A Life but Still Allowed to Abort? An Abortion Argument to Be Aware of for Our Conversations and Prayers

Some abortion advocates agree that the baby in the womb is alive. They even agree that the baby is a person. Yet they still hold that abortion is morally permissible.

For example, David Boonin, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, in his book dedicated to this topic, A Defense of Abortion, writes, “Even if the typical human fetus does have a right to life, this does not suffice to establish that abortion in typical circumstances is morally impermissible” (A Defense of Abortion, 276).

How can he make such a claim? By utilizing an argument focusing not mainly on life itself, but on the woman’s choice to provide life support. I encourage us to listen carefully to his words, because such argumentation is the rationale of some pro-choice supporters and it impacts our conversations and prayers on the issue. Boonin explains,

“From the moral point of view…a woman who carries a pregnancy to term is like a person who generously offers at some considerable cost to herself to provide what another needs but does not have the right to, while a woman who declines to carry a pregnancy to term is like a person who declines to offer such assistance” (133).

In other words,

“The fetus’s right to life does not include or entail the right to be provided with the use or the continued use of whatever is needed in order for it to go on living…The right to life does not include or entail the right to life support” (137, emphasis added).

In this way, Boonin—and other pro-choice supporters like him—can argue that “abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus does have the same right to life as you or I” (138).

In such a view the baby is alive. The baby even has a right to life. And yet, the baby morally can be aborted.

This is alarming.

Our Usual Defense of the Pro-Life Position

When we as Christians usually defend the pro-life position, we often use two main arguments, focusing on the life and personhood of the child.

First, we defend from God’s word the baby is alive and a person. This is right, good, and godly. Passages as Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13, Exodus 21:22-25, and Luke 1:44 explain that the child in the womb is alive. He or she is a person, a human being, as God-imaging as any one of us.

Second, we champion the life of the baby using science. This also is correct and helpful. A human life begins at conception. We develop and grow from day one.

In sum, the two-pronged argument we usually use is: 1) God in the Bible says the baby in the womb is a living human being, 2) science supports that the fetus is a living baby. So, both from God’s word and science we rightly argue that we must not kill the babies, just like we must not kill each other.

These two points are true, good, common-sense, and defendable.

But What If They Agree The Baby is a Person and Alive?

Yet by arguing this route alone, we assume that all pro-choice supporters deny the life or personhood of the baby. But, like Boonin above, some accept the life and personhood of the baby. (To be clear, I am not saying we should stop making the above defenses. We should and must continue defending the baby’s life. These arguments are convincing. But if we argue this way alone, we may overlook some pro-choice advocates’ reasoning.)

And David Boonin is an example, but he’s not alone:

• The Washington Times in 2015 reported that “Two thirds of Americans believe that ‘fetuses in the womb are people’—that includes 80 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of Democrats.” In other words, two thirds of Americans agree the baby is a person.
• Dr. Willie Parker, an OBGYN who performs abortions, affirmed in an Esquire interview, “This piece of life—and remember, sperm is alive, eggs are alive, it’s all life—is still totally dependent on a woman. And that dependence puts it in the domain of her choice.” (Parker, though, does deny the personhood of the fetus, but he agrees on life.)
• Camille Paglia, a pro-choice university humanities professor, in an article over at Salon, commented, “I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful…which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body.”
• David Boonin himself is following in the footsteps of Judith Jarvis Thomson, who in her 1971 article, “A Defense of Abortion,” originally used similar life-support argumentation.

Supporting the Baby (or Not)?

So, some pro-choice supporters do agree the baby is alive, even a person. And moreover, although we can assume that these advocates must simply be inconsistent in their argument—self-contradictory or denying the implications of life—that is often not the issue either. As we heard briefly above, and as we’ll see below, they have logical reasoning to support their claims.

How? They emphasize the mother herself, the baby’s dependence on the mother, and the mother’s choice to support the baby or not. Such a rationale is about the mother and her decision to continue supporting the baby (or not) since the baby’s life depends on her.

We saw this exemplified with Boonin above. It isn’t a question about whether the human baby is alive or not—many pro-choice supporters agree the baby is a person and alive. Rather, the issue for them is about whether the mother should maintain that baby’s life. This is a (twisted) key difference, and it matters for our conversations and prayers.

An Illustration of the Rationale

A pro-choice adherent might explain it this way. Imagine you randomly walked into a hospital room, and a person on a hospital bed was soon to die unless you decided to go through surgery and give them your kidney. They had some rare condition where they needed a kidney now, and only your kidney could save their life.

The pro-choice argument follows: Is it required of you to go under and give your kidney for this person? Or more specifically, can the government force you to do so?

They assert that, of course, the government cannot. The government cannot coerce you to sacrifice your body to save another person. You have the right to choose to do it or not. Furthermore, they say that if you choose to not give them your kidney, it shouldn’t be said you killed them. You’re merely allowing them to die.

Concerning abortion, then, they argue that although the baby’s very life depends on the mother, she has the choice to save the life or not. The government cannot tell her what to do since it’s her body and her choice. And if she does not decide to sacrifice her body, she isn’t charged with “murder”; she’s only deciding to not support the life.

Again notice the argument here is not about whether the baby’s life is a life, or even a person (and so, our typical arguments which prove life fall flat). Their argument instead is about whether the mother must continue to sustain the life. Or as Boonin says, whether the baby’s life is the same as the baby’s right to “life support.”

What Do We Do With Such Reasoning?

This type of argument is perhaps more prominent than we know, especially as more are recognizing the science supporting life. So how do we as Christians respond to such reasoning? In three ways.

1. We Acknowledge the (Twisted) Rationale

We should begin by acknowledging their logic and rationale. Once again, in such reasoning, they are not denying the life, nor even personhood, of the baby. Instead, they are using an argument to defend their “right” to not support the baby’s life.

With this, we are right to point out that although their argument may be consistent and logical to some degree, it still is twisted and evil. They can use extreme situations that do not equally apply—since the baby in the womb is not dying as in the kidney illustration and would live unless actively “terminated.” And then they can argue that the mother has the choice to keep the baby alive or not, to support the baby or not—and in this way, they are able to say that it isn’t mainly a “killing,” but a “terminating,” a “no-longer-supporting.”

But we know this doesn’t hold. It’s a twisted justification. It’s merely rationalizing the situation in a twisted way. And as a result, babies die.

2. We Take Note of the Root: The Inflation of the Self

Second, after we recognize their argument, we then should take careful note about the real root of the issue: To such pro-choice advocates, the root issue isn’t the life of the baby or logic; the root issue is an extreme inflation of self and the self’s right to choose whatever it wants.

This is why the pro-choice platform focuses on the rights of the mother. The woman carrying the baby is central—with her goals, life, aspirations, and plans. And being central, they argue she has the right to choose to continue supporting the baby’s life in her womb. And since they try to liken it to the hospital illustration above, it’s a mere logical step for them to morally permit the ending of the baby’s life.

3. We Converse and Pray Accordingly

Which leads to our third and final response: recognizing their argument and acknowledging the self as being the root issue, we then converse and pray accordingly.

As stated above, we certainly should bolster arguments about the baby’s life—both from the biblical and scientific angles. God only knows the number of women who made the decision to avoid abortion because they were convinced of the life of their child. This is wonderful, and God blesses these conversations.

But we also should aim to get to the root issue in our conversations: the over-prominence on the self. For the issue for many hinges on the woman herself and her un-coerced choice to support the baby or not. It’s because the self is so central that the mother has the right to no longer keep alive the person growing within. In short, the baby is neglected due to over-inflation of the self.

In our conversations, then, we should use logic to show it is not like the hospital illustration: the baby is not dying, and the baby is not only alive but worthy of protection just like any of us is. But to combat the self-root, we also must strive to discuss topics such as the beauty of selflessness, the privilege of parenthood, and the accessibility of adoption: 

• We discuss the beauty of selflessness. In a culture where the self is often worshiped, it is a breath of fresh air for people to realize how suffocating such self-focus is. And when a woman chooses to give her body selflessly to her baby, she shows forth bravery, honor, and beauty. By emphasizing the beauty of selflessness, we highlight that it is more joyful to give than receive in our lives (Acts 20:35). We prove that we were made for such other-focus, that living for ourselves and our own ambitions and aspirations leaves us empty. In our conversations, then, we should aim to encourage people of the unique joy in giving, sacrificing, and putting others, especially their precious babies, first.
• We uphold the privilege of parenthood. We emphasize that parenthood is one of the greatest examples of the joys of selflessness. Because of the over-focus on the self in our culture, parenthood can be seen as a nuisance and disruption. But we as Christians know that children are a blessing (Psalm 127:3-5) and are graciously given to us by God (Genesis 33:5). So, we’re careful to not complain about parenting, but stress its joys and privilege.
• We emphasize the accessibility of adoption. We also stress that adoption is a much better option than abortion for those who choose not parent the baby. We focus on the accessibility of adoption because many do not think it is possible for them. Perhaps it’s inaccessible to them because they don’t know the process; or perhaps they think they can’t bear the burden of bringing the child to full term due to the physical effects or emotional shame. In both respects we as Christians must show that adoption is supported, doable, and accessible. We support adoption agencies, we have resources to direct people their way, and perhaps most important, we as the church should share stories of adoption and even be ready to adopt children ourselves.

We converse in this way, but through it all, we pray. We pray that women realize the life given to them by God and that their baby is precious and totally worth supporting. We pray that mothers and fathers rejoice that they get to selflessly love and care for their child or put their child up for adoption to be cared for in another household. And we pray that our world and the millions within it are freed from self-focus into the beautiful others-focus God designed us for.

Above All, We Keep A Gospel Focus

And this, above all, brings us to the gospel of Christ. We do well to discuss, speak, and vote about the preciousness of the baby and the beauty of selflessness. But we also must realize that apart from Christ, we all are lost, selfish, sinful, confused, and broken. More than anything people need this gospel (Titus 3:3-7)—the gospel of grace, healing, forgiveness, joy, purpose, and hope.

So, let’s humbly understand and converse with those who support abortion. Let’s pray for selflessness. But above all, even on the issue of abortion, let’s keep our focus on speaking the gospel.