The Heart of the Abortion Debate in America

Three Critical Cultural Questions

By Tom McKnight

Do you like to win arguments? Of course you do. Right now our culture is having a heated argument about three critical questions surrounding the morality of abortion. How our society answers these questions will not only shape its view of the unborn, but will forge the destiny of our nation for generations to come. Christians must equip themselves to persuasively answer these questions so they can oppose the moral chaos and decline in our culture.

What is the Unborn

The first question is “What is the unborn?” The only thing both sides of the abortion debate agree upon is that something dies during an abortion. But if we are going to kill something, doesn’t it make moral sense to first clarify what it is that is dying?

Clearly, as pro-life Christians we must admit that if abortion advocates can prove scientifically that the unborn are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary. Removing the unborn and destroying it would be the ethical equivalent to having a tooth pulled. But if the unborn are human, then no justification for abortion is adequate.

The nature of the unborn is the critical, moral issue of abortion as well as embryonic stem cell research. It trumps all other considerations. Choice, personal liberty and the right to privacy are all fundamental American values, but they are not the primary ethical concern if abortion destroys a human life.

Sadly, too many Christians can only defend the humanity of the unborn theologically. When confronted by pro-abortion rhetoric, like that of former presidential candidate Wesley Clark who stated that “Life begins when a mother says it does,” too few pro-lifers can articulate the simple evidence to refute such claims.

Every first year medical student learns an essential scientific truth that is vital to any serious moral discussion about abortion: life begins at conception.

What Makes Human Life Valuable

The second question is “What Makes Human Life Valuable?” Are human beings intrinsically valuable by virtue of the kind of thing they are, or are they only instrumentally valuable for what they can do? Do humans get more rights when they acquire certain capacities or develop to a certain size? Conversely, do humans lose rights when they have diminished abilities and become less independent?

Princeton University Bio-ethics Professor, Peter Singer, argues that no newborn should be considered a valuable human until 30 days after birth and that handicapped babies can be killed on the spot. Yep, it’s okay to kill newborns simply because they are not yet self-aware and do not have an expressed desire to go on living. If you disagree, it is only because your outdated Christianity is getting in the way of rational thinking. Think I’m kidding? Let me quote Singer directly: “Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

For Mr. Singer and other secular bio-ethicists, humans have to act and look a certain way to be considered valuable. If you don’t meet their criteria, you have the rights of a lame dog that needs to be mercifully put to sleep. Consequently, the unborn, the handicapped and the terminally ill lack value and don’t qualify as “persons” in a moral or legal sense.

Separating society into persons and non-persons is nothing new. Throughout history we have seen the dehumanizing of segments of the human community based on physical appearance, capacities or race. The gulags, gas chambers and lynch mobs of the last century are testimony to the evil those in power can inflict on the most frail and vulnerable among us.

As Christians we must proclaim that all human life, regardless of size, level of development or apparent weakness, is valuable. What we are, members of the human community created in God’s image, is more important than what capacities we possess or where we reside (the womb). Any other view of human value based on the criteria of the powerful will only lead to discrimination and oppression of the politically powerless.

Moral Absolutes

The last question is vital to the abortion debate, but is also the root conflict of most moral discussions in our culture. It is simply this: “Is there such a thing as truth that is true for everyone?” Put another way; are there such things as moral absolutes that apply to everyone or do individuals get to decide for themselves what is right and wrong?

Clearly our culture is growing increasingly uncomfortable with moral absolutes. With the modern day aversion to “imposing our view on others” we have made tolerance the sacrosanct virtue of our day. You have your truth…I have mine.

This kind of fuzzy moral thinking is silly and dangerous. Pro-choice advocates tell us, “If you are opposed to abortion, don’t have one.” With this kind of ethical reasoning 19th century slave owners could have confronted abolitionists with the follow argument: “If you’re opposed to slavery, don’t have a slave.”

Progressive liberals celebrate the nuances in moral reasoning and reject universal “rights and wrongs.” But even they cannot live without moral absolutes. For example, if I told pro-choice advocates that I am personally not opposed to wife-beating and ought to have the right to abuse my wife, they would quickly reply that my behavior is morally wrong, and rightly so. But their assertion is a moral absolute that they are imposing on my behavior. So, while they say that we need to tolerant of all moral views because no one standard applies to everyone, they quickly draw an absolute line when faced with an issue that affects their sensibilities. The illusion of a personal preference morality quickly crumbles under the weight of reality.

To assert that no behavior is objectively right or wrong violates our moral intuition and common sense. Some actions are wrong regardless of personal preference or public opinion. The pro-life position is that abortion is a moral evil not because we prefer it so, but because it is wrong to kill innocent human life.

In conclusion, the Church must become more engaged in the defense of the unborn. But this protection should extend beyond biblical arguments for the humanity the unborn. Bringing sound scientific, rational and philosophical answers to these three questions is needed in the pro-life movement. As Christians we should always be ready to give a defense for our beliefs (I Peter 3:15,16). This must include our unabashed belief in the humanity of the unborn, the value of all persons and the existence of absolute truth -- our culture needs and God expects no less.

Tom McKnight is the Director of the Center for Family Renewal; a non-profit Christian organization dedicated to defending a biblical worldview of marriage, children and the family. He also partners with the St. Louis Area Pregnancy Resource Centers to facilitate a training workshop for churches and Christian groups entitled, Making Abortion Unthinkable. For more information about hosting a workshop or his speaking schedule, please contact him at TomMcKnight@charter.net or (636) 579-0535.