This week, the Arkansas State Legislature voted to override
Gov. Beebe’s veto of a bill that would ban abortion after the 12th
week of pregnancy. This means that
Arkansas now has the most restrictive abortion law in the nation.
In this news story, the new law is referred to as a
“near-ban” since it contains exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, the life
of the mother, and highly lethal fetal disorders. Such exceptions are no surprise as virtually all new
abortion bills proposed by pro-life legislators contain them. It is assumed that without these
exceptions, such bills have no chance of seeing a vote, much less becoming
law.
The problem with the continued allowance for these exceptions
is that it undermines the moral argument against abortion. The typical conservative argument is
that abortion is murder.
Certainly, this is a biblical position. The Bible consistently assumes the personhood of the unborn
(Psa 51:5, 71:5-6, 139:13-16; Jer 1:5; Luke 1:39-45; Gal 1:15). That is, humans
are humans while in the womb, from conception. Humans are made in the image of God, unlike any other
creatures in God’s world. This is why
God regards the killing of a human being as qualitatively different from the
killing of an animal. In Genesis9:3, God gives man the right to kill “every moving thing” for food. However, regarding the killing of man,
He says,“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed, for God
made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6).
Because the Bible treats the unborn as persons made in the
image of God, and because the killing of those made in the image of God
requires the death penalty, it should be no surprise to find a passage like
Exodus 21:22-25, which condemns to death anyone who causes the miscarriage of a
pregnancy or the premature birth and subsequent death of a baby. In biblical terms, causing the death of
a human being, whether in the womb or after birth, calls for “life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exo 21:23-25).
This is the moral argument against abortion. It is wrong to take innocent human life. If that is an inviolable principle,
there is no room for the exceptions that we find in modern abortion bans. It is difficult to imagine something
more traumatic than enduring rape or incest. Carrying a pregnancy that results from one of these crimes
would be even more difficult. So
the argument against these exceptions is not intended to minimize the pain of
these experiences. However, the
question that must be asked is this: are human beings who are conceived as a result of
rape or incest not created in the image of God? The answer is obvious.
They are undoubtedly created in God’s image. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill them. The same can be said of those
pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother and those that involve “highly
lethal fetal disorders.” These
human beings are also created in the image of God. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill them.
By passing abortion bans that contain these exceptions, we
weaken our argument by violating the inviolable principle that undergirds it. Man’s being created in the image of God
is the foundation of the argument that it is morally wrong to take innocent human
life. When we make exceptions in
cases where the image of God is not in question, we silently testify that the
image of God is not the foundation of
our argument. This leaves the
argument with no foundation at all.
Like a house from which the floor joists have been removed, the argument
will collapse. The result will be
that the lines we refuse to cross become completely arbitrary.
It is perfectly normal to feel some sense of emotional
conflict over such extreme cases of pregnancy. But we must base our positions and arguments on Scripture,
not on emotion. We serve a God who
sovereignly and routinely brings about great good out of horrendous evil (Gen 50:15-21). He is the One whose “grace is
sufficient” to see us through any trial (2 Cor 12:9).
While the Arkansas legislature deserves credit for seeking
to limit the availability of abortion, a more careful look at our guiding
principles would do much to strengthen the pro-life cause.
Posted by Greg Birdwell
Comments