Prenatal Genetic Testing and Abortion (Moreland/Rae)

 Our culture today has very subjective and illogical views on what it means to be a person.  For one of several examples, some say that an unborn baby with Down syndrome is not a person.  In fact, as many of our readers know, pregnant women can have tests to see if their unborn baby has a defect or health issue.  Moreland and Rae explain:

“It is widely assumed that if the couple were to get bad news about their child’s genetic makeup, they would end the pregnancy. But consider what that assumption indicates about the view of a human person. This kind of presumption about prenatal genetic testing suggests that personhood and the attendant rights to life are dependent on the child’s possessing an acceptable genetic makeup.  What constitutes such an acceptable makeup would be entirely up to the subjective preferences of the parents. It is solely the genetic anomaly that, in the minds of the parents, renders the fetus as less than a full person, since without the child’s anomaly, the parents would undoubtedly consider ending a pregnancy with their wanted child as immoral.

The fact that couples would end a pregnancy on the basis of genetic abnormality assumes that the fetus in the womb is not a full person.  Without that assumption, there would be no morally significant difference between ending the pregnancy when a woman is carrying a genetically defective fetus and ending the life of a genetically handicapped adult.  Society and the law take the latter as absurd, and in fact the argument is commonly made that the law owes even greater protection to the genetically handicapped because of their vulnerability. If personhood is denied based on genetic abnormality, then there is no justification for protecting the adult genetically handicapped population, which faces physical, mental and genetic challenges. Prenatal genetic testing and the corresponding assumptions about ending a pregnancy indicate a deeply flawed view of a human person.  Further, that assumption about what constitutes a person is illogical, since it cannot be applied evenly to all segments of the population.

I agree.  This example shows how our culture has a subjective and illogical definition of “person.”  Thankfully in Scripture we find an objective and logical definition: to be a human is to be a person and to be a person is to be a human.  This is assumed in Bible stories.  Furthermore, in Scripture a baby in the womb is considered a person.  It was David himself whom God knit together in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13).  Even terminally ill humans are considered people in Scripture (e.g. the story of Jairus’ daughter in Luke 8).  This is objective and it makes sense.

Finally, this biblical definition of person means that all people – from embryos to newborns to middle aged to senior citizens, whether very healthy or very ill – all people are created in God’s image and have dignity and worth because of it. All these are people Christians are called to love and serve.  Don’t let anyone tell you that the Christian view of man is oppressive and dehumanizing.  The opposite is true!

The above quote is found on pages 308-309 of Body and Soul by J.P. Moreland and Scott. B. Rae.

Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI, 54015

Abortion and Dehumanization (Pearcey)

 I’m very much enjoying Nancy Pearcey’s new book, Love Thy Body.  I’ll come back to it again later, but for now I wanted to share an insightful observation of Pearcey’s in the first chapter:

If you favor abortion, you are implicitly saying that in the early stages of life, an unborn baby has so little value that it can be killed for any reason – or no reason – without any moral consequence. Whatever your feelings, that is a very low view of life. Then, by sheer logic, you must say that at some later time the baby becomes a person, at which point it requires such high value that killing it would be a crime.

The implication is that as long as the pre-born child is deemed to be human but not a person, it is just a disposable piece of matter – a natural resource like timber or corn. It can be used for research and experiments, tinkered with genetically, harvested for organs, and then disposed of with the other medical waste.

The assumption at the heart of abortion, then, is personhood theory, with its two tiered view of the human being – one that sees no value in a living human body but places all our worth in the mind or consciousness.

Personhood thus presumes a very low view of the human body, which ultimately dehumanizes all of us. For if our bodies do not have inherent value, then a key part of our identity is devalued. What we will discover is that this same body/person dichotomy, with its denigration of the body, is the unspoken assumption driving secular views on euthanasia, sexuality, homosexuality, transgenderism, and a host of related ethical issues.

Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body, p. 20.

Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI, 54015

The Right to Choose?

We’re all aware of the pro-choice rhetoric about the “right to choose.”  Those who defend abortion say a woman has the right to choose whether to have the baby or terminate it in the womb.  However, this “right to choose” rhetoric is not at all airtight.  McQuilkin and Copan explain:

[The ‘right to choose’ language] is laden with questionable assumptions.  For one thing, right to choose what?  ‘Choice’ is a relative term – like saying ‘to the left of.’  A right to choose in relation to what?  We gain moral clarity when we ask: What is the object of one’s choice?  Is one free to rape or murder? Obviously not.

Second, the ‘right to choose’ assumes an individualistic outlook that undermines community; it fails to welcome ‘the least of these’ unborn children into the world, where they can be cared for and loved.

Third, this mindset fails to see life as a gift from God and thus a charge to keep.  We are not sovereign over our own lives or the lives of others God has entrusted to us.

Fourth, we do not choose our earthly family (or spiritual family for that matter), yet we are called to committed love – to seek the well-being of others, even if doing so is inconvenient and even challenging.  Abortion undermines the spirit of these loving commitments that make life meaningful.

McQuilkin and Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, p. 370.

Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI, 54015

Abolishing Abortion: A Review

Last week I gave a few quotes from this book by Frank Pavone, Abolishing Abortion (here).  Today I want to give a brief review of the book for those interested in pro-life resources.

First, as I mentioned last week, it is clearly written from a Roman Catholic position.  So from the get-go, I knew I would disagree with the Romish theology in it (including the papacy, doctrine of the church, the nature of sin, etc.).  After reading it, I found out it has big sections of Roman Catholic teaching/emphasis in it; because of that I hesitate to recommend the book (I must note that Pavone wasn’t trying to “covert” anyone to Rome, thankfully).

Second, concerning the main topic of the book – abortion – Pavone does make some excellent points and arguments.  He notes that abortion is like a “bone” stuck in the throat of American people: we can’t swallow it down, nor can we get rid of it.  It has to be dealt with.  He also talks about freedom, human rights, and some aspects of what it means to be truly pro-life.  Pavone knows enough American law and legislation to even discuss non-profit tax exempt laws and how the constitution is pro-life.  Again, you can see some of the quotes I posted here.

Here are the chapters of the book: 1) In the public square, 2) the Roe v. Wade debate, 3) repenting, 4) the spiritual imperative, 5) freedom of speech, 6) freedom of the pulpit, 7) on being [wrongly] passive, 8) being actively pro-life, 9) abortion and pain, 10) mother and child, 11) love.  Though the chapters didn’t seem to have a certain order, there is quite a bit of helpful information in almost every chapter.

In a word, this is a good book on abortion but it’s usefulness is hindered by a strong Roman Catholic bent.  If you want to get it, I’d recommend skipping over the doctrinal parts and reading the other parts.  Abortion is a reality that Christians have to deal with, pray about, and work towards abolishing it.  This book is one that will help take a step in the direction of saving human lives.

Frank Pavone, Abolishing Abortion (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015).

NOTE: I received this book from BookLook bloggers, and was not compelled to write a positive review.

shane lems
hammond, wi

Pro-Life, Pro-Human, Pro-Children, Pro-Women

I’ll come back here next week and give a more extensive review of this book: Abolishing Abortion.  For now, I do have to note that I disagree with its heavily Roman Catholic orientation, from its focus on the pope to its Romish doctrine of the church.  I’ve written on Rome here before more than once (including reasons why I will never go to Rome), so I won’t revisit these issues here.  However, I do want to point out a few parts of this book that I found helpful – specifically the following quotes:

“We don’t have the right to life because somebody else says that we have it.  We don’t have the right to life because some court, congress, governor, or king grants it to us.  Rather, we have our rights from God.”

“When a government says that some people don’t have to be protected, that is the stuff of which genocides are made.”

“…Human rights are not granted by political systems.  They are ‘pre-political.’  They exist before government and, in fact, must be honored, served, and secured by government, not because the leaders of government say so, but because to fail to do so undermines the very purpose of government.”

“The legalization of abortion changes our government from one that protects unalienable rights to one that dispatches them as it sees fit.”

“To tolerate abortion not only flies in the face of Christian teaching.  It is un-American.”

“To be pro-life is to be pro-human – pro-child and pro-woman.  Pro-woman is not a marketing slogan but our fundamental message.  The challenge the pro-life movement gives to society is, ‘Why can’t we love them both?’ …One cannot love the woman without loving the child.”

“The nature of post-abortion grief is that the individual involved in the abortion has begun to realize precisely what a big deal it was.  …A great disservice was done both to her and her child when someone convinced her that the abortion would be ‘no big deal.’

“Abortion is the exact opposite of love.  Love says, ‘I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person.’  Abortion says, ‘I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself.”

These quotes were taken from Frank Pavone, Abolishing Abortion (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015).

shane lems