchay)
- Creatures which possess bodies, souls, and spirits (Hebrew - ruach, Greek - pneuma)
Therefore, killing an embryo-fetus is killing (murdering) a human body, soul and spirit.
The connection is now quite easy to make; mechanically or chemically terminating a pregnancy is a violation of the Commandment, a mortal sin, a violation of God’s Commandment.
Was there a biblical penalty attendant to abortion? Yes, there was. Exodus 21: 22-25: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no (other) serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Supreme Court: Roe v Wade
Roe v Wade inserts a non-parental entity into the consideration of abortion. In the decision and in concurring opinions, the justices noted the privacy concerns and Justice Douglas (concurring) in Roe v Wade wrote, “The liberty to marry a person of one’ own choosing, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1; the right of procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535; the liberty to direct the education of one’s children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and the privacy of the marital relation, Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, are in this category.4 [410 U.S. 213] Only last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, another contraceptive case, we expanded the concept of Griswold by saying: ‘It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’” Id., at 453.
Justice Douglas notes further by quoting Justice Brandeis, “This right of privacy was called by Mr. Justice Brandeis the right ‘to be let alone.’ Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (dissenting opinion). That right includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for, ‘outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.’” *Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126.
In contradistinction to the aforementioned justices, Dawn Johnsen, nominated by President Obama to head the President’s Office of Legal Counsel and a radical pro-abortionist, has stated that even modest abortion restrictions “reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.” Johnsen once suggested in an amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court that pro-life laws compel women to “involuntary servitude” and anything less than unrestricted abortion on demand would be a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, which outlawed slavery. Johnsen ultimately withdrew her name from consideration. A decided victory for freedom. Johnsen’s Ultra-Liberal arguments only serve to strengthen my own position.
Between the Ultra-Conservative position and the Ultra-Liberal position lies the Moderate- Conservative position in which adherents feel that abortion is permissible in some instances, but, not in others.
In summary, I have attempted to justify why the practice of abortion is morally objectionable, is not a subject within the purview of government and should remain solely in the private sector.
A final caveat; there are bound to be instances in which abortion may be considered medically the only alternative but still a private matter. The moral choice in such an instance must be solely in the discretion of the parent or parents concerned.
Finally, I should like to recommend that steps be taken to reverse Roe v Wade as quickly as possible. As a result, there is a good chance that many women, particularly teenage girls would, if properly educated, hesitate to take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy without the pseudo protection offered under Roe v Wade.
