Issue Position: Abortion

Issue Position

Abortion has been made out to be a complex (psychological) issue. Women who are impregnated at a young age, especially those who are unmarried, sometimes use abortion as a method of birth control. Some argue that a woman has the liberty to choose abortion and this should remain a private matter. Some defend abortion, saying that unwanted pregnancies will result in abused and neglected children.
With regard to morality, however, abortion is not complex at all. An example by Jarrod J. Williamson, shows just how simple the morality issue truly is. Imagine you are doing the dishes in your kitchen sink, up to your elbows in soap suds and water. Your five-year old son walks up behind you. He asks, "Mommy, can I kill this?" Immediately, before you even have a chance to turn around, the first thought that flashes through your head is, "What the heck is it?!" If it is an ugly, icky Black Widow spider, you will quickly knock it out of your son's hands and kill it yourself. If it is the neighbor boy's puppy, the answer is an immediate, "No! And just what were you thinking, even wondering if you can kill a puppy?" We all know that, essentially, whether or not you are permitted to kill something depends upon just what it is you are killing. .. or do we?
So, the critical question is, "What is the unborn?" Let's apply this question to the right of privacy. Should a woman be allowed to abuse her child as long as it's done in private? Certainly not. But why not? Privacy does not justify harming another human. If the unborn is human (and it is), like the child, we must protect the unborn.
If the unborn is not human, no justification for abortion is needed. If, however, the unborn is a human being (again, I say, "It is") justification will be difficult. Once again, the most important question is, "What is the unborn?"
Many will still defend the decision to abort by saying, "Women should have the right to choose." I agree that women have the right to choose what they wear, where they work, what to eat, who to marry, etc. Some choices are wrong, however, like abusing their child or even worse, killing their child.
Still, some will say that an unborn child is not a person. Allow me to explain, with the S.L.E.D. test that unborn babies deserve protection. I heard the S.L.E.D. test explained on a Focus on the Family broadcast. The acronym S.L.E.D. stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.
First, size. The unborn are smaller than other humans. But size is irrelevant. Football players are larger than infants. Men are larger that women but that does not mean they have more rights. Size is not relevant to value.
Second, level of development. Unborn babies are less developed that newborns. Toddlers are less developed than teenagers. Is a t-ball player less valuable as a human than his professional league player father? The father is potentially earning millions of dollars, the boy is not. Would you not agree, though, that they are both valuable?
Third, environment. Does your location have a bearing on who you are? Earlier today I was in a cow pasture. Later, I traveled 20 miles from home. Does a distance of a few inches (down the birth canal) change the unborn into a human and make it more valuable? A change in environment, from inside the womb to outside the womb, does not increase a person's value.
Fourth, degree of dependency. The unborn is fully dependent upon the mother, but so is the newborn. Does this dependency make either of them more or less valuable? Does this dependency make them less human? How about the diver who is totally dependent upon oxygen tanks to breathe, or the person who is dependent upon insulin to control sugar in the blood? Are they any less human? Are they any less valuable because of their dependency?
The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic, "NO!"
Abortion is wrong! Even when the mother's life is in danger, every effort to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child should be employed.

Source