Why Churches Permit Special-Case Abortions … What Does It Mean, Really?

Full disclosure: Not Your Typical Pro-lifer

I’m pro-life but I believe that the issues surrounding prenatal life are so complex and important that we need more than just the blunt force of law, and maybe even less of that blunt force and more careful analysis, to make the right decision each time on a case by case basis in these delicate matters.

Okay, I have strong libertarian leanings too, which should help explain my above-stated position on that matter.

Anyway, because of those leanings I think there are perhaps more productive and beneficial ways to stop abortions than simply making the law decide in all cases. Also, I do think the life of the unborn certainly should be appreciated in a way that many Roe V. Wade supporters don’t appreciate.

For that reason I’ve written multiple pro-life articles online and even to be published in newspapers (yeah, remember those things?). I’ve also individually tried to talk more than one person out of getting an abortion, and many times have tried to personally persuade pro-choice advocates, one-on-one, to think more critically about their position. I’d go so far as saying I’ve done more to forward the pro-life agenda than most people I know, certainly more than voting for some pro-life candidate does (which, depending on the “pro-life” candidate, voting for them can even do the pro-life cause more harm than good).

But I admit that I’ve been troubled by the black and white way people tend to think on this subject, and I too once equated the abortion of a recently conceived child with say the murder of a full-term child. Then something changed me.

The Thought Experiment That Changed Me

I’m speaking about the case where a Church has to justify it’s position to allow Special-Case abortions. There are inferences we can make from that allowance which are worth further consideration, and that’s what I’d like to explore here.

Special-case abortions are those cases of rape or the mother’s health wherein abortion might not be considered murder, but just a procedure to rectify a problem. Murder, of course, is the “unforgivable sin”, it’s about the worst thing anyone can do. Calling abortion murder passes pretty severe judgement on the act, and on the person doing the abortion, as well as on the person having the abortion.

So the question I’d like the reader to then consider is “what inferences can we make from this exception?”, especially in the case of rape. If the church says that taking the life of an unborn child in the case of rape is okay, then what does it mean about the worth or value of that life to be taken?

In order to give my question more impact and to help you, the reader, think out of the box, please consider this odd case (but which does happen, with surprising frequency):

The situation: A girl who was raped doesn’t know or refuses to come to terms with the fact that she is pregnant, until at some point it is undeniable and the baby is full-term, she may even learn upon having the baby. Upon doing so she is devastated beyond belief, and the consequences for her at that point are just as severe as it would have been for the rape-victim who had learned early on if she too had to go full-term and have the baby.

In this case the majority of the unjust sacrifices and mental anguish foisted upon her from this tragedy, this crime, occurs as the baby develops full-term and is born. The miscarraige of justice toward the mother continually gets worse unabated over the course of those nine months, and then adds insult to injury from that point on. So if the justification for the abortion comes from that injustice, then the justification to terminate that child’s life seems to still exists for a fully-developed late-term baby.

Now that point is central to this thought experiment, if you did not get it then please go back and read the previous paragraph.

In other words, all other things being equal, why wouldn’t the church allow the already-born child, or at least the late-term child in this situation to be terminated like it would the recently fertilized egg? There is no known doctrine, at least substantiated by scripture, that gives preference to the life of the fully-developed child.

Except that no church would sanction the termination of a fully-developed baby. And why not? Because, despite all the pro-life claims that a recently fertilized human egg has equal status to a fully-developed child in the eyes of God, it’s simply not true. In short, in the eyes of God (or at least the eyes of the church), the value of the life of the fully-developed vs the 3-month gestated baby are not equal.

Now, for me, the conclusion that we grow from nearly insignificant to greater significance should be intuitive. One’s value as a child of God increases as they become more like God (something we’re all supposed to work toward)… and when you consider this little mass of embryonic cells shortly after conception: It’s not much like God.

In fact this criteria should be our judgement as to the value of a life …how much is it like God? I would venture to say most animals, as an interdependent part of a living ecosystem that is aware of and respects the other parts of that system, and supports that circle of life, is more like God than a mass of entirely dependent mostly formless collection of cells who’s sole function is to multiply, at the expense to everything around it.

In short, if the church is anyone’s guide, then they should let their church’s actions in this matter be the greater teacher. And so let us individually, at least show compassion that most churches are willing to show in the recognition that these matters are complicated, and requires a recognition that godliness is not ordained by mere genetic potential. Then we can intelligently and thoughtfully administer these matters individually, which the brutality of even the best written state laws are incapable of doing.