|
|
The Case For the
Morality of Legal Abortion and
Against Biblical Condemnation
|
(Be aware, a graphic picture is included
in this presentation)
|
|
Elective Abortion: a Personal Decision or
an Objective Moral Wrong?
|
|
Peggy Loonan, Executive
Director and Founder of Life
and Liberty for Women challenged anti-abortion
extremist Scott Klusendorf, Director of Bio-ethics
at Stand to Reason based in California to a debate
At Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado
on November 15, 2000. |
|
This debate gave me the
opportunity to not only make Life
and Liberty for Women's case that Roe vs.
Wade correctly and morally balanced the right to
life and liberty of woman and fetus, but the opportunity
to begin to change the language, strategy, and landscape
of the abortion debate. It also presented the opportunity
to re-introduce radicalism and pro-activism into
the way the abortion rights movement approaches
the defense and protection of Roe vs. Wade. |
|
It gave me the opportunity
to make the case |
|
|
that the guidelines set
forth in Roe vs. Wade for elective abortion does
not violate God's laws as set forth in Biblical
doctrine, is not a sin nor immoral. I dispel the
notion that God condemns the killing of innocent
human life in elective abortion under Roe vs. Wade's
specific guidelines. |
|
This writing sets forth
a new bold radical and pro-active approach to defending
and protecting Roe vs. Wade as well as a new foundation
of logic and reason from which to argue for safe
and legal abortion, putting the abortion rights
movement on firmer ground from which to argue for
Roe vs. Wade, as is without any restrictions, to
moderate republicans and independents who support
restrictions like parental notice, so-called partial
birth abortion bans, 24-hour waiting periods, and
mandatory counseling. |
|
|
|
Most women who died pre-Roe didn't die by
the hand of some back alley butcher,
though there were some, most died from self-induced abortion.
|
|
The current anti-abortion
movement is seen as leaving the woman out of the
picture - conception to birth - and the current
abortion rights movement is seen as leaving the
fetus out of the picture - conception to birth and
we've failed to make the public hear us and understand
that simply isn't true of our position or of Roe.
Our failure is a function of the logic, reasoning,
strategy, and language we've used to defend Roe
that is more than ineffective, it has actually lead
to the "chipping away" of Roe and it will lead to
Roe vs. Wade's demise, sooner than later, if we
don't properly and strongly make our case and make
it now. |
|
To that end I allowed
Klusendorf two and a half minutes of the typical
video of allegedly aborted fetuses. What
he and the audience, mostly, as is these days, filled
with enthusiastic and dedicated anti-abortion supporters
did not know and was not prepared for was a 30 X
40 very graphic picture of the result of illegal
abortion that also was revealing of the truth about
the days before Roe vs. Wade. That truth: most women
who died pre-Roe didn't die by the hand of some
back alley |
|
|
butcher, though there
were some, most died from self-induced abortion.
(that picture is included below) |
|
For the remainder of the
debate this picture starred back at the audience.
It vividly made the point I was making verbally,
that the lives of two human beings were under consideration
here, and that neither could be left out of the
picture and furthermore, it was Roe that accomplished
that. |
|
Please read carefully
and critically the following and contact me at Life
and Liberty for Women with your comments.
|
|
Please feel free to
contact me about arranging for me to present these
points to your organization, class, board of directors,
or as a guest at your organization's fund raiser. |
|
(In addition to the $750.00
speaking fee which goes directly into Life
and Liberty for Women's (LLW) general fund
- LLW Requires all transportation and lodging costs
be paid.) |
|
|
|
Elective Abortion Is A Personal Decision
AND
----- Under Roe vs. Wade ----
Elective Abortion Is An Objective Moral RIGHT.
|
|
My first premises is:
Balancing the right to life and liberty of woman
and fetus is morally right.
|
|
Believing in the morality
of legal abortion and the immorality of illegal
abortion, our American Society refuses to allow
all abortions to be made illegal. |
|
In an article in the Christian
Research Journal, Scott said, "When it comes to
first trimester abortion, polling data suggests
the public has indeed resolved the issue, but it
hardly agrees with us. A whopping, 62% support the
practice because they don't think the unborn at
that |
|
|
age of development are
human persons." |
|
Scott is right that the
public has resolved this issue in their mind- but,
I would argue, not because they DON'T think the
fetus is a human being - THEY do indeed believe
it is - BUT rather because they believe that both
a woman and fetus has a right to life and liberty.
|
|
Mainstream America recognizes
that women will do desperate and dangerous things
to themselves to terminate their unintended pregnancies,
law or no law. Mainstream American values will never
again accept the death of the born woman from illegal
abortion. |
|
|
|
Illegality affected the safety of abortion
but it never
affected the number of abortions that were performed.
|
|
The name of the woman
pictured below is Gerri Twerdy Santoro. She was
just 28 years old. She was a sister, a daughter,
and she was the mother of two daughters when she
died a very painful and frightening death. |
|
This New York coroner's
picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973.
When Gerri's picture appeared in MS, no one knew
her name or all the circumstances that surrounded
her death from an illegal abortion. While it was
assumed that she died at the hands of a back alley
butcher, the family later confirmed that she died
the way most women died before Roe vs. Wade legalized
abortion in this country in 1973; she died from
a self-induced abortion attempt. |
|
Gerri was estranged from
her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and
became pregnant by him. Terrified that once her
abusive husband returned to town and learned it
was Dixon's baby she was carrying, he would kill
her. She was determined and desperate to end her
unintended pregnancy. That desperation and determination
made her akin to thousands upon thousands of women
in those days that were desperate and determined
enough to terminate their unintended pregnancies
in spite of the fact that abortion was illegal.
Illegality affected the safety of abortion but it
never affected the number of abortions that were
performed. |
|
|
Gerri was 6 ½ months pregnant
in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical
book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They
went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the
abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went
terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her
there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel
room. She was bleeding profusely and tried with
towels to stop it but she couldn't. How frightened
she must have been, knowing she was going to die.
She was found like this, on her stomach with her
knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude,
alone and dead. |
|
Two lives were needlessly
and sadly lost here. This horrible sad picture of
death makes clear that illegal abortion not only
harms and kills women, it has never ever saved one
baby. |
|
 |
|
|
|
American Society's responsibility to obtain
the highest good is satisfied
by the balancing of the right to life and liberty of woman
and fetus
|
|
John G. Crandall, a colleague
of Scott's at "Stand to Reason," wrote a-piece that
made reference to the principal of beneficence,
applying it to a scenario in which an abortion was
necessary to save a woman's life threatened by a
tubular pregnancy. That principal, Crandall relates,
requires that we obtain the highest good. An abortion
is necessary to save one life, the mothers, where
two lives would be lost without it. Better to save
one life than to lose two." |
|
However, I would argue,
that anti-abortion extremism blinds these folks
to the extension and application of this principle
to legal abortion vs. illegal abortion, as Mainstream
America believes it should be applied. |
|
American Society's responsibility
to obtain the highest good is satisfied by the balancing
of the right to life and liberty of woman and fetus
and that illegal abortion, is unacceptable, unconscionable,
wrong, and immoral. |
|
It's important to discuss
why women decide to terminate their pregnancies.
After all, tonight's debate question suggests that
because elective abortion involves a personal decision
to terminate human life, it must be judged, out
of hand, as a moral wrong. Yet, our American |
|
|
Societal values do not
accept that out of hand judgment. |
|
Leslie Cannold, in the
1998 book, "The Abortion Myth", captures
what an elective abortion decision is about for
women. She says, " It is the importance of the relationship
between herself and her fetus that forms the basis
of her decision to continue the pregnancy and become
a mother, or to have an abortion. To say that the
fetus is valuable to the woman as a being that could
be her child, is very different from agreeing with
the anti-choice view that the fetus is intrinsically
and independently valuable. When women consider
the futures of their fetuses, their understanding
of the dependency of babies and children ensures
that they do not conceive of this future abstractly,
but as being intertwined with their own." |
|
A woman may not be prepared
to be a loving, committed, and involved parent because
she is trying to finish her education, has other
children, the child's father would be AWOL, she's
a battered spouse, or she isn't emotionally or financially
prepared to be a parent. |
|
|
|
Mainstream America appreciates and respects
the serious consideration
women give to what a child's quality of life would be once
born
|
|
Mainstream America appreciates
and respects the serious consideration women give
to what a child's quality of life would be once
born and doesn't find any of those considerations
to be frivolous reasons for terminating their pregnancy
and therefore these considerations do not signal
for Mainstream America, the immorality of killing
innocent human life. |
|
Each one of the 3 options
to an unintended pregnancy, adoption included, has
very serious lifelong emotional consequences to
consider. |
|
In her book, Leslie Cannold
said, "An Australian Institute of Family Studies
report on 213 mothers who relinquished a child for
adoption found that: 'the effects of relinquishment
on the mother are negative and long-lasting. Cannold
says, Women who have surrendered their children
for adoption report problems with their health,
their marriages, and their fertility. And I would
add, that an adopted child may or may not be afforded
a loving and committed family and some adopted children
suffer psychological and self-esteem problems as
a result of having been |
|
|
given away, regardless
of whether they have a loving adoptive family. |
|
Next - a discussion of
the balancing of the right to life and liberty of
woman and fetus, is not complete without a few words
about what the Christian God thinks about all of
this - after all it is to this higher power many
anti-abortion stalwarts turn to justify their attempt
to convince the public, and convince women, that
the fetus has a right to life and liberty over a
woman, conception to birth, no exceptions. |
|
God never speaks to elective
abortion, neither justifying it nor condemning it.
It's very curious that as overriding as anti-abortion
extremists make the life of the fetus as compared
to the life of the woman, that their own God, who
spoke on other critical issues, did not speak in
clear terms to elective abortion much less declare
it an objective moral wrong. |
|
First, while God views
the fetus as a human being, and alive as opposed
to dead, it becomes clear that for him - A born
woman has a right to life and liberty over a fetus,
conception to birth - no exceptions. |
|
|
|
...for him, {God},
a born woman has a right to life and liberty over a fetus,
conception to birth - no exceptions.
|
|
We can conclude that from
the following:
God was deliberately silent on elective abortion.
He explicitly designated the moment of birth
as being the moment to celebrate the official beginning
of human life (Gen. 2:7).
And thirdly: From God's example of how he
sees the relationship between the born human being
and the unborn human being, or between a woman and
her fetus contained in Exodus 21. |
|
In Exodus 21: 22-25, reading
from the Revised Standard Version, God said: "When
men strive together and hurt a woman with a child,
so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows,
the one who hurt her- (speaking of the woman) -
shall be fined, according as the woman's husband
shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine." Verse 23 then says, "If any harm follows,
then you shall give eye for an eye, tooth for a
tooth, and life for life." |
|
Let me be clear here:
These verses did not speak to the justification
or condemnation of elective abortion - but they
do speak to God's view of the relationship between
the born |
|
|
human being, the woman,
and the unborn human being, the fetus, and that
is critical to understanding why God never spoke
of elective abortion let alone condemning it or
declaring it an objective moral wrong. |
|
First, I will not argue
that in these verses the penalty difference for
harming the woman vs. the fetus has anything to
do with the fetus being less than fully human. In
fact, the fetus is a human being. |
|
Now Scott himself concedes
In a 1995 piece he wrote called "Answering the Theological
Case for Abortion Rights, that it might be argued
from these verses, that the unborn child had a lesser
social status in Hebrew society, BUT I would extend
that argument and say that not only did the fetus
have a lesser social status in the society, but
that God, by choosing the actual moment of birth
as the official point of recognition and celebration
of the beginning of human life, has judged that
a born woman's life would take precedence over that
of an unborn fetuses life, even though it's clear
here, that God, regards a fetus as a human being
in the womb and "alive" as opposed to dead. |
|
|
|
That is very different than considering
the loss of the fetus for,
and only for, the sake of the loss of fetal life itself.
|
|
The verses in Exodus are
clear. A woman is hurt when two men are fighting.
This woman is pregnant. If she miscarries as a result
of this violence, but she does not suffer any other
harm or death, those men will be punished by a fine
for causing the miscarriage or death of the fetus.
However, if any harm to the woman follows, that
is if the woman is injured beyond the miscarriage
or is killed as a result of this violence, then
that deed is to be punished by an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth or a life for a life. |
|
But further, in Scott's
'95 writing, he tries to argue that the woman and
fetus are both covered by the law of retribution
by suggesting that the phrase "and yet no injury
or harm follows," is meant to cover both the woman
and the fetus. He gets to that conclusion by arguing
that the expression (lah) meaning [to her], which
would restrict the word injury only to the mother,
is missing in the sentence, thus making the phrase
applicable to both the mother and the child equally.
But the facts just don't support that very tortuous
conclusion. |
|
|
First, language that would
specifically restrict the word hurt to the woman
isn't required to make the point God made here.
The phrase 'with child' is merely descriptive of
the woman and does not change the object of the
word injury or hurt - that being the subject of
the sentence - the woman. |
|
Secondly, the verses provide
for retribution or punishment for evil done, to
the woman's husband, not for evil done to the woman
herself or to the fetus itself, because the law
considered the loss of the fetus or any harm done
to the woman or the loss of the woman's life, as
damage to or loss of property that belonged to the
husband. |
|
That is very different
than considering the loss of the fetus for and only
for the sake of the loss of fetal life itself, which
is what Scott and anti-abortion extremists desperately
try to extrapolate from these verses. |
|
|
|
God also had a different view of the morality
of killing innocent
human life than current day anti-abortion extremists
|
|
We can even apply here,
Scott's own standard that we consider, and I quote,
"interpreting scripture within its own intellectual
and cultural framework without reading into it a
foreign worldview," unquote. Dr. Roy Bowen Ward
a professor of religion and affiliate in women's
studies at Miami University, in Oxford Ohio, points
out that God's view of the born woman having status
over the unborn fetus was also reflected in the
Code of Hammurabi, 209 and 210 and The Hittite Laws,
1:17. Hammurabi said, for example, that if a seignior
struck another seignior's daughter and caused a
miscarriage, he would pay ten shekels of silver
for her fetus. However, if the woman had died, they
would put his daughter to death. |
|
Next - what if the fetus
was miscarried and the woman lost an eye, several
teeth, and an arm? Injury or harm has befallen both
the woman and fetus. According to Scott's interpretation,
what would the remedy be? The perpetrator would
what - lose an eye, several teeth, an arm and then
his life? The reason that sounds ludicrous is because
the loss of the fetus was |
|
|
to draw only a fine and then - if the woman
was hurt or was killed - then the perpetrator
was to loose an eye for eye, tooth for a tooth,
arm for an arm or a life for a life. logic dictates
that the phrase and yet no further damage or harm
follows, applies to the woman and only to the
woman.
|
|
And finally, under Scott's
interpretation, a premature birth of a healthy fetus
would not require ANY punishment for evil done to
the woman's husband, because - no evil would have
been done - now would it? But it is very clear in
these verses that a fine for something is being
required. |
|
But let's not stop here.
|
|
God also had a different
view of the morality of killing innocent human life
than current day anti-abortion extremists, one that
we cannot ignore when we discuss elective abortion
as the killing of innocent human life for what anti-abortion
extremists would term "frivolous reasons." |
|
|
|
God intended to leave the decision of elective
abortion in the hands of the born woman
|
|
In Exodus 12 God killed
the entire first born of Egypt from the innocent
child seconds out of the birth canal to the old
woman seconds from a natural death for - vengeance
- for what would be termed in the judgment of modern
day anti-abortion extremists, as the selfish needs
of the born. |
|
Additionally, in II Kings
2:23-24 God set a bear upon 42 innocent children
just for teasing a prophet. And again for the sake
of vengeance - In I Samuel 15:3 and Isaiah 13:18
God killed innocent children, infants, and innocent
unborn babies. And in Hosea 9:14, to punish Israel
for their impiety and idolatry, God caused abortions
upon their innocent unborn babies by giving the
Israelites "Miscarrying Wombs." |
|
|
We can conclude that God
placed the right to life and liberty of the born
woman over that of her fetus, conception to birth,
with no exceptions. |
|
We can also conclude that
it is not at all likely that God ever intended to
condemn elective abortion as an objective moral
wrong, though it involves the intentional killing
of innocent human life - and more over, based on
what I laid out here, it is with great certaintity
that we can say that God intended to leave the decision
of elective abortion in the hands of the born woman,
whose right to life and liberty he deemed paramount
to that of the fetus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roe vs. Wade's guidelines for elective abortion,
correctly and
morally balances the right to life and liberty of woman and
fetus.
|
|
Now to my second premise:
Roe vs. Wade's guidelines for elective abortion,
correctly and morally balances the right to life
and liberty of woman and fetus. |
|
Roe vs. Wade says:
In the first trimester the government may
not interfere in a woman's decision to terminate
her pregnancy leaving that decision to a woman in
consultation with her doctor.
In the second trimester - which is still
before viability - the government may only step
in to protect the health and life of the woman.
However, after the point of viability, in
the third trimester or in the 7,8, or ninth month,
when it is possible for a fetus to survive outside
the womb, the government can seek to protect fetal
life by banning abortions - with the only exceptions
being to protect a woman's life and health. |
|
In "Abortion: The Clash
of Absolutes," Constitutional Lawyer Laurence Tribe
says, "That despite all the criticism of Roe vs.
Wade, it is a decision that sees abortion much |
|
|
the way that most Americans
see it: with moral and legal consideration both
for the woman and for the fetus.
The Decision drew lines precisely because the Court
recognized what most people recognize: that the
picture must include both the interest of the fetus
and the interest of the pregnant woman. It could
have simply found either that women have an absolute
right to control their bodies or that a state's
interest in the fetus completely trumps a woman's
liberty in all circumstances. But," he continues,
"How many of us who do not hold the extreme positions
of the most vocal participants in the abortion debate
would have been content with either result?" |
|
Tribe says that Supreme
Court Justice Harry Blackmun, "concluded, ultimately,
that the state's interest becomes compelling enough
to trump a woman's right to make a basic life-altering
decision only at the point of viability." Concluding,
Tribe says, "Roe vs. Wade reflects the widely shared
sense that we should erase neither the fetus nor
the woman from the picture our law presents." |
|
|
|
God saw a born human being woman as having
a right to life and
liberty over an unborn human being fetus, from conception
to birth
|
|
Well: What is clear here?
|
|
First, We can be clear
that God saw a born human being woman as having
a right to life and liberty over an unborn human
being fetus, from conception to birth, no exceptions.
|
|
Second - it's clear that
modern day Anti-abortion extremists believe just
the opposite, that a fetus has a right to life and
liberty over a woman conception to birth - many
believing without exception - |
|
But guess what folks?
|
|
It's Roe vs. Wade that
is in the middle - that takes the life and liberty
of both the woman and fetus into consideration by
correctly and morally balancing the right to life
and liberty of woman and fetus through the setting
of specific guidelines for legal elective abortion.
|
|
|
It's Roe vs. Wade that
respects and reflects American Society's moral judgment
and values about legal and illegal abortion, by
appropriately applying societies value of the principal
of beneficence. |
|
What has been clearly evidenced here is that:
Intentionally killing an innocent human being
is not always a moral wrong and while elective
abortion is both a personal decision and the intentional
killing of an innocent human being - elective
abortion is not an objective moral wrong - but
rather - elective abortion, under Roe vs. Wade,
is an objective moral right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|