Abortion is one of the most controversial subjects. However, in this article, I shall show that the pro-choice argument is rather shallow and somewhat irresponsible.
Justification:
In my opinion, abortion is never justified, except when the mother’s life is seriously threatened: a choice of a life for a life. In that case, I believe, God is giving the individual a choice, and I’d choose the mother’s life for the sake of the entire family, not to mention love.
As a parallel scenario, if two of your children are drowning, and you figure you can only save one of them, there’s no time to think: you just save the one that’s easier to save and hope for the best for the other. You don’t just sit there and wait for nature to cause the death of one of them: you have to take responsibility and act quickly.
Choice:
Most pro-abortionists argue it’s the woman’s body that’s involved, and therefore only she has the right to continue with her pregnancy or not. Normally, this is the case: for example, in the case of an operation or cancer treatment, she has the right to choose to go ahead or not. However, notice that in such cases, only the woman is involved.
In the case of abortion, it’s different because it involves another ‘person.’ There is no such thing as ‘choice’ when it involves killing or even hurting another person, except in the case of self-defence.
In his book Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity, columnist, author, and former radio and television talk-show host Michael Coren explains, “The choice to kill, rape, hurt and harm, steal, and libel are not considered choices but crimes. … So the choice to kill an unborn baby simply because you have the power to do so, for whatever reason, is not really a choice in any meaningful sense, but an action currently supported by law and custom, not in any way connected with what we would otherwise define as choice.” (p.195)
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” (¶ 2270, p. 464) I must say I totally agree with the Catholic Church, here.
Aquinas & Augustine:
However, the Catholic Catechism continues, “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” (¶ 2271, p. 465) In the interest of fairness to pro-abortionists, I must say this sounds more like a blatant lie.
As I paraphrase Catholic Church historian Garry Wills in my book, Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines (pp. 420–21), “Thirteenth century Christian doctor of the Church, theologian, and philosopher Thomas Aquinas opposed the baptism of fetuses and things have not changed since (Wills, Papal Sin, pp. 222, 227). Aquinas, following Aristotle, opined that the human goes through three stages: (1) the nutritive soul, which plants have, (2) the sentient soul, characteristic of animals, and (3) the rational soul, possessed by humans (Wills, Papal Sin, p. 225). Also fourth-fifth-century Christian doctor of the Church, theologian, and philosopher Augustine of Hippo was uncertain at what stage God infuses the soul into the human fetus and when the soul contracts original sin (Wills, Papal Sin, pp. 226, 227, 229).”
So why don’t I agree that disposing of an embryo in the nutrient stage (as we might do away with a plant) is not murder as well as in the sentient stage (as we might take the life of an animal)? If one were to go by this hypothesis, a newborn baby hasn’t reached the age of reason, yet, and may take a year, or so. By the same argument, then, newborn babies may be done away with, without committing murder, up to a year, say, after birth.
Contraception:
This brings us to the question of whether using contraceptive devices is morally acceptable or not. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “‘Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil.” (¶ 2370, p. 483)
Here, I must disagree with the Catholic Church: as long as the methods used are ‘non-abortive,’ the discarding of semen is not evil; indeed, if a man abstains from intercourse and masturbation for a while, he will have a nocturnal emission in which semen is discarded profusely. Consequently, the use of a condom during intercourse or the use of a non-abortive pill, such as the one that prevents ovulation, are not evil. No person is conceived in such cases. There are millions of sperms in a single ejaculate, and only one fertilizes the ovum; the rest are discarded: that doesn’t mean one is killing millions of human lives.
I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but anything we do we must carry out ethically: the end does not justify the means. For example, if you want people to convert to your religion because you honestly believe it’s the true religion, you cannot force them to do so; you can only try to convince them. It’s not easy to always conform to this principle: even Augustine made such a mistake when he proposed forced conversions lest non-Christians perish in hell eternally.
The Bible:
Since it believes the Bible is God’s word, the Church is supposed to follow the Bible in declaring moral conduct; but there’s nothing in the Bible that condemns contraception. There is, however, one story, Onan’s, that the Church has repeatedly used to condemn contraception.
Onan’s account goes as follows: “Judah [the 4th son of Jacob] took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan [his 2nd son], ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed [children] to thy brother.’ And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it [the ejaculate] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.” (Genesis 38:6–10, KJV)
The above ‘marriage’ is termed a ‘levirate marriage’; the Latin word levir means ‘husband’s brother’ or brother-in-law. According to the Old Testament, a man was forbidden from having intercourse with his sister-in-law; we read, “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of [have intercourse with (NAB)] thy brother’s wife.” (Leviticus 18:16, KJV) However, since in the old days women practically had no rights, in the case of the premature death of the male of the family, who still had no sons, his brother’s duty was to give male children to the widow: so that her inheritance is not lost (Deuteronomy 25:5–10).
Admittedly, interrupted intercourse or, in Latin, coitus interruptus (in which the man exits the woman’s vagina just prior to ejaculation) is a form of non-abortive contraception.
However, according to Wikipedia, “The biblical story of Onan (Genesis 38) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation [& contraception] and condemnation thereof. A number of scholars have pointed out that the sexual act described by this story is coitus interruptus, not masturbation. Some go further and argue that Onan’s death was solely due to his refusal to fulfill the obligation of levirate marriage, rather than any sexual sin. … The story was written by a ‘prescientific mind’ that considered the child to be contained in the sperm the same way a plant is contained in its seed. Onan’s offense was therefore [seemingly] the deliberate destruction of human life.”
In other words, the woman’s role was thought to be only as the ground where seed is planted. This might explain why men, in the old days, were somewhat reluctant to spill their semen outside a woman’s vagina. And this is also probably why we have a paternal, rather than a maternal, society; despite the obvious fact that it’s much easier to track the mother of a child than the father.
Moreover, in his book Catholic Q & A: Answers to the Most Common Questions about Catholicism (p.263), foremost Catholic question-and-answer columnist John J. Dietzen writes, “The [Onan] passage has often been wrongly interpreted as an explicit condemnation of contraception, and even more of masturbation. It is commonly acknowledged, however, that not the ‘wasting of the seed,’ but the refusal to observe a most serious family and tribal law was primarily responsible for Onan’s condemnation and punishment.” (emphasis mine)
Furthermore, Wills agrees with Dietzen that this passage is majorly problematic regarding contraception; he writes, “Modern scholars universally agree that what is condemned in the Onan passage is not contraception considered in itself (there is no direct condemnation of that in all the detailed provisions of Jewish law), but the deprivation of a brother’s line of its proper heir.” (Wills, Papal Sin, p. 78, emphasis mine)
In other words, this passage is cited erroneously—out of context with regard to contraception. In fact, the citing of this passage in documents concerning contraception was dropped in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae (Latin for “Of Human Life”) and later papal documents.
As Wills points out above, it’s quite clear that the Bible does not really condemn the spilling of male semen, as such, because in Leviticus, which contains detailed instructions on moral behavior, we only read, “If any man’s seed of copulation go out from him [through nocturnal emission], then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even [evening (NAB)]. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation [have intercourse], they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.” (Leviticus 15:16–18, KJV)
So, according to Leviticus, the spilling of semen only causes ritual uncleanness for a day. This is the worst case scenario; that is, if one believes that the Bible is God’s word. If, like me, one believes the Bible is a sage but human book, then one has to resort to one’s own reason, which even Bible inerrantists believe is given us in God’s ‘image’ (Genesis 1:26–27).
Rape:
A difficult case arises when a woman is raped and therefore might conceive involuntarily. Does she have a right to abort the unborn at any time? Unfortunately, again my answer is no. There are many situations in life that are far from ideal, but we still have to deal with them by doing the right thing under the circumstances. The unborn zygote, embryo, or fetus is totally innocent, and one cannot possibly reproduce that same ‘person’ again. This, practically, amounts to killing that person.
Naturally, the rape victim should be given all the support and financial help of one’s family (especially in the case of a minor) and of the government; and she should also be given the right to give up the child, when born, for adoption.
Person?
Pro-abortionists argue that an unborn fetus is not a ‘person’; it’s like a tumor, they say, which one has a right to have removed, or an arm, which one has a right to amputate.
Indeed, according to The Lancet, in Canada, “A fetus does not have the independent legal rights of a human being until it has completely emerged from the womb, a provincial court judge re-asserted … in dismissing an attempted murder charge against a woman who shot her near-term fetus in the brain with a pellet gun. … [Brenda] Drummond inserted a pellet gun in her vagina and shot the fetus in the brain 2 days before she gave birth.”
So, hypothetically, if someone shoots and kills an eight-month-old fetus of a pregnant woman, one cannot be charged for murdering her unborn child; one can only be charged for aggravated assault on the woman, say. I wonder what the mother-to-be would think about that.
We have laws against age discrimination: likewise, we should have no age-discrimination for the unborn. All this confusion stems from the false concept that the yet-unborn is not a person. Nonsense! A zygote is the same person as a one-month-old embryo, an eight-month-old fetus, and a newborn baby.
Conclusion:
I’m a man, and naturally, I don’t really know how a woman feels. Indeed, I must confess most women I know disagree with me on this matter. On the other hand, I think it’s best not to be emotionally involved in a problem to make the right decision.
Postscript:
As always on my website, discussion on this very controversial subject is most welcome. I promise I shall respond to all. I would also appreciate your voting “Like” if you do like this article.
References:
Attard, Carmel Paul. Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines. Bloomington, IN, iUniverse, 2020. (ISBN: 9781663210937)
Coren, Michael. Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread about Christianity. Toronto, Ontario, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., Toronto, ON. (ISBN: 9780771023156)
Dietzen, John J. Catholic Q & A: Answers to the Most Common Questions About Catholicism. New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2005. (ISBN: 0824523091)
Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN: 0889972818)
New American Bible: Revised Edition (NAB). Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)
The Holy Bible: King James Version (KJV). Oxford, UK, 1769.
The Lancet, 9045 Volume 349, Issue 9045, p. 112, January 11, 1997: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60906-3/abstract (accessed November 18, 2024).
Wikipedia, “Religious Views on Masturbation”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_masturbation; last edited November 18, 2024.
Wills, Garry. Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit. New York, NY, Image (Doubleday a division of Random House Inc.), 2000. (ISBN: 0385494114)
Author’s Books
For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).
(1) Is God a Reality?—A Scientific Investigation: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/740913-Is-God-a-Reality,
(2) Is the Bible Infallible?—A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation:
https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/792987-is-the-bible-infallible, and
(3) Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines:
https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/812598-faith-and-reason. My books are also available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Indigo-Chapters, etc.
Faith, Science & Reason 