Two Fundamental Questions in Abortion Debate

The abortion debate in the public square often goes awry by delving into details that are irrelevant to the debate, bypassing the assumptions upon which both sides of the debate rest. The following represent the two seminal questions that are at stake.

First, we ask whether or not human government has any role at all in legislating the practice of abortion. Human government is tasked, in every case, with legislating morality—it’s what they do. But on what ethical ground do they establish that morality? Should legislators appeal to the Bible? To Natural Law? Or to some Utilitarian Principle? (And if the last of these, then what specific utility—autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, or something else)? 

Natural Law seems helpful at first blush, but then the question turns to the identification of the authorized definers of what is “natural,” to which no answer is satisfactory other than the Bible. For many, then (e.g., most theonomists and others), the Bible is the only possible answer to our question. But the Bible itself, I believe, suggests otherwise. Caesar’s function (at least in the present dispensation) is not the same as the Church’s (Matt 22:21); specifically, Caesar is never charged with establishing a Christian society. The day will come when the two spheres will merge (i.e., the Messianic Kingdom), but for the present, the prescribed function of human government is most broadly to establish an environment in which “we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim 2:2). As such the government receives a utilitarian mandate to protect the freedom of the citizenry (autonomy) to live lives in which we (justice, or at the very least, equity) may pursue good (beneficence) without fear of harm (non-maleficence). Of greatest priority, however, is the narrow function of protecting the lives of the citizenry so that they may freely pursue the other three virtues (Gen 9:6; Rom 13:4).

Having established that the government has a legitimate role in legislating morality and specifically in protecting life, the second great question at stake is whether an unborn fetus is a living person. Two binary options emerge, and with them, two very different responses by duly established human governments:  

1. One side begins with the assumption that a fetus is a person, and thus deserving of the protections afforded in 1 Timothy 2: life, principally, but also freedom, justice, and the pursuit of what is good. This being the assumption, it is necessarily concluded that the government must forbid abortion as an instance of murder in nearly every instance. In fact, based on the vulnerability (and nearly infinite intersectionality score) of the unborn child, protection should be greater for the unborn child than for nearly any other person. (The only scenarios in which debate is warranted involve the thorny ethical dilemma of choosing who may live when (a) either the mother or the child must die or (b) both mother and child would otherwise die).
2. The other side begins with the assumption that a fetus is an impersonal extension of the mother and has no protections such as those afforded in 1 Timothy 2. The ethical basis for deciding whether abortion should occur reverts to the mother’s free pursuit of her own “good.” As such, abortion should be permissible for nearly any reason (rape, incest, life/health of the mother, or personal whims of the very most banal variety). About the only question left for debate is whether abortions should be covered in every case by medical insurance, or whether some abortions may be regarded as elective surgeries.

But who gets to answer this critical question? The individual? Democratic consensus? The medical community? The academy? The religious community? This is where the greatest difficulty lies. At the end of the day, however, there is no authority capable of answering the question greater than the Bible itself. And since the Bible predicates affection of unborn children (Luke 1:44), predicates sin of unborn children (Psalm 51:5), and predicates life itself of unborn children (Exod 21:22–25), there is no credible warrant for any Christian to opt for position 2, above. None. 

One must rightly sympathize with the sufferings of pregnant women, most especially when that pregnancy is the result of assault. One yearns for a path to absolute justice, for a restoration of her freedom to pursue a life of her own choosing, and for “good” of a great many varieties. Still, the first concern of government (and of mothers) must be to protect the life of all persons in view and only afterward to entertain other utilities vying for consideration.