We hear a lot about "abortion rights." This is an article about "abortion wrongs." Much misinformation is distributed on this subject. Let us consider the common arguments for abortion.
"A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT OVER HER BODY." We are blessed to live in a country with a Bill of Rights. Each is entitled to privacy, liberty, and life. Women should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies, of course, as should men. But, "personal rights end when exercise of them could and does lead to endangering one's own life and the lives of others (i.e. drunk driving and drug addiction, murder, endangering another's life through negligence)." When a woman gets pregnant, she becomes responsible for another body. The Golden Rule applies in this situation: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Mt. 7:12; cf. Phil. 2:4). Would I want to be aborted? Ronald Reagan was right when he said, "I have noticed that all those who are in favor of abortion were born."
A political cartoon pointed out the inconsistency and the real problem behind abortion:
- First frame: "He kissed me and I melted."
- Second frame: "My heart pounded at his touch."
- Third frame: "His embrace sent blood coursing through my veins."
- Fourth frame: "I was overcome with passion. I couldn't refuse."
- Fifth frame: "Well, now I'm pregnant and I want an abortion."
- Last frame: "After all, a woman should have control over her body."
If there is irresponsibility prior to pregnancy, the chances are greatly increased there will be irresponsibility afterwards.
It is sometimes argued that though the baby is human and alive, it does not have the same rights that a mother does. Some even use Exodus 21:22 to say God sanctions such an idea. Actually, this text teaches the opposite (cf. 21:28-37). Moses wrote, "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" (Ex. 21:22). The phrase "no mischief follow" means that the baby is born prematurely but is healthy. But if "mischief followed," that is, the baby was injured or died, then punishment was to be exacted according to the injury (eye for an eye, etc.).
MOTHER'S LIFE ENDANGERED. This is very rare, and due to medical advancements, abortion can almost always be avoided. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General, said: "Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother's life. The doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby's life is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger." Dr. R. J. Hefferman said, "Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion (for physical disease) is either ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy, or is unwilling to take the time to use them."
In those extremely rare cases when a choice must be made between a mother's life and the child's (e.g. tubal pregnancies), what should be done? The dilemma is the same faced when two lives are jeopardized in a fire or flood. If both cannot be saved, which is to live? This would, obviously, be a difficult choice. In the case of choosing between a mother and a child, the decision would be made by much prayer by the loving parents. Abortion is justifiable in such a case, as an act of self-defense. This is not an argument for abortion on demand. Abortion would be like casting an unwanted child back into the fire or water!
CHILD ABUSE WOULD SKYROCKET. Child abuse is a horrible crime. It needs to be addressed; violators need to face severe punishments. But is the answer to child abuse killing unwanted children? Is not this the ultimate form of child abuse?
Actually, since abortion was legalized, child abuse has climbed by at least 500%, even though we have prevented the birth of more than 40,000,000 unwanted children.
There is much that we still do not know about the sick psychology that leads to child abuse. One thing does stand out, however: Prenatally, these were not unwanted pregnancies, they were super-wanted pregnancies. The landmark study on this was done at the University of Southern California. Professor Edward Lenoski studied 674 consecutive battered children who were brought to the in- and out-patient departments of that medical center. He was the first to go to the parents and study to what extent they wanted and planned the pregnancy. To his surprise, he found that 91% were planned and wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. Further, the mothers had begun wearing, on average, pregnancy clothes at 114 days compared to 171 days in the control, and the fathers named the boys after themselves 24% of the time compared to 4% for the control groups. The parents commonly "...grew up in a hostile environment, and were themselves abused. When the children fail to satisfy their [unrealistic, neurotic expectations of perfection] emotional needs, the parents react with the same violence they experienced as children."
Isaiah urged, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and declare unto my people their transgressions" (58:1).
Go to "Abortion Wrongs: Part 2"
Links to this entire series:
by Allen Webster
- Abortion Wrongs: Part 1
- Abortion Wrongs: Part 2
- Abortion Wrongs: Part 3
- Abortion Wrongs: Part 4
- Abortion Wrongs: Part 5