Christianity, Abortion, and Women’s Rights (A Mature Discussion)
I don’t see this topic being discussed very well, anywhere. Of course, the internet has more articles/blog entries/etc. about abortion than you can shake a stick at, but most of them are just filled with angry, politicized ranting. Since I started this website in order to have better conversations, it’s high time I started this one.
Christians who view abortion as the murder of an infant naturally seek to avoid it.
I wouldn’t put an infant to death because I didn’t want it, and I think that the same thing applies to an infant who happens to still be in the womb. It’s unfair for that innocent life to be killed for our convenience. Who am I to decide who lives and who dies just because a pregnancy was unexpected, or unwanted? That’s no cause for killing.
But what about women’s rights?
This is where things get rough, of course. When I tell people that I’m against abortion, they reply with, “why do you hate women?” Years ago, this confused me, because no one ever bothered to explain what they were talking about. I would end up scratching my head while my conversation partner was singing Helen Reddy songs.
They were upset because they assumed that I would tell a mother that she would have to die in the event that the baby’s birth threatened her health. Why would I do that? I wouldn’t. Again, who am I to decide who lives or who dies? I don’t have that privilege (and I don’t want it).
If a mother’s life is threatened, then I don’t see any reason not to preserve her life. For one thing, she can have more children this way. In my opinion, her life is just as valuable as the child’s, so there is no way to choose. In fact, in that situation there is no right answer – it’s a tragedy and everyone is a victim. There’s no mandate that says a woman needs to die, and I think that it’s unfair to assume that someone who protests casual abortion is the same as someone who would sentence a woman to death because of pregnancy complications.
So, just to be sure we’re all on the same page, I don’t hate women (half of the babies I’m trying to save are female, after all), and I don’t insist that a woman must die if her baby might kill her during the birth. I’m not a monster.
What about children who might be born with Down Syndrome?
It shouldn’t surprise you, by now, that I don’t think Down Syndrome (or any other birth defect) is a strong enough reason to kill a baby. They are just as precious and worthy as any other child. Or, do you think that only healthy, intelligent babies should be allowed to live?
What about rape victims?
Rape victims have undergone a horrible nightmare that will probably haunt them for the rest of their lives. But, killing the unborn baby is not going to change that. The baby is innocent in all of this, and many people in our world were born as the product of rape. (It might shock you to know how common this sort of thing is, or how many people you might know who were born this way – those people are thankful that they were allowed to live despite their unfortunate conception.) I can’t stress enough how much sympathy I have for a rape victim, but it doesn’t give us a reason to end the child’s life. That just adds another victim to the crime.
Conclusion
Abortion needs to be avoided. We should work against ending the lives of infants because it’s wrong to take their lives in our own hands. Those who cannot fight for their own survival always need our help, and I believe we must extend that to the unborn.
Furthermore, more women would keep their children if we didn’t talk about pregnancies like they were some kind of scandal. Be sure that your friends and family members can be comfortable keeping a baby (or a pregnant belly) around and don’t make them feel like they are being criticized for it.
(In keeping with my theme of having a “mature discussion,” feel free to disagree with me in the comment section – just do it like a grown up.)
Related Posts
About The Author
umm… thanks. I’ve had a some nasty looks by people after I tell them I had a tubal pregnancy. They look at me as if I’m not supposed to be standing there. I don’t wish the experience on anyone… but if i hadn’t done it my husband would have been raising our two little boys by himself. My third son would never have been born.
Thanks, Adam. I’m encouraged to see these two issues being talked about in the same breath — abortion and women’s rights.
The reason I’m glad to see you linking them is that I do see some pro-life folks who talk about the inherent value or the image of God in the fetus, but then who turn around and treat women involved as if they are less than fully human!
It’s hard to balance the desire to save a life at all costs while also upholding the God-given value and dignity of the women involved. For if I insist on the image of God for one group (fetuses) while de facto denying it for another group (women seeking abortions) through my actions, how is that honoring to God?
All this is making me quite troubled in thinking through much of the health care bills regarding women’s health that are being discussed in various state congresses. Hmmmm, perhaps a blog entry is coming up …
All that to say, I’m really really glad you linked the two issues, rather than talking about how we view abortion as something separate from how we view the women involved.
Adam, although I agree with what you said, I am not sure that those are the exact issues involved with abortion and women’s rights. It is very easy to make an exception for an abortion if it would endanger the mother, most people would understand such a situation, but most abortions aren’t like that. As for the down syndrome babies, people considering abortions for them are simply being selfish.
Pregnancy for non-married people IS a scandal to many, because it is absolute proof of pre-marital sex, something that our culture both glamorizes and shames. Abstinence is of course the easiest way to deal with this, but not everyone feels that way. Females who become impregnated have to face the consequences of that, and they are rather unpleasant. So there will always be those who would rather kill the child than face the reality of those shameful consequences. Perhaps this is a cultural problem, perhaps not. So, for those who claim “women’s rights” does a woman have the right to have sex without the “consequence” of human life?
The other rationale that would appear to be common is financial inability to raise a child. Children are expensive, and parents are expected to pay for their costs until they are 18. If a family could not afford a child, it is very hard to say that they are wrong to wish for it not to come in to the world in that situation. It may not be an immediate life or death issue, but financial stress could mean the child doesn’t get the care (especially healthcare) it needs to grow up properly. I’m not really sure how that applies to women’s rights, but I’m sure a better feminist than I would be able to argue something about that…
Good points, Chardonney.
First of all, public humiliation is a serious problem for a young lady, and shame on anyone who looks down a girl for being pregnant. That’s exactly why no one should criticize a lady for being with child – it might force her into having an abortion. No one should feel that kind of shame. But this is a societal problem that we have wandered into. Should I consider abortion to be OK because the mother didn’t want to be embarrassed? This situation is obviously unfair to the mother, but the death of the innocent child is even more unfair. It’s very childish for anyone to shame a woman for being pregnant.
You asked, “…does a woman have the right to have sex without the “consequence” of human life?” As we all know, Sex makes babies, and that creates an unfair burden on the woman in the situation if a baby is unexpected. But, this unfairness is not a strong enough reason to end a child’s life. If someone is not prepared to deal with the well-known biological consequences of sexual activity, then perhaps they should abstain. (Again, I regret how unfair this is for women. It must seem easy for a man to say such things, but, I assure you, I recognize the inequality of it all.)
Concerning poverty, I would rather see a child raised by poor parents than see it’s life taken away. Also, adoption agencies exist almost primarily to take care of the children that would otherwise have been aborted. (Like me. Most of my friends are glad that I was put up for adoption rather than being aborted.) Adoption isn’t always a perfect solution, but it’s better than ending the baby’s life for fear of financial worries.
I appreciate this post, Adam. In thinking about women’s rights and unplanned pregnancies (perhaps particularly among lower socio-economic women and teens), I think we’d have fewer abortions if we had fewer such pregnancies, and we’d have fewer such pregnancies if there were some legislation in place requiring paternity tests and child support. It’s dumb that only divorced folks have to be financially responsible for the children they make and abandon (not that all divorced dads do this). I could be wrong, but it seems likely to me that if men had to share the (financial) consequence of pregnancy and child rearing there’d be less unprotected sex, fewer unplanned pregnancies, and fewer abortions.
I realize no legislation is ever going to be a quick and easy cure-all. But I think it’d be a good start toward actually protecting (young urban and rural poor) women’s rights, which proliferating abortions largely does not do. What do you think, Adam?
Agreed. I’m not the sort of person who likes big government action, but babies should be protected from dads who are going to run out on them. Although, I’m not sure exactly how that law should look. It might not be the sort of thing that can be done since there would be so many complications. But, it’s the innocent children who we must protect.