Since we are made in God's image, the sacredness of our lives, and the dignity it demands, is based on something beyond our characteristics or abilities – it is rooted in the essence of God Himself.
Even though each human being is marked with a touch of God’s Image, that is not to say that man is God. Only God is independent and exists for Himself. Man is dependent on God and exists for His glory.
“Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life...”
The above passage shows that God is closer to us than we may think and is more similar to us than anything else on the planet, because each of us was once created in his image, and therefore must be sacred. Since human life is sacred, and we are in the form of God himself, then what gives anyone except for God, the right to give or take away life. According to the Bible, any doctor or physician who performs abortions is in fact attempting to play assume God’s role.
Section B
In what ways is this teaching understood and interpreted by two major Christian denominations?:
Within the Christian Church, there is generally a keen desire to follow and apply the teachings of the Bible. However, this in not easy and a number of different interpretations of the bible have lead to a variety of viewpoints concerning the moral implications of abortion. Generally, the Church is united in its rejection of the use of abortion. Most Christians believe abortion violates the sixth command, which prohibits murderous acts. However there is a strong debate concerning the moment a human embryo/foetus becomes fully human (when, according to Christian teaching, it has both body and soul). The Catholic Church teaches that ‘ensoulment’ takes place at the moment of conception and this has been a key reason for their refusal to allow abortions. Another key factor is Natural Law, which Catholics believe, shows that the natural consequence of the woman becoming pregnant is to give birth.
The Church of England is reluctant to take such a hard line as Catholics do in the abortion debate. It accepts that there are certain situations when abortion is an unavoidable consequence of deciding between the 'lesser of two evils' (E.g. Accepting that a women who becomes pregnant after being raped might want an abortion). For these reasons, the Church of England is more lenient, and decides on abortions depending on the individual situation:
'The Church believes the demand for abortions is unacceptably high. It stresses that abortion should happen as early in the pregnancy as possible and only after serious moral reflection. Its view on late terminations (after 24 weeks) of handicapped foetuses is that they should only be given if the baby is likely to die from its deformities soon after birth.' (The Church of England)
Both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches accept abortion when the life of the mother is in danger as a result of her being pregnant.
The strongest biblical evidence used against abortion is the prohibition to commit murder (Exodus 20:13). Christians against abortion believe the embryo/foetus is human and should be give full human rights. They believe that anyone taking away its life is committing murder and are putting themselves on a level with God who alone gives life and takes it away.
Difficulties arise when we see that in certain instances God actually commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies and take possession of their land. For this reason 'Do not murder' seems to be a command relative only to a specific situation.
One criticism labelled against the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion (and contraception) is that it encourages an irresponsible attitude towards having children and does not take in to account the ability of women (and men) to fully care for them. Quality of life is important for both the future child as well as the parents. It should also be noted that Christians who argue in favour of the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy do so with a heavy heart. They, along with the women involved, do not take abortion lightly.
'... most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it.'
Section C
In your opinion, is there ever any justification for a Christian approving an abortion?:
I think that a Christian who is in realistic need of an abortion is in a very tricky situation. There are several references for and against the moral issue of abortion in the bible, and it is how to draw a solid conclusion of what is correct because there are so many contradictions and ambiguous phrases. This means that it is often hard to tell if a reference actually relates to abortion, and if it does, which view it represents.
However, one useful issue in the argument of whether an abortion is morally acceptable is the ‘doctrine of double effect’. The doctrine of double effect states that it may be justifiable to perform a good act with the knowledge that bad consequences will follow, but that it is always wrong to intentionally perform a bad act for the sake of good consequences that will follow. Sometimes moral problems may be created or solved, by considering whether something bad is the direct effect, or the side effect, of an intentional action. The fact that someone dies as the result of your action is in any case bad, but directly to intend their death appears worse than directly to intend some benefit, but with the knowledge that death may be hastened by this. Administering pain-relieving drugs, which are known to shorten life expectancy, is a standard example. The extension of this pattern of reasoning to killing in self-defence or operating to save a pregnant woman's life but causing foetal death is controversial.
I think that in the case of abortion, the intentional killing of the foetus would be a good deed, if it was known that the baby would have to adopted or if there would be some defect with the baby that would lead to pain, suffering, or a shortened life. However, I do not think that an able couple should be able to have an abortion by this principle simply because of cosmetic or merely personal reasons. This also links in to the fact that I mentioned earlier:
'... most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it.'
I agree with this quotation, but I also recognise that some reasons for a woman wanting an abortion are much more important than others.
I feel that the Catholic church has a slightly too strong view on abortion in that it will not allow any to take place, even in dire circumstances, but on the other hand I think that the statements from the Anglican denomination are slightly ambiguous and could be exploited by specific cases. I think that the best alternative would be a set of specific guidelines that state when it is and is not possible to allow an abortion should be set down, with no compromises, because this would soon lead to people bending the rules and creating even more controversial circumstances.
The ‘lesser of two evils’ is when only distasteful options are available when a choice has to be made. Therefore the best possible option is taken. In the case of abortion, this is relevant when it is considered evil to kill the foetus inside the woman, but also it is considered evil to allow the baby to be born because of a probable mental or physical disability. It must then be considered whether it would be more distasteful to either let the baby live or abort the foetus whilst the baby is still not fully developed.
This again raises the issue of when a foetus becomes a human, and further than this, a person and when an abortion should happen, if indeed it does.
When asked whether a foetus is human, Pro Choice defenders are often wrong when they defend abortion by claiming the foetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person. And again, anti-abortion activists often mistakenly use this fact to support their cause. They are fond of saying, "an acorn is an oak tree in an early stage of development; likewise, the foetus is a human being in an early stage of development." They would be right. But having a full set of human DNA does not give the foetus full human rights - including the right not to be aborted during its development.
The same DNA pattern is found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a foetus human; it's simply that it has human DNA. A hair follicle shares everything in common with a human foetus except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. Your hair follicle is just as human as the foetus, but we would never defend its human rights based solely on that fact.
Then the question develops into, ‘Is the foetus a person?’ Webster's Dictionary describes a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole.” Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized foetus is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.
I have just shown that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a foetus, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person.
The defining mark between something that is human and someone who is a person is 'consciousness.' It is the self-aware quality of consciousness that makes us uniquely different from others. This self-awareness is also what separates us from every other animal life form on the planet. The problem is that consciousness normally doesn't occur until months, even years, after a baby is born. This creates a moral dilemma for the defender of abortion rights. Indeed, they inherently know what makes a human into a person, but they are also aware that such individual personhood doesn't occur until well after birth. To use personhood as an argument for abortion rights, therefore, also leads to the argument that it should be okay to kill a 3-month-old baby since it hasn't obtained consciousness either.
Anti-abortionists use this problem in an attempt to prove their point. In a debate, a Pro Choice defender will rightly state that the difference between a foetus and a full-term human being is that the foetus isn't a person. The anti-abortion activist will reply by asking his opponent to define what makes someone into a person. Suddenly the Pro Choice defender is at a loss for words to describe what he or she knows instinctively. We know it because we lived it. We know we have no memory of self-awareness before our first birthday, or even before our second. But we also quickly become aware of the "problem" we create if we say a human doesn't become a person until well after its birth. However, just because someone is afraid to speak the truth doesn't make it any less true.
A human indeed does not become a full person until consciousness. And consciousness doesn't occur until well after the birth of the child. But that does not automatically lend credence to the anti-abortionist's argument that it should, therefore, be acceptable to kill a three-month-old baby because it is not yet a person.
It is still a potential person. And after birth it is an independent potential person whose existence no longer poses a threat to the physical health of another.
Overall, I have decided, taking heed of all the different issues throughout my studies that an abortion for a Christian should be allowed in some specific desperate circumstances and should be carried out as soon after conception as is physically possible, to ensure minimal damage. I think that this would produce equilibrium.
