- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/22)
- Next Post »A La Carte (10/23)
The Moral High Ground
- 10/22/08
- 43
Yesterday I received an interesting email from a reader of this site. He had a question about abortion and, specifically, about abortion in the case of incest and rape. Here is an excerpt of his question:
We’re not living in a theocratic nation like the Old Testament Israel. Whether we like it or not, we’re living in a democratic nation where people of varying beliefs, not God, make the laws. To what extent, then, can we impose Christian values by law? especially in case of abortion by incest and rape? I understand we can make a good argument against abortion in general without having to resort to biblical teaching. However, what about in cases of abortion by incest or rape? Are we supposed to work to ban those as well?
As a Christian, i believe abortion is wrong. And because it is based on the absolute truth of the Bible, there are no exceptions. I also reject the view that when it comes to morality one’s private views and public views must be distinguished. But i don’t know where to draw the line when it comes to abortion by incest or rape. To what extent do we ‘compromise’ (is that the right word?) or stop short when creating or voting for laws?
This is a good question and, strangely, one I had been discussing with my wife just hours before this email showed up. It is my conviction that some evangelicals and pro-lifers have given away the moral high ground by making a false and irrational distinction between children who are conceived by choice (or at least by the choice to engage in sexual intercourse) and children who are conceived by rape or incest (though, of course, most incest is also rape). If the argument against abortion was “You made a bad decision, now deal with it!” then this argument would make sense. Those who did not choose to have a child would be exonerated and could justly terminate their pregnancies. But this is not our argument. The argument from Scripture is simple: a fetus is a human being. A fetus has the same “humanness” as an adult and thus has the same right to life. A fetus is fully human. A fetus is as fully human if she is conceived by choice as if she is conceived by brutal force. Of course I affirm that rape is a horrific crime—undoubtedly one of the worst crimes a person could commit and one whose full spiritual, physical, mental and emotional impact I am sure I cannot adequately understand. But the brutality of the crime does not change the fact that is indisputable from Scripture—even a child conceived by rape is fully human.
I feel that another aspect of this reader’s question deserves a response. He asked “to what extent, then, can we impose Christian values by law?” Here I think we need to pause to distinguish between values and morals. It used to be that we spoke of morals—truths that were applicable to all people. Societal morals were built upon a Christian foundation so that society widely accepted that homosexuality was wrong, that abortion was forbidden, that truth was a virtue, and so on. These morals stood above society, giving structure and imposing themselves on all people. But in recent decades, coasting in alongside a naturalistic worldview, morals have been diminished and have been replaced by values. Where morals are absolute, values are inherently subjective. Each of us may have our own sets of values. Society dictates that you are required to respect my values while I am required to respect yours.
So to what extent can we impose Christian values? Well, in a sense we do not seek to impose Christian values at all. Instead, we seek to impose Christian morals. We affirm that the Scripture gives us absolute standards of right and wrong and we seek to live within these boundaries. Again, these morals stand over and above us and call us all to obedience. They are vertical rather than horizontal. So we do not face our society with an attitude implying that we both hold to values and I hope that you will accept mine. Instead, we face society with the conviction that God’s morals are good and absolute. We can impose these morals on others without fear. Were a national leader to find himself in a position of being able to eradicate abortion, he could do so from a moral standpoint and do it without regret or hesitation. In such a case he has no need to concern himself with another person’s subjective values.
However, it is unlikely that such a day will come. It is unlikely that a person will ever be in a position where he can take us directly from where we are today (the celebration of abortion) to where we would like to go (the abolition of abortion). And here we can draw inspiration from moral victories of days past. I think it is most helpful to turn to a man like William Wilberforce and his battle to end slavery. Slavery was essentially a value held in days past. Society may have frowned on slavery as somewhat less than savory, but it ultimately left it to the discretion of the individual. If one person’s sense of value allowed slavery, then it was acceptable to him. But Wilberforce and the abolitionists took the moral high ground and decreed rightly that slavery was abhorrent and immoral.
One of the lessons from Wilberforce’s fight and eventual victory is that incremental victories are still victories. To borrow a cliche, Rome wasn’t built in a day; neither was it destroyed in a day. The cultural and political climate that welcomed abortion was the culmination of many societal forces. There were gradual steps away from biblical truth, gradual relaxing of traditional gender roles and small but steady changes in the understanding of human rights. It was the confluence of many forces that legalized abortion. Similarly, it is likely that it will take many years and many small, incremental changes to effect the status quo. While we must always keep the end in mind and desire nothing less than the full and complete abolition of abortion, we do not compromise if and when we accept and rejoice in incremental changes. Thus if laws were changed to forbid abortion except in cases of rape and incest, I believe Christians could support such legislation. They might do so with heavy hearts, knowing that unjust abortions would continue, but they could do so with clear consciences rejoicing in the righting of many wrongs.
Of course even here we make one exception (and allow me this brief aside, if you will). If the life of a pregnant mother is in grave danger so that both she and the fetus will surely die should the pregnancy continue, we affirm that an abortion is permissible. This is no light decision, but one that is acceptable in the light of this sinful world we inhabit. I have known people who struggled and struggled to get pregnant and who rejoiced in finding that God had finally blessed them with a pregnancy. But they soon learned that this was an ectopic pregnancy and they were forced to abort the child lest both mom and baby die. This is a heart-rending decision but one I believe we can support from Scripture. It is a sad consequence of human sin.
Abortion is so awful, so despicable, so abhorrent that I have to think it will, indeed, be abolished some day. It is my hope and even my conviction that we will someday regard it as we now regard slavery. We will shake our heads and wonder how we could ever have lived in such a society. Children will learn in school of society’s ambivalence to so great an evil and express proper shock and disgust. And I hope and pray that Christians will lead this fight and ascribe all glory to God when the battle is finally won.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (43)
Tim, I think this was a great post, especially pointing out that the issues it not that someone made a bad choice, but rather that fetuses are human beings.
You kind of took me off guard with your point about abortion being permissible in the case of the mother dying. As a woman, I cannot imagine being in this situation, and I can’t imagine my husband having to deal with the prospect of that. But if we believe that God is sovereign, then how can we say with any certainty “The mother and child will die, so let’s abort the child”? God is all-powerful, doctors make mistakes, and the Holy Spirit is not bound by medicine.
I am not trying to start an argument. I guess I’d just like to hear what you (and any others who agree with you) would say to further explain that conviction, because I’ve never run across someone who was firm in cases of incest and rape, but not in the case of the mother possibly dying.
I hope that any conversation related to this can be gracious and gentle. Have a blessed day!
Sorry for the typo in the first paragraph. It should be “…issue is not…” rather than “…issues it not…” ;-)
You kind of took me off guard with your point about abortion being permissible in the case of the mother dying. As a woman, I cannot imagine being in this situation, and I can’t imagine my husband having to deal with the prospect of that. But if we believe that God is sovereign, then how can we say with any certainty “The mother and child will die, so let’s abort the child”? God is all-powerful, doctors make mistakes, and the Holy Spirit is not bound by medicine.
I understand the hesitation here. Obviously we need to leave room for doctor’s mistakes and miraculous healings. But we cannot take this too far (anymore than you’d refuse chemo because you felt God would heal you miraculously). There are some cases where a woman and her baby will clearly die if there is no abortion. I am not expert and would not make such a choice without the support of someone who was an expert. But such cases definitely do exist.
I think we can uphold the principle that a baby shouldn’t be executed for the crime of the father (rape and incest), and still show compassion for the expectant mother. Studies have shown that rape victims who abort actually have a harder time coping with the trauma of the rape. In addition to being victimized, they now experience guilt over victimizing someone else (the unborn baby). Conversely, rape victims who carry to term do better emotionally and mentally because they feel that they brought something good out of a bad situation.
Tim,
You said: “Abortion is so awful, so despicable, so abhorrent that I have to think it will, indeed, be abolished some day. It is my hope and even my conviction that we will someday regard it as we now regard slavery. We will shake our heads and wonder how we could ever have lived in such a society. Children will learn in school of society’s ambivalence to so great an evil and express proper shock and disgust. And I hope and pray that Christians will lead this fight and ascribe all glory to God when the battle is finally won.”
Perhaps my following comment is fodder for another post. When I read your ending thought, I caught myself immediately thinking that it is useless to think that we, or even God for that matter, is going to change this society’s penchants. I have heard it said that some theologians have proclaimed that God has given up on America and turned her over to her lusts. Certainly we can not know the mind of God.
Sexual immorality is at all time highs with the Internet in everyones hands. Just last night I was watching “House” and there on my TV screen is someone in Hollywood forcing homosexuality on the society with two lesbians embraced in a “tender kiss”.
Here’s my perception: Many people think that our society is so far gone, that indeed God has given up. Because of this, as “resident aliens” we just need to grin and bear it. I suspect that a good many Christians have given up the fight and simply hope for Christ’s speedy return.
Thus, with regard to your final comment, if there is no belief that change will occur, isn’t the army of God sitting on their hands?
I must say I agree with Chelsey that I am upset you would take such a strong stand on defending cases of rape/incest but think it is ok to kill an innocent child b/c the mothers life is in danger. You had an excellent section on values vs morals and were right on. But in this case, you are portraying your values instead of your morals. I know the situation of “the mothers life is in danger” is a difficult one so I have studied and studied other resources to find exactly where I stand on this issue and more importantly, where God’s heart is on this issue. Responding to your comment about a cancer patient refusing chemo: If the dr told you that you have cancer and will die, why not ask the dr to go ahead and kill you right then? That would be taking matters into your own hands and not trusting God is what I think Chelsey was trying to say…Just b/c we have drs doesnt mean we should use them to perform murder….no matter the situation.
Think about this: Say a mother and child were driving across an icy bridge and swirved off the bridge into the freezing waters below. EMS is called and the rescue workers dive into the water to attempt to save BOTH mother and child. Do you think they will murder the child in attempt to save the mother? Or do you think they will do their best to save both lives? Also, where in Scripture does God portray a mothers life to be more valuable than the childs life? I think it is easy to play god in this situation and say “well, the mother and baby will both die so I choose to kill the baby so the mother can live”. Who says this is morally correct? Why not kill the mother so the baby can live? That sounds crazy right? But that is exactly what society is choosing to believe in the reverse order. Genesis 1:27 says “in the image of God he created him…” and if we believe this is true, we are choosing to murder a child created in Gods image b/c the mothers life is in danger?
These are things to strongly pray about and seek Gods Word before writing something in your blog. I am sorry that you have friends who were put in that situation but b/c it is a difficult situation, doesnt mean we can take the easy way out. Do you think God turns His head away from His 10 Commandments b/c we’re in a difficult situation? “Thou shall not Kill” does not say “Thou shall not kill unless the mothers life is in danger” right? In love, Angela
Hi Tim,
What Scripture passage(s) did you have in mind for the case of pregnant mothers dying? (Not asking antagonistically, just curious about how to discern the issue.)
I also was a little taken off guard by your acceptance of abortion in the case where both mother and baby would die. I disagree — not just because there is room for human error (as Chelsey mentioned), but because we don’t have the right to take life, even when it would cost the life of someone else. Your example of refusing chemo doesn’t cut to the heart of the issue. I would refuse chemo if it meant that I would have to kill someone else to receive it. God is sovereign — He controls all circumstances, and if an ectopic pregnancy is the cause of my death, and my child’s death, then that is His will. If there was anything I could do besides abortion (which I don’t believe there is) I would do it, but killing my child (even if the baby is going to die anyways) to save myself is not something I can see from Scripture. We are not given the right to take life, even in tragic circumstances.
Rick,Tim mentioned ectopic pregnancy - this is when the fetilized egg implants somehwere other than the uterus, most often in the fallopian tubes. This type of pregnancy is usually diagnosed before 8 weeks when the woman presents with abdominal pain and removal of the tube is usually necesarry to prevent rupture. While there have been some very rare cases of a pregnancy continuing outside of the uterus, the fact is that if left unchecked the pregnancy in this case cannot continue and threatens the life of the mother.
I can’t speak for Tim, but I think that the same scripture verses that support the life of the unborn child, apply here also to the mother, in cases where the pregnancy is not viable and a very real threat to maternal health.
Tim,
In the broader scheme of things, I wanted to mention something with regard to the question, “to what extent…can we impose Christian values by law?” I’ve often thought the same thing, “what right do we have” or “how can we impose our morality on others,” but I heard a wise speaker (I think it was Ravi Zacharias, but I can’t be sure) say something about this. He said that laws impose a world-view. No matter what. They will impose someone’s world-view. If it’s not going to impose a Christian morality, then it will impose another morality or amorality.
Just a thought.
In the final analysis the issue comes down to this: who should die for the crime, the guilty or the innocent. I would suggest that the perpetrator of the crime of rape or incest should be the recipient of the punishment, namely capital punishment. It is interesting that the very people who argue that capital punishment is a barbaric relic have no problem applying it when it comes to an unborn child. In a more civilized age, your grandfather rendered judgement on a convicted rapist by assigning the lash. Whether or not the sentence was carried out I do not know, I just remember him mentioning the case when I was a kid.John Challies
I would encourage Tim’s detractors to do some study on the situation he mentioned: ectopic pregnancy.
In this case the baby is implanted somewhere other than the womb. In the vast majority of these cases, as the baby grows the mothers organs are ruptured resulting in the death of the baby and internal bleeding (and likely death) of the mother.
In this case a miracle of God would be required to save the baby and the mother—such a miracle would need to relocate the baby to its proper location in the womb.
I don’t think I could judge a family that took the abortion route in a situation as precarious as this.
“We affirm that the Scripture gives us absolute standards of right and wrong and we seek to live within these boundaries. Again, these morals stand over and above us and call us all to obedience.”
I wonder if some of the comments miss the point of the question. Tim seems to answer the question to some extent. The original question assumes that men are somehow morally neutral and therefore we are not able to justify using Biblical revelation if we wish to all be on this imaginary equal playing field.
Christians should stand before men explaining God’s revelation is the foundation for morality. Of course we know they will argue against this position using the typical popular atheistic arguments such the death penalty for Sabbath breaking. Nevertheless, for these counter arguments to work, they must borrow from the revelation God has given to men via creation.
Either way, there is no morally neutral place, and we should not give away the moral high ground to those who have no basis for such.
Good Post!
God Bless
Tim,I appreciate the distinction between “values” and “morals”.
To speak of opposing the Holocaust of abortion as a “Value” in the same breath with, say, the “Value” of lower taxes makes the killing of the unborn sound quite optional, a simple matter of policy to change with whatever Party comes into power.
Blurring that distinction deliberately is one reason why Obama is dangerous. Morality, like simple biology, is above his pay grade.
Blessings,Terry
As a health care provider, things are never as easy as stated above. I have provided anesthesia to end ectopic pregnanciesto women who are bleeding to death before my eyes and believe that I am not doing the same thing as a abortionist down the road.Many of us talk about the sovereignity of God like we fully understand it in every circumstance but I don’t.The soldier in Iraq that falls purposefully on a grenade to save his friends has committed suicide by definition but did he sin? Should he just duck and hope for the best for he and his friends ? Just trust in the sovereignity of God and wait to see who is killed by the blast and who isn’t.What role does man play? I went to a Adventist University for some of my training and adventist’s who follow their churchteachings on diet, including vegetarianism and abstaining from cigarettes and alcohol live on average 7 to 9 years longer than those of other faiths. Does God like adventists better than baptists? Appears that way to me. I believe in the sovereignity of God but just color me confused in how it operates some times in day to day life.If you work in the medical field like I do than you across situations that just don’t fit into nice little categories. I search the scriptures and pray and try to do what Christ would have me to do as his son and believer.
The Church is first and foremost to admonish itself, not the world.The world, government, and society can become a Gospel-cultured nation, from the influence of the Gospel, as the Church has it’s first things first right.”Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things will be added.
It’s difficult to seperate America from the Church, becuase there has been so much influence in our nation from the Bible, Gospel, and Church.
If I knew a Christian who had an abortion, and she and the father, who a Christian as well, had no problem with the abortion, then the Church would be instructed to turn them over to Satan.If I had a friend who had an abortion, and she was some who rejects Christ, I may speak the same truths about abortion, but it would be in a different degree and manner.The Christiians I shouldn’t even eat with, and the latter I’d be able to have dinner with, and hopefully convince through the Gospel, and speaking the truth in love, to convert to Christ.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
BTW, another very good post, by the Iron-Man of blogs.
Regarding ectopic pregnancies:
Perhaps we can compare this to a somewhat similar case: Siamese twins.
Suppose we have infant siamese twins who have a prognosis of immanent death, and separating them would end up killing one of them but allowing the other to live. Can we do the procedure?
Is this like triage?
A harder case would be adult siamese twins, where the twin that would die doesn’t consent.
Tim, well said!
Murder is murder is murder. We can try to justify it how every we want, but slaughtering a child for the crimes of the father is no justification. Certainly in cases where there are complications, (as my wife faced) in the process of saving one life, another is lost.
“Whether we like it or not, we’re living in a democratic nation where people of varying beliefs, not God, make the laws.”
Truly I love to live in a democracy, but more than that I wait for the day that we will be under an absolute monarchy. I mean this is what we are all waiting for, right, the day Christ comes, and rules as our Lord and King!
Should Jesus have the right to impost His “values” and “morals” on us? YES! Absolutely, we would never question Christ’s right as Lord over our lives, why or how could we ever question if we should “impose” God’s laws. No compromise. We press on, no turning back. We will be hated for His Names sake, our convictions, scorned and treated as outcasts, but should we expect any different? Unless our concern for this world and the things of this world mean more to us than righteousness.
We did surrender all, didn’t we?
So we do not face our society with an attitude implying that we both hold to values and I hope that you will accept mine. Instead, we face society with the conviction that God’s morals are good and absolute. We can impose these morals on others without fear.
I strenuously disagree with that last sentence. I’m of the opinion that laws should serve to protect human beings’ baseic rights from being infringed upon by other human beings. Now, to the extent that my religious beliefs inform what I consider to be “basic rights” and who I consider to be “human beings” it is true that I support legislating my faith, but only to that extent. For instance, I strongly oppose the notion that Christians should support laws that would criminalize an activity simply because we know that activity to be sinful. For instance, homosexuality is clearly sin, but just as clearly (in my opinion) should not be made illegal. Gluttony might be another example.
When an activity constitutes no direct offense against another person, then it is not the government’s job, nor should believers endeavor to make it the government’s job, to criminalize that activity.
None of this applies to abortion, though, since abortion does represent a direct offense against another person. Namely, the unborn child. So for a Christian to support the criminalization of abortion is not an example of him trying to “legislate his beliefs”, except insofar as his recognition of the fetus as a person may have its basis in his faith. One who is pro-choice should, generally, not resent this sort of belief either, since he most likely holds a similar one of his own. He just places the line further out than conception. And, just like the pro-life person, he very much objects to the killing of humans who have passed his line of demarcation.
@ jugulum
The difference between the two situations is that in the proposed case of the Siamese twins the moral dilemma would be which, if either, twin to save.
In the case of ectopic pregnancies, you cannot choose to sacrifice the mother to save the baby—the mother will die long before the baby could survive outside the womb. If it were not so, there would be no moral dilemma—the Christian mother would hopefully sacrifice herself to save the infant. This has happened in many cancer situations where mothers refuse treatment that would harm the baby.
In the case of ectopic pregnancies, doctors really only have the option of saving the mother—there is little, if any, medical hope for the baby—barring a miracle (described in the earlier post) he or she will most likely die.
The options facing a couple in this situation is normally the choice of one funeral or two.
I agree that we do have to legislate some morals, but not all of them. It seems that at times it’s difficult to decide what to legislate, but abortion is not one of them for me. Although, I’m open to being persuaded that we should legislate all the morality that we can.
J.P.H makes an interesting point about directly offending or infringing another person’s rights, but since I am not bound to any political philosophy, why should this be the standard for deciding what to legislate? If this should be a criterion, then why can’t other criteria be included when deciding what to legislate? Recreational drug use does not directly infringe non-drug users, but addicts do increase the burden upon a society to keep order; drug use results in higher crime rates, increase spending on police and jails, increase spending in health care, and so on. What about polygamy, homosexual marriage, and consensual incest? I’m sure there are more examples, but I just mentioned those that quickly came to mind. And those which I have mentioned can be argued as things to legislate against in order to keep good order in a society.
And Tim, you sound fairly optimistic about the future of abortion. Are you a post-millenialist?
God’s morality is right and good and everyone should honor it by obeying it. It should be the law of the land. . .
Therefore, we should outlaw the remarrying of divorcees; lying to one’s mother; working on the Sabbath (Saturday er maybe Sunday); most of what is on TV; women with short hair; men with long hair; not giving 10 percent to God. . .
Come on people give it a rest — just because the Bible says something is a sin doesn’t mean we need to outlaw it. What types of things do we need outlaw? Where enforceable, we can and ought to outlaw those things that are intrinsically, verifiably, and significantly harmful to people and/or society at large.
Slavery and abortion obviously fit the criteria. Homosexuality and hair length do NOT.
We cannot force Christian “laws” (morals) on anyone anymore than we can force someone into salvation. Christian “laws” (morals) do not mean anything to the non-elect. We have moral laws on the books now and people break them. I suggest reader “Why Government Can’t Save You” By John MacArthur.
As far as a candidate that will do all he can to end abortion is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” — John Quincy Adams
The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders’ legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations
Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
I appreciate your distinction between morals and values as a tool to analyse matters. I also appreciate the thoughts of J.P.H as a second tool:”When an activity constitutes no direct offense against another person, then it is not the government’s job, nor should believers endeavor to make it the government’s job, to criminalize that activity.”The following thought from your post is helpful too”… we do not compromise if and when we accept and rejoice in incremental changes. Thus if laws were changed to forbid abortion except in cases of rape and incest, I believe Christians could support such legislation.”
As far as the dilemma of what one ought to do if the baby and mother are both at risk in a pregnancy, I would like to point to an article I wrote for some young people some years ago: … Can there ever be a situation where abortion is justified?Imagine that there is a serious house fire, and someone has rescued a woman from the fire. But the mother wants to rush back in and save her baby. Do you think it is wise to let her go in again? The public has to make a difficult choice, which is usually to stop her from going in again.During the Tsunami, a mother could not hold on to two children, so she let one go and saved the other. She had to make a difficult choice.So also in a pregnancy, a choice may have to be made to save a life. These are not easy choices to make and are beyond the purview of this article. But there can be no choice in the following cases …From http://couragetotremble.wordpress.com/2003/01/29/massacre-of-the-innocents-abortion/
this website addresses the issue of ectopic pregnancy and abortion better than any of us can explain. Tim and others, please read this as I believe that it will truly influence the way that you consider this issue. http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm
I have so many thoughts swirling around in my head right now. This issue inflames our passions like none other, it seems. We must think reasonably, seek the Lord for His wisdom, and we must look at this issue in the light of eternity. I claim no authority on this issue. I am just thinking my way through this thread, like everyone else.
However, I honestly don’t understand comments like
…we don’t have the right to take life, even when it would cost the life of someone else…(Sarah)
or
…doesnt mean we can take the easy way out. Do you think God turns His head away from His 10 Commandments b/c we’re in a difficult situation…(Angela)
Being created in the image of God, clinging to Christ for my salvation, not my own ability to obey Him perfectly or my perfect nack for decision-making when in a bind (or as Angela called it, “the easy way out”), if someone were threatening to kill me or any of my children, or any innocent bystander, and I had an opportunity to prevent it, I would. With God’s help, and my adrenaline pumping, I would heartily use whatever means necessary to save the life of another. In the US, some call that our Second Amendment Right. (I’m just sayin’.) We also have professing Christians in the military. Thank God. Do they sin, because, in killing, they defend the lives of innocent (rhetorically speaking) civilians? What about the police? Or, let’s say, I have just taken a positive pregnancy test, and my husband is killed in a tragic accident the next day. My children (we already have 3 or 4) and I bury him, and a few short weeks later, I find myself at the ER, only to be told that I could imminently die if I do not terminate this pregnancy (if you can even call it that, at this point.) Remember, the kids have just lost their dad.
This is why, it seems to me, that we cannot giftwrap this issue in a nice little Bible box. Maybe a little remniscent of Jesus ridiculing the Pharisees for giftwrapping the Sabbath?
I think Tim said it best.
“This is a heart-rending decision but one I believe we can support from Scripture. It is a sad consequence of human sin. ”
When I was young, I knew a girl who would stand outside at the bus stop in the freezing cold with wet hair, and tell me that God wouldn’t let her get sick because she had faith that he wouldn’t. I have three children at home, and am pregnant with my fourth. Do I, like this girl, trust God to care for my four children who are now in daycare (all our inlaws still work full-time) or foster care (if the scenario I first mentioned holds true), so that I can conscientiously die along with a baby that is going to die anyways? This would seem not only prideful for me, but utterly ridiculous. Maybe I’m making a leap here, but some of Tim’s “detractors” as Tony called them, brought this memory to my mind. I am curious to know if any of them have children already. This seems to be an issue that we REALLY need to wrestle with. I have never understood why “the life of the mother” is lumped together with “in cases of rape or incest” concerning legislation. They seem like completely different issues. In the first, no crime is committed. Also, I don’t understand why the life of the mother, especially one with children at home, would not be valued. In the tragic case of an ectopic pregnancy, I’m not saying a miracle would be impossible, but, regarding God’s sovereignty, an ectopic diagnosis looks as if the Author of Life has already made His decision. Then you have to make a decision rather quickly. Again, I could be wrong. Gotta cling to my hope in Christ on this one. I’m not about to judge someone who’s been through this. I am also not judging the conscience or values or morals of any of the commenters. This is an issue I have truly wrestled with in my heart. My husband and I dearly love a couple that prayed and struggled to get pregnant for the first four years after they married, had many heart-wrenching miscarriages, the last being ectopic. If God’s judgement on the West, because of abortion, included mothers whose babies would die anyways, it certainly didn’t fall on them. After the ectopic, He went on to give them three children, right in a row, who are all under the age of three as we type. Bam bam bam. And my friend, the mother, is here on earth, praising God with every breath she breathes, and making disciples of her own children, and others the Lord brings to her.
One more afterthought…Could willingly choosing to die because of ectopic pregnancy, knowing your life could be saved, and knowing that your dying will not save the life of the child, be called…suicide?
But maybe I’m wrong. (sigh.) I have heard of the rare cases where the pregnancy made it to term. This is amazing and miraculous and a witness to God’s hand in creation. It also points to the issue of our having the “right” to plan our families. Nevertheless, maybe I have Christian control issues, but I don’t think I could embrace a probable death, unless I knew the life inside me would atleast be saved by it, especially since I already have children at home.Would my faith be stronger if I trusted God to care for the spiritual, physical, intellectual, and emotional health of these children in order to obey His command not to kill perfectly (if that is even possible), or if I trusted that Christ gave me His righteousness at the cross, for all my sins, including my inability to know if I’m even making the right decision in His eyes? Since we still see through a glass darkly?*Incidentally, being big and pregnant and tired, I stayed home from church tonight to rest and ended up on here. My husband and our kids are home now, and I think I’ll have him take a peek at these comments and tell me what he thinks. : )
This is an interesting discussion. Tim, thank you for initiating and facilitation it! And thank you to everyone for conducting it in a way that seeks to honour God and acknowledge his Word as authoritative.
I must admit that I too was caught off-guard (thanks for that phrase, Chelsea) with Tim’s comments about the “one exception” and a blanket exception is certainly not how I would phrase it. I am grateful to Jim for the link to Pro-life Physicians, and I think the way they explain the situation certainly sits more comfortably with me. But I don’t think this “one exception” should be a cause for Christian division. I seriously doubt that any of the commenters would have the audacity to confront a pro-life, Christian woman who, heart-breakingly, has had to make the choice to save her own life at the expense of her unborn baby’s.
Having recently spoken about abortion with a Christian woman who has had one, I was left wondering what the Christian church could do differently to help address a situation where even a Christian woman thinks (perhaps only momentarily, which is all it takes) that abortion is an appropriate thing to do. I am quite sure that church teaching as to the reality that abortion is killing another image bearer of God is appropriate, but I am equally sure that the proliferation of websites adorned with nightmarish images and the gratuitous use of the word “murderer” are not-helpful, and indeed may be counter-productive.
Most such website have, as a sort of caveat, a concluding paragraph describing God’s forgiveness in Jesus. Too often, however, any gospel message is either physically lost in amongst the photos of aborted fetuses, or lost in amongst the confusion and hate that permeates the rest of the website. Surely if we are Christians who acknowledge our own sinfulness, and proclaim God’s grace in our own lives, then that gospel message should be the introduction, not the conclusion.
I think there are three practical steps the church can take (thanks to John Stott and his book, Issues Facing Christians Today):
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post. You covered so many issues in powerfully, precise way. And many issues addressed are ones that I’ve pondered often, hoping for a clear-cut answer. If one exists, you’ve come the closest to any I’ve heard. (especially concerning morals vs. values in politics).
I’m still mulling all of this over, but I DO know I agree with your over-all stance on abortion. Its a brutal practice. And I passionately desire for it to become as slavery’s status in this country.
The ectopic pregnancy exception has been discussed exhaustively here it appears. I thought I might just add that when I was first challenged on this topic, I researched exactly what an ectopic pregnancy is. I came to the conclusion that if I was ever personally in the situation, that I would have to pray to discern God’s will. It wouldn’t be a definite yes or no before then. (if I was raped, I would be praying for strength, not whether or not I should have an abortion) I’ve always been pro-life, and therefore “anti-abortion” and am passionate about it, and it takes a lot for me to admit that I don’t think we should assume someone sinned for choosing this option. From one perspective though, if you’re pro-life, how can you let two lives die? Its just not cut and dried. having said that I’m so excited to read of ways that God has shown His sovereignty and power. Like in this story.
God has ways of working, that we can’t even wrap our minds around. And though our choices have consequences, He’s still in control over all.
Angela Davis (#6) said, “Say a mother and child were driving across an icy bridge and swirved off the bridge into the freezing waters below. EMS is called and the rescue workers dive into the water to attempt to save BOTH mother and child. Do you think they will murder the child in attempt to save the mother? Or do you think they will do their best to save both lives?”
Actually, rescue workers do in effect “murder” some to save others by not saving all (from my understanding they pick the ones they think are most likely to survive). The fact is they can save just a few or none at all. A case like Tim was talking about can be compared to a rescue where only one of two endangered individuals could be saved.
Colin,
You’re talking about the comparison to triage. I agree it’s a relevant comparison—but it’s not perfect.
There’s a difference between actively killing one person to save another, and leaving one person to die so that you can save another.
If we’re talking about delivering a baby prematurely (even though that’s dangerous), that’s similar to leaving the baby to die. But if we’re talking about inducing an abortion to end an ectopic pregnancy, that’s action. That’s directly killing the child in order to save the mother.
It’s not identical.
This excerpt from the website Pro-Life Physicians that someone else posted was really helpful to me, and so I guess now I agree with what Tim is saying in the scenario of an ectopic pregnancy.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional.
May I also suggest that we also use more arguments from natural law when speaking to unbelievers, since many will not listen to arguments from the Bible. You can find an articles on natural law from a Reformed perspective on Modern Reformation’s website. Dr. VanDrunen from Westmister Seminary CA has a good article on natural law with an example of how to argue for the life of the unborn.
And to all you Calvinists who think arguing from natural law is not compatible with Calvinism, know that the Reformed tradition has embraced a form of natural law ever since the Reformation. It was until the 20th century that some Calvinists began to repudiate natural law.
Post Tenebras Lux
I still need to check that pro-life physicians website, but after posting my comments last night, I was haunted by the fact that ending an ectopic pregnancy is indeed active. jugulum stated:If we’re talking about delivering a baby prematurely (even though that’s dangerous), that’s similar to leaving the baby to die. But if we’re talking about inducing an abortion to end an ectopic pregnancy, that’s action. That’s directly killing the child in order to save the mother.I guess where it gets fuzzy for me, concerning ectopic pregnancies (or other life-threatening pregnancies) is knowing that with the extreme pro-life position, the woman’s life doesn’t seem of value even when the prediction/assumption by the doctors is that the baby will not survive anyways. This is most definitely a discernment issue.
Two words: SELF DEFENSE.
The reason I find it morally permissible to abort a child when the mother’s life is in danger is that it is morally comparable to self defense, a right which nearly every nation recognizes, and most people take the Bible to recognize a right to self-defense. Consider the difference between how the Bible discusses Cain, who committed murder and was punished by God, and the fellow not so many verses later who attacked and killed someone in self-defense. I don’t think we can, in good conscience, require a mother to lay down her life for her child. In cases where the child would die along with the mother it makes no sense at all to let both die. Even in cases where the child *might* survive but the mother is in genuine danger of death, we cannot demand the mother risk likely death for her baby. We can applaud heroism that would take such a risk, we can support it, but we cannot demand that one person lay down their life for another. At that point it is no longer a “pro-life” argument but “mother’s life or baby’s life” argument.
Take care & God blessAnne / WF
Tim, I agree wholeheartedly. Your last remarks are very encouraging and thought-provoking. Thanks for a good article.
I figure I’ll share the story of my wife and how it is she is still alive today.
Almost 3 years ago, my wife got pregnant for the third time, the other two boys were born healthy and without incident. However in the 10-11 week, my wife started to experience abdominal pain, the doctor informed us that it was very likely she would miscarry. The next few days were quite stressful around our house, but we still put our trust in God’s sovereignty, and that no matter what happened, He is in control. Nothing the doctor could do, so if the baby was to make it to term it would be a miracle.
A few days after the doctors appointment, while at work, I got the overwhelming sense to call home. I did, and my 4 year old son answered and said mommy is in the bathroom, I spoke to my wife, she said she was “ok” but thinks she was misscarrying. I rushed home, to find crouched down in the bathroom, crying, in pain. I picked her up, and we went to the local emergency, they explained to me that she was bleeding internally, and had lost alot of blood. They further told me that if I hadn’t brought her in, within the next couple hours, I would have lost her.
They started saving her life, and rushed her out to the University hospital, so she could get specialized surgery. When she arrived they prepared her for surgery to repair the damage to her insides. It would be a 5 or 6 hour procedure so I was told to go get some sleep. Yeah right, but I did go home so I could explain what was happening to the rest of the family.
I recieved the phone call within minutes of arriving home. It was the ER nurse, and she informed me that my wife was ok, but she had some questions. She let me know that the ectopic pregnancy was terminated and removed so they could save my wife (at the time I didn’t even consider another option), but they needed some information about the pregnency. They asked if it was an artificial pregnancy or natural. It was natural, and the reason they asked is because it is almost unheard of for there to be an ectopic pregnancy when TWINS are involved and one is in the tube and the other in the womb, safe.
Well, at the hospital they explained all this to me in more detail, it turns out this is very rare and the only reason they attempted to save my wifes womb, rather than removing it, to save her life, was because they could see that there was a second pregnancy, which may survive. Well, he did survive, his name is Caleb Elijah, and is now two years old, terrible, and I love him. He was born healthy and without any problems.
We have since had our fourth son last year without any troubles, and maybe will try for a daughter with our 5th, we’ll see what God has planned.
So, what was the right thing to do? I could have stayed at home with my wife and just trusted that God could save her if He wants. I could have told the doctors not to save my wife at the expence of my baby. or I could let the doctors save my wife and do what they have to do to preserve life, her life, my wife. God blessed us right after we new we lost a child, He gave us a second, one none of the doctors previously new about, a twin that we will someday see in Christ’s presence.
My conscience is clear, we did what we did BECAUSE we trust in God and not in spite of it. God is Sovereign and He is Lord over even what happen to my wife and children. Was there sin involved, oh I’m sure of it, I was involved, my sinful wife was involved and that unborn baby was in the line of Adam, much sin was involved, and is involved in every situation that we people get involved in, but God is a good God, and He can make all things to magnify His glory.
There is more I could say, but I said enough.
Anne,
That’s a fair comparison to bring up, but self-defense isn’t a perfect analogy either. With an ectopic pregnancy, the child isn’t attacking the mother. It’s not seeking to harm the mother, or committing any crime.
In self-defense, the attacker is actually attacking. With ectopic pregnancies, it’s more like an accident putting the mother and child in the situation.
Right, self-defense isn’t a perfect analogy as you said, but the point of comparison is this: one person is endangering the other, and it is no longer a clearcut case of “this is the side of life” because there are two lives now on different sides, and it’s potentially one life against the other (when it’s not that both would be lost if the mother died). I really have trouble believing anyone would object when the mother’s life is in danger. I think that the mother, the father, and all concerned are innocent and blameless if they did all that could be done to save both, and it just didn’t happen. It’s one of the times where I, as a Christian, am astonished to find Christians coming out and criticizing those who were caught in a “life against life” tragedy, as if they were morally equivalent to those who had no respect for life so that they would end a developing human life for some light or transient reason.
Take care & God blessAnne / WF
Curtis-Thank you thank you thank you for sharing your story. I hope it is read by many.
Curtis, Thank you for sharing your story. God is so kind to us sinners. I’m glad your wife and children are alive and well, including the one now who rests in the arms of the Savior. Continued blessings to you and your family.
Those of you who would not have an abortion if you had an ectopic pregnancy better stay at home when on your death bed or check yourself into hospice. I’m an RN and I can tell you right now that if you come to my hospital writhing in pain and bleeding out because of an ectopic pregnancy, the doctors are going to either perform an abortion or if you refuse the abortion, send you to a unit on comfort measures. Comfort measure means that you only receive those things which make your dying tolerable….so lots of morphine because the pain would be out of this world! Of course, you won’t last long once you start bleeding out. There would be no point in getting transfused and the doctors wouldn’t transfuse you if you refused to solve what is causing you to bleed. I guess it’s your choice if you want to die, but it certainly will impact your husband and your other children (if you have others) and the rest of your family to whom you have a duty. But again, God doesn’t require that mankind receive medical intervention.
Tim,Great post. Thanks for refocusing the arguments of the Christian pro-life community.
In regards to your last paragraph, I must say I am pessimistic. I would like to think that things eventually do get better, but in light of what I view as the biblical eschatology it is very doubtful.
I actually just posted an article called “The Long Defeat” over at my blog that explains why I think this way.
(www.knowitalls-blog.org/blog/2008/10/the-long-defeat/)
Thanks for all the great posts.
Yours in Christ,Matt