Pro-Life for All

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.

Psalm 139:13–14

Introduction

During the 2016 presidential election, I distinctly remember reading about Donald Trump’s religious views. At some point he was reported saying this:

“I am not sure I have,” Trump said when asked if he’d ever asked God for forgiveness. “I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

He held this view for a while. I realized he could not be a Christian if he had never asked God for forgiveness. He possessed not even the shallowest understanding of basic Christian belief. There are lots of people who voted for him anyway, knowing or not knowing this. It would be enough if he put in Supreme Court justices that supported what they liked.

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned the decisions Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, there is much celebration on my social media feed. Among the celebration, you can find people feeling vindicated over voting for someone who was not only a mocking, disrespectful, repugnant character, but someone who openly flaunted the rule of law.

I actually do not find it very helpful to assign moral blame based on who you vote for. Not all, but a lot political tribalism is tiresome and unjustified. We make the best out of many bad choices we are constantly given, and predicting what promises a politician can realistically keep is an enigma. In that same sense though, I do not think there is a lot of credit we can take for who we vote for when our elected representative puts in a policy we like. At best, Trump was a very flawed leader that God used to ultimately provide a step towards ending abortion. I wonder if Christians who are cheering their vote understand how they look to those who are very hurt and worried about the elimination of Roe.

I oppose abortion in most circumstances and believe life starts at conception, but this position is not easy or obvious to defend. Beyond this, I only have a cautious reaction to the Supreme Court decision. What are the unintended policy effects of this decision? How will Christians be perceived in the aftermath of the decision? The ball now is in our court as Christians. Are we able to credibly show we have skin in the game when it comes to taking care of all of God’s creation?

I. Old Testament

I opened the article with a quote from Psalm 139 sometimes used as a defense of the personhood of the unborn. Is it convincing to use a poetic text to argue for a moral imperative? If God is omnipotent, then he would know of my existence before I am actually born or made. That would not mean I exist as a living, breathing person. I’d still have to wait until God had actually made me, wouldn’t it?

But one text gains particular scrutiny in the discussion on abortion. Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV) reads:

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Sometimes this passage is used to argue that there is a lower value put on the unborn in the Bible compared to those who are born. There are multiple difficulties in understanding the translation of this passage.

Consider the NASB translation of the text:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The NASB is considered to be one of the closer “word-for-word” translations of the Bible. Often when we try to translate from the original Hebrew, we may miss double meanings or have to take a stance on ambiguities existing in the original text. In this case, the text implies that causing a miscarriage through fighting causes a fine, but if the mother dies, only then will the principle of “lex talionis” (“life for a life”, or proportional punishment) apply. The unborn is not considered fully human under this view of the text.

But that phrase, “she has a miscarriage” or in the ESV translation, “her children come out” is one of the difficulties of understanding the passage. Is the child or children that come out assumed to be dead, as in an abortion?

Arguably, the answer is no. The stronger word “nepel” is better translated as miscarriage or abortion in other places in the Bible. Therefore, the passage here seems to refer to a child who comes out and doesn’t die, which invokes a fine for the perpetrator. If there is further harm, to either the mother or the child (it does not seem to be specified) then you would apply the proportionality requirement to the law. So in this reading, the Old Testament would give weight to the life of the unborn. The Hebrew words, “yeled” and “yasa” would then leave room for applying the law for either the stillborn outcome or the live birth outcome.

There are more complications to understanding the passage, but there is an elephant in the room to address. This passage comes in the middle of a section on dealing with slaves. Most Christians who use the Old Law to defend an idea such as abortion will inevitably face resistance due to some of the Law’s more baffling parts. The short answer is that slavery in the Old Testament referred to many different types of servitude and did not look like the type of racial slavery we envision when we think of modern slavery. God’s law was meant to evolve beyond what we now consider to be the low bar originally set for the Israelites. For the Israelites, the laws on justly treating those who were displaced and making them into slaves or servants who would not become homeless and destitute after a war, this was meant to be a radical step away from more cruel pagan practices of slavery amongst Israel’s neighbors.

Still there are difficulties I will not dive into here. In verse 32, if a slave is gored by an ox, there is a monetary fine levied onto the owner of the ox. Does a fine indicate that the slave is less than human? Far from it, or so we should hope! Likewise, if the passage on a child coming out referred to a stillborn and the penalty was supposed to be just a fine, it would not prove that the unborn was less than human.

II. Beyond Antiquity

In a reversal of morality we would find today, in ancient Greece, and later Rome, it was considered appropriate for adult men to have sex with young boys, but not as acceptable for two adults to have sex. Young children could not make a regular wage, so would “pay” for being educated or being cared for through being sexually exploited by older men. Children did not have many basic dignities growing up that we take for granted today, but there was a quid pro quo expected of them. This is to say nothing of the way women would be treated in the ancient world and how sex would be used as a means to exert power over others.

As modern science helps us learn more about animals, child development, and the fetus, we learn more about how older ways we used to treat them were wrong. Complex emotional qualities we used to only ascribe to humans, now we find evidence for in animals, but instead of it leading us to bring back animal trials, it compels us to treat them with more respect and dignity, protecting them from random violence with our laws in our society. The landscape of childcare has changed on multiple issues from corporeal punishment to education, in order to mitigate child abuse. Drinking and smoking while pregnant used to be much more commonplace, but greater awareness of its harm at least gives us the chance to help others stomp out the practice.

As climate change becomes a more prevalent issue in society, we care more, not less, about the future of humanity in the wake of our impact on the earth. If we are called to be responsible stewards of the earth, whether by God or your own conscience, we should care more, not less, about the future of those who are not born yet. Even if you were not totally sure how to evaluate whether a fetus counted as life, let’s make the argument simpler and say we didn’t count a fetus as a living being. Why then do we value the state of the future world at all if unborn or non-existent people are not living? Why not live a life of total hedonism with reckless disregard for the planet like many people have before us? The answer is that for many people, our moral understanding dictates that we do care about the future beyond ourselves. In the same way that we benefit from those who were good stewards for our sake, we find it good and just to reciprocate and to try to also are good stewards for those we do not know. Even if our predecessors are even bad stewards, we try and improve upon their faulty ideas and evolve moral reasoning and political practice over time. Likewise, we care about the future for the unborn and whether they are aborted, regardless of whether we’d consider them living right now or not. The debate over when a fetus is viable or when it has a heartbeat seems like it should be a secondary consideration.

It is natural, but also good, to want to create laws that protect these entities that cannot protect themselves so easily. But in America, Christianity has earned itself a lot of suspicion when it comes to protecting those, even within the church, from powerful abusers. It used to be that Christianity turned the Roman world’s idea of sex on its head and advocated for a much more egalitarian sex ethic, where women would no longer be treated as mere objects in a marriage, but one in a divine union ordained by God, as part of one body with the man. It was an idea to be defended even in the face of persecution and death.

Now the modern church in America is wracked with heinous sexual abuse scandals, a notable example being the report on the failures of the Southern Baptist Church and its leadership to deal with a monumental cover up of many sexual abuse cases. The conservative and arch-conservative factions that battled for leadership of the denomination were split particularly on how the investigation should be handled, and now it is obvious why. How can one even begin to deal with the problems “internally”, if the abusers are the family members themselves, or are the pastors themselves? It seems painfully obvious to say out loud that there would need to be independence in the investigation of the church into this issue, yet this was one of the hotly contested issues of the last SBC election.

Christians who ignore the dignities of children and women, actively destroying them through sexual, emotional, and mental abuse, erode their own positions when they discuss abortion. Christians in America who teach women to be submissive without teaching men to take on the full and heavy burden of responsibility of leadership that requires men to have a full knowledge of God’s word and to lead in patient example, they erode their own position on the family. Christians who teach women not to divorce and to persevere through abuse without rebuking the abuser properly, the man who is the head of the family as Christ is to be the head of the church, erode the entire church in the process.

Christians are supposed to have developed a very particular sex ethic that informs the health of familial roles, and we should so like to blame our cultural enemies for eroding those positions. But much of the blame can be traced back to our own failure to minister to our own congregations. Credibility has to start from us Christians.

III. Externalities and Economics

In my state in Illinois, we can have as strict of gun control laws as we may like in Chicago or wherever, but if you can go across the border to Gary, Indiana and buy a gun very easily, then gun control laws in Illinois won’t be very effective no matter how carefully you try to create them. That is, there are cross state externalities when laws are very different across states. (Knight, 2013, American Economic Journal). I feel it will be the same with abortion. In the same way that people use my state to mock attempts at reducing gun proliferation or putting stronger gun control laws in place — unfair as the characterization liberals may find it — we very well may be mocked for our attempts at reducing abortion — unfair as the characterization for Christianity as it may be.

Effectively, there is one group where we might not see this externality effect the same way as with other groups: the poor. If you cannot afford to drive to another state, then the cross externality problem may not exist. Instead, you get a myriad of other problems. Effectively though, we have a hugely discriminatory policy where if you are rich enough, you will be able to get an abortion that is safe and legal. The poor will be the ones who get punished and face jail time or worse. In the long run, you create an even more polarized country where people vote with their feet and create a more segregated society.

But beyond my picky academic view, the truth is that in the same way that Roe created great resentment and suspicion among Christians towards not just government, but other people, this repeal will create great scrutiny and resentment of us Christians. If all Christians do is merely pat themselves on the back and celebrate a victory in the war for (waning) Christian cultural hegemony, this will be a great shame to us.

The ball will be in our court to follow up on the decision and show that we have skin in the game for taking care of the unborn, the born, the mother, and the father. Repealing Roe will not do much to reduce abortion itself, and does not address some of the larger reasons for why women get abortions. As a matter of conscience, I would love for greater maternity (and paternity) leave laws, or that the unborn would count as a dependent so that tax burdens would be eased for families with pregnant children. Life insurance for the unborn, reforming the ineffective means-testing requirements on welfare (e.g. TANF, SNAP) that creates tax cliffs for the poor, and stronger rights for women who are raped so that they may terminate the parental rights of the rapist are some of the many creative ways we can support a broader defense against abortion.

It is worth discussing gun violence itself as a major threat to those who are staunchly pro-life. In the same way that I would want a consistent set of laws that are federally applied to protect the unborn as well as give tangible financial assistance to protect the welfare of women, parents, and all people within society, I would also want consistent federal laws regulating the proliferation of guns in society. One may even think of yesterday’s Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. We in America love to say, “I have the right!” But if Christians take our foundational ethic to be God’s word above all of our laws, what should we do with these rights? We may recall 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NLT)

You say, “I am allowed to do anything” — but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything” — but not everything is beneficial.

Yet it is a peculiar aspect of American society that again, we have become like the pagan Romans, idolizing violence and becoming haughty over our weapons. Don’t we destroy our reputations as Christians when we do this too? When we see shooters come into our churches and destroy our members, are we unmoved to change our culture? But rather two strands of thought tend to come out. One is that suffering gun violence is part of us Christians being persecuted and we should accept it knowing that we will have glory in heaven. The other is that we should get more guns to deter gun violence. Both of these ideas are not complete. We should try and regulate guns prudently so we do not have to bury martyrs constantly, and we should not have to rely on our self control or others self control with a gun to feel safe.

Final Thoughts

Christians can regain a lot of lost credibility over the unfortunately increasing nastiness of many so-called Christian politicians. Or we may end up being further branded as complacent, decadent, and narrow in our legal aims, even cruel. Some of the criticism may be deserved. I do have hope because I know there’s a breadth of compassionate, zealous, and thoughtful people who want to do right by Christ. Today for example, there has been bipartisan legislation passed in the aftermath of the Uvalde mass shooting, amongst many other shootings. It is something I am surprised to finally see passed, just as it was a surprise for me to see Roe overturned.

I have hope, but I remain cautious. I do not want us Christians to become self-congratulatory, or to take pride in ourselves for what has happened. We Americans have our own vanity to grapple with when it comes to politics. So much of our discourse has become acerbic and rotten, ashamed of kindness and robbed of understanding for those who have fallen away from the church. So many have convinced themselves, as many others have before us, that this is the end times, and that all the things have made us happy before are all meaningless, and that we deserve the misery we have made for ourselves in this world. We say either God’s judgment or man’s folly has finally led us to where we are, and our political beliefs will be vindicated by this event or that. This is not good or wise thinking. It mostly just makes it easier to be nasty to others if you believe that the world is ending and nothing but you being right matters. Truth without love is death.

After all, we can legislate away certain laws sometimes, but we cannot truly legislate people into loving who we think they should love. What good is repealing Roe if we continue to see more abortions in reality, that practically create barriers for the poor or for minorities, as women feel forced to go underground as second class citizens? If we really want to show we are pro-life, then our work as Christians has only really just begun. I have spent my time in this article addressing Christians rather than more secular minded readers. I say that it is more than ever a time for charity for those who disagree with us, even with the expectation that we may not get that same charity in return. I do this because Christians are not meant to judge others who disagree with us, but rather to gently disciple other Christians to make sure that we are providing a right example. Otherwise, we shall be working against ourselves in the actual battle that we have ahead of us.

Therefore let us be very humble over the court decision and recognize that there is still a lot to do to show we care for women. Let us not be noxious and engender bitterness as we parade what we call the truth. It is not a shame to stand up for what we earnestly believe to be true, unless we do so without the grace and love that we are commanded to cultivate in Christ.