CLAIM:
I’m against abortion, but if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother and the baby, then the mother should be able to decide. The Bible says life begins with the first breath. I still would not have an abortion, but I’m not making that decision for her. That’s between her and God. Let people think for themselves.
REBUTTAL:
Each of the issues you raise warrants some explanation and clarification.
“I’m against abortion.”
You stated that as an opinion, which you are entitled to have. The peculiar thing about an opinion is that, technically, it is always correct. It is an opinion (defined as “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”), and it is your opinion, so how could anyone possibly refute it? An opinion does not require facts or expertise. It is a statement of how you feel or think about a topic. However, it’s important to remember that opinions should be informed by facts, not just personal feelings or beliefs.
Henry Ford once remarked about opinions:
Whether you think you can or whether you think you can’t, you’re right!
That is the funny thing about opinions. As a statement of what a person feels or thinks about a topic, it is always correct unless you are lying about your opinion. As a statement of personal conviction, an opinion is typically 100% right.
That does not, however, make an opinion valid as a factual statement. While I happen to agree with you on being against abortion, you will discover that when it comes to opinion, many people forget that it is not the same as fact.
Bernard Baruch (1870-1965), a financier and advisor to President Franklin Roosevelt, insightfully wrote:
Every man has the right to an opinion but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Nor, above all, to persist in errors as to facts.11946 October 9, The Galveston Daily News, (AP article dateline Oct. 8), Baruch Upholds U.S. Atom Plan; Hits at Wallace, Quote Page 1, Column 3, Galveston, Texas (NewspaperArchive)
In this age of social media, opinion is often confused with facts. However, opinions can sound like facts if expressed with force and eloquence. For that reason, especially on issues involving life and death, we need to fortify our opinions with facts.
If the pregnancy is going to kill the mother and the baby, then the mother should be able to decide.
You are referring to the “exception clause” in the abortion debate. On the national board of Christian Life Resources, we wrestled mightily with understanding this real but rare circumstance. In our official position statement on abortion, we wrote:
God’s Word instructs us that human life is his unique creation that is to be protected at all stages, including its earliest stages. Even when a medical abortion is sought to preserve a mother’s life, the Christian will always proceed with the intent to preserve all human life whenever possible. All other reasons for abortion fail to reflect God’s high regard for human life and our responsibility to protect it.2https://christianliferesources.com/resources/position-statements/ Abortion: Conclusion to Section 1 (accessed 11-11-24)
You will notice that we appeal to “God’s Word” and its demonstration that our calling is to preserve life. Not only, therefore, do we agree with each other on the goal of preserving life, but most importantly, we agree with God.
The one caveat to our agreement would be the statement, “The mother should be able to decide.” What if mothers decide in ways contrary to God’s will? What if mothers wanted the right to end the lives of their naughty children, ugly children, or sloppy children up to a certain age after birth? Would we favor them making that decision? Of course not.
A mother who balances the information to preserve the life she can, be it her baby’s life or her own, should be permitted to make that decision so long as she is not ignoring the facts or has lost the mental faculty to weigh the information correctly.
The Bible says life begins with the first breath.
Hmmmm – where do you find that? Nowhere in the Bible does it state that life begins at first breath. Instead, the Bible talks about life in the womb (Psalm 51:5; 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:39-44). Neither science nor the Bible supports the notion that a child in the womb is not a life. The statement is conjecture with no basis in biblical or biological support.
I still would not have an abortion, but I’m not making that decision for her. That’s between her and God.
Again, what if the issue were not abortion but infanticide? What if a mother wants the right to terminate a born child? To declare that something is right because it is a decision “between her and God” begs the question of “What god might she be conferring with?” What if her god felt African Americans should remain slaves or that females were a lower species than males, or we shouldn’t treat AIDS victims because it was god’s just punishment for their sins? These are all notions that people staked out in the past, claiming it was God’s opinion, but it was a fake god of their creation. When anyone would make an irreversible decision to end a life, there needs to be a higher authority than just her understanding of what her god would permit. That is why the abortion issue is so volatile. Even Christians who have supported the right of a woman to end her unborn child’s life have failed to demonstrate that the God of Scripture supports that right. The Christian churches that have supported abortion rights only get away with doing that by editing what God has revealed in his Word. They will pick and choose the parts that fit their belief instead of letting the complete Bible guide their beliefs (2 Timothy 4:2). We need a higher authority, such as the complete Bible, to guide our beliefs and decisions.
Let people think for themselves.
This is a prevalent mantra that makes little sense. If this were a valid conviction, why would we care for the disabled, help the homeless, or aid the suffering?
None of us live isolated lives. Each of us has viewpoints crafted by our experiences, education, and culture. Every society hems in the autonomous thinking of its population primarily for the protection of others. That is why there are laws against stealing, hurting, and killing. In a melting pot of people, it would be more prudent to acknowledge interdependence, where we learn from others and are responsible for others. Such a view is consistent with God’s Word, which instructs us to put others before ourselves (Philippians 2:3-5). We are not alone in our decisions, and we should consider the impact of our choices on others.
Christians have God’s Word not as a rule book by which we earn God’s favor but as a testimony to what God favors and a guideline for us to be “God-like” in our interactions with others.
Conclusion
The underlying theme of this claim is the right of people to make decisions for themselves, which is a predominant and repetitive claim of various social rights movements. Such a theme is more fantasy than reality. Genuine autonomy is only experienced in absolute isolation. That is not reality. No matter where you are, you live with others, under, besides, and over others. Decisions others make directly or indirectly affect your life. Decisions you make also have a direct or indirect effect on the lives of others.
This can be very complex, so arguing for the right to decide for yourself appeals to many because of its simplicity. Most of us lack the drive or intellect to calculate how affected we are by others and how we affect others. God’s solution in Scripture tackles it practically.
Practically speaking, you can only control what you do, say, and think. You do not have that control over others. And in societies with a representative form of governing, you extend your influence by electing people who share your ideals. Therefore, when we argue for the right to make decisions, to speak as we wish, and to do as we wish, it is confined by the reality that people surround us. As Christians, therefore, our autonomy is defined by God’s expectation of us. He speaks of our responsibility for others (Matthew 25:34-36; John 13:34-35; 15:13; Romans 12:10; Galatians 6:2; 1 John 4:7-8). Our autonomy, therefore, is defined by the expectation to show love to others. We exercise our freedoms all to the defense and assistance of others. That is why we speak up for unborn children and the disadvantaged (Proverbs 31:8-9), and in all our doings, we consider the needs of others before ourselves (Philippians 2:3-5). This concern for “others” includes those we don’t like or who would do us harm (Matthew 5:38-44; 1 Peter 3:17). True, biblical autonomy is always looking for ways to put others ahead of ourselves.
To accomplish this mammoth task, God gives us a perfect example (1 Peter 2:21) in the gift of his son, Jesus Christ. He sacrificed everything for our benefit. That is why we do not seek to keep commandments to earn God’s favor; instead, we use those commandments to reflect our understanding of our favor with God through Jesus Christ. As the apostle John wrote:
We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)
As Christians, when we venerate autonomy and the right to make our own decisions, we do so to seek the most freedom in our quest to love others as we know love from God.
Christians use their freedom to pass laws to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That is why we defend our freedom of speech to tell others about our perfect love in Christ. That is why we fight to protect our freedoms for the focused work of loving God and loving others (Matthew 22:36-40).
0 Comments