Abortion Compromise

Are Pragmatic Exceptions in Abortion Policy Morally Inconsistent?

G.M. Fyden on November 1, 2016

For the conscientious pro-life voter the 2016 presidential election presents a unique set of questions with important moral implications.

Many religious conservatives have likely ruled out voting for Hillary Clinton; the former Sectary of State is an unapologetic advocate for unrestricted abortion.

The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, (a late and dubious convert to the pro-life side) has laid claim to the pro-life mantle but his stated policy makes exceptions that actually allow for abortion under certain circumstances.

With both major party candidates supporting (at-least) some abortions (in at-least some cases) religious voters will need wisdom and discernment in deciding how to vote. Fortunately, history (as recorded in God’s word) provides us with guidance.

Some 3,000 years ago, the wisest man the world has ever know presided over the most famous child custody battle the world has ever seen.

In mock settlement of the sordid case, King Solomon of Israel offered up a pragmatic compromise disguised as a reasonable solution. His shockingly macabre ruling, issued all those centuries ago, has prescient relevance to Christians even to this day.

“Divide the living child in two,” Solomon commanded. “Give half to the one and half to the other.”

The account of the two harlots, each claiming maternity of a single surviving infant, can be read in context in 1 Kings 3:25.

The child’s actual mother cried out in anguished protest, willing to surrender her offspring to the usurper rather than have her baby rent it two. The other woman was perversely content to see her rival suffer as she had and to be done with the matter. In her duplicate depravity, she enthusiastically submitted to the King’s shrewd, albeit homicidal declaration.

Solomon’s aim was accomplished; he successfully manipulated the parties into revealing their true colors. The baby was spared and the family – such as it was – restored.

God blessed Solomon with great wisdom and the King was wise enough to see wickedness in one who would banally concede the life of an innocent child in the spirit of compromise.

Had the disputed property been a goat, or a bolt of fabric, dividing it and parceling it out might have been a justifiable settlement of an irreconcilable argument, but Solomon was dealing with a human being. To hack a baby to pieces and distribute the carnage evenly might, in some bizarre sense, be equitable, but is not consistent with the Judaeao-Christian worldview, which values human life as special, created by God.

Three millennia later the lives of millions of unborn children are at stake as our divided nation continues to grapple with the contentious, life-and-death question of abortion.

Conventional wisdom values compromise as a near-universal good, and promotes pragmatism for the sake of progress as the goal of practical politics. But should we compromise even on the right to life? No-one’s needs are met if gridlock prevails, but should our leaders give deference to political expedience when compromise comprises the gravest of sins? Should Christians support governing authorities and church officials who are all-too-willing to split the baby?

Christians and Christian churches have separated themselves into pro-choice and pro-life camps.

Competing arguments are so contradictory there seems little opportunity for common ground. In April of this year, speaking to a group of South African Catholic Bishops, Pope Francis called abortion and infanticide “unspeakable crimes”. His message was clear; his papacy will not bend on abortion.

A month later, delegates to the United Methodist General Conference repealed their long-standing affirmation of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion decision, indicating that the second largest Protestant denomination is moving towards standing for the rights of the unborn.

Conversely, ostensibly Christian pro-choice organizations like Catholics for Choice and Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) advocate for a comprehensive liberalization of abortion policy. These groups resent what they see as heavy-handed moralizing by the church on a painful and personal question.

Embroiled in such emotionally charged, seemingly fruitless controversy, pro-life Christians might feel inclined to yield and seek conciliation with their Christian brothers and sisters who see things differently. In the abortion debate pro-life concessions take the form of “exceptions” to what would otherwise be an uncompromising anti-abortion stance.

Virtually all prominent Democrats ardently toe the pro-abortion line presenting a unified front to voters. Some Republicans, in an effort to skirt rather than toe that line, claim the pro-life mantle but support exceptions.

Most notably they voice support for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at stake. This position can seem sensible, but it is morally and intellectually incoherent.

At root there is only one objection to abortion; a moral objection to killing children. This argument is based on the premise that an unborn child in the womb is a human being with an inherent – Christians believe, God given – right to life. If either component of the premise is fallacious (i.e. If a fetus is not human or humans are not entitled to life), the foundation for the pro-life position is baseless.

By-the-same-token, if the premise is true no objections or exceptions can possibly be justified. The prohibition against killing the innocent is, after all, absolute.

The circumstances of a person’s conception can have no bearing on their humanity or their intrinsic human rights. If a child in the womb who was conceived in marital love deserves protection, by what rationale can we deny the same protection to a less fortunate but equally innocent child who happened to be conceived in the violence of rape or the depravity of incest? Can it somehow be acceptable to kill a baby because his father committed a horrible crime?

That same logic prevails in medical emergencies. Abortion proponents struggle to name life-threatening conditions that are remedied by abortion – pregnancy is not a disease – but even so, if a pregnant mother is in mortal danger, we shouldn’t, as-a-matter-of-course, discount the value of the child’s life in favor of the mother’s. If both are human then both merit all the lifesaving medical attention we can bring to bear.

When an expectant mother is fighting for her life, we should make every effort to save mother and child – the way a firefighter would if they were trapped inside a burning building – even as we acknowledge and accept our limitations and understand our best efforts might fail.

If pro-lifers honestly believe a child in the womb is a human being, they must reject abortion exceptions and reject the politicians and church officials who tout them. We are right to question the moral and logical consistency of Donald Trump’s fatally flawed position.

As Solomon demonstrated, it is futile and counterproductive to compromise over the life of a child. The people of ancient Israel recognized that lesson as the wisdom of God issuing forth from their King (1 Kings 3:28). As we head to the polls to elect our leaders, the people of America should also acknowledge and embrace God’s enduring wisdom and remain uncompromising when it comes to abortion policy.

G.M. FydenG.M. Fyden is a guest writer. Follow him on Twitter @thecopyghost.

  1. Comment by Barnabas on November 2, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Ah, my friend,.. many words but confusion reigns. Just what wisdom do you provide as a conclusion? There is the sad reality, (to me) that the conclusion I reached from your article was,.. “There is no perfect choice.” What is not clear,. is that you helped us in our thinking toward making a decision. (Or you hinted at it,.. and quickly scurried away?) For what of those who agree,.. “There is no perfect choice,” and so (taking the 3rd way out), do nothing? Doing “Nothing” is both a decision & a choice- just one that leaves the conclusion to others,.. while we non-voters throw up our hands (or maybe wash them in a basin?) resolving (we think),.. ourselves of having no responsibility in the affair. I’ve made my choice,.. and will vote. Perhaps for the imperfect candidate,.. the lesser of the Greater Evil to both God and this Country.
    Peace Be with You

  2. Comment by G.M. Fyden on December 5, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    There are NOT two (or any number of choices) when it comes to killing children. My policy is “It is NEVER okay to kill a baby”.
    By extension it must be that I can’t support a law or a politician, or a church leader that advocates for killing any child under any circumstances. I can not support a law (or a leader) who says “some children are protected while some children are not.
    The “third way” is a cop-out and is defeatist.

  3. Comment by Barnabas on March 5, 2017 at 8:29 am

    Peace brother. We are talking past each other. I agree to the limits of my soul that there is an absolute when talking/living/and standing against the evil of abortion. “It is NEVER okay to kill a baby”. Period.
    Your article wandered however into some slight deviation toward condemning both presidential candidates, deservedly so, but by implication- condemning anyone (however faintly), that would vote for either. With that I take exception & stated your article, as written, was not “Helpful.”
    The election is now over & I for one see the “Hand of God,” involved. The Man who couldn’t win,.. did. OK,.. now what?? There are many examples in the Bible of Men of God working with Caesar,.. for the betterment of God’s children,.. and those men were not chastised by God for their efforts.
    “There are no righteous nations, no not one.” I am not discouraged. The “minimum baseline requirements for governments as laid out in the Bible is that the People are protected/made safe and provisions made that they can obtain the necessities of life (jobs). First appearances seem that this administration is focused on those two, bare, minimum requirements,.. and support of Israel, too. Ok,.. it’s a start. We as Christians have work to do. Please don’t temper or reduce your convictions on abortion,.. we need our collective will and strength on this and other variances to the Word of God in the world. Let’s get to work.
    Peace
    Barnabas

  4. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 8, 2017 at 10:30 am

    You agree “to the limits of your soul”? Those limits appear to end at the ballot box. Mr. Trump, for his part, does not agree. Some abortions are fine with him and all the millions of votes for him were millions of endorsements of his abhorrent policy. Do you think that after winning a stunning victory with his “kill some babies” policy he might ever come around to (what you say is your own) policy of never killing any babies. No, he won’t because he knows that Christians value victory over any supposed pro-life convictions. He won’t because millions of Christians told him (by voting for him) that he doesn’t need to rethink his abhorrent views.
    I do condemn the abortion policies of both candidates (as you say they deserve) and I still say that pro-life voters should not (should not have) voted for either of them. Giving aid and comfort (in the form of votes and adulation) to pro-aborts is “not helpful”.
    Claiming that you somehow see “The Hand of God” at work in Trump’s victory just by virtue of the fact that he won is a silly sentiment that makes Christians look ridiculous. As if God, the master and creator of the universe, reached down from upon his throne in Heaven and miraculously stuffed the ballot boxes in PA, WI and NV with the (about 100000) votes he needed to get over the top. As if Jesus, who endured Caesar Augustus without saying a word of condemnation against him, could not abide Hillary Clinton. That Christian clap trap is no more doctrinally sound than a Cubs or Pat’s fan saying he sees the hand of God at work because the team “that couldn’t come back, did”. You see the hand of God because you want to see it. Where was God when Obama won two terms? Did he fail to register for those particular elections? Why didn’t God engineer a land-slide for his chosen vessel instead of 98000 votes in 3 states? Hand of God? Please.
    Trump, who when a Democrat and when running for the Reform party was pro-choice. He changes his party and he changes his tune and you dance to it.

    I agree: Let’s get to work. But, I say let’s get to work abolishing human abortion not regulating it. And I will not vote for a candidate who supports purposefully killing (even one) child.

  5. Comment by Barnabas on March 8, 2017 at 9:33 pm

    Peace brother. Your anger ill suits you, and as James reminds us, “Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger, for the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.” Ja 1: 19b-20.
    You display no position or compassion for anyone of any like mind but your own demands,.. which screams- burn them all down. You are well on the road to overlooking the beam in your own eye while your brothers do not deserve your judgement. I will leave the judgement to God,.. and take every small advancement in God’s word as a blessing.
    Barnabas

  6. Comment by lance123 on March 9, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    No. We shouldn’t compromise on killing the innocent. There are some things a candidate can do that go over the line. You can’t support Trump without supporting his pro abortion position.
    Trump is not really pro-life. He’s fooling you or you don’t care. He doesn’t care about the right to life of the unborn. Until Christians wake up and stop supporting child killers we will keep getting worse and worse candidates. Look who we have now! An admitted, unrepentant, adulterer who says he’s never asked God for forgiveness and yet claims to be Christian. How can you be Christian and not repent to God? http://www.christianpost.com/news/trump-why-do-i-have-to-repent-or-ask-for-forgiveness-if-i-am-not-making-mistakes-video-141856/

  7. Comment by Barnabas on March 9, 2017 at 9:29 pm

    Friend- do not even begin to tell me “You can’t support Trump without supporting his pro abortion position.” Just take a second & see how out of control you are,.. to tell me what I can & can’t do. I can neither see nor ascertain any fountain of “Ultimate Knowledge” flowing from you. I can NOT support Hillary- the abortion at all cost has-been,.. but possibly can work toward, now, a no abortion-never position under the Trump administration. (You just whine the sky is falling- we can do anything). My other choice is to sit back ineffective with no other leader on the scene & play your game of gotcha. We don’t have to be successful- only faithful. Grow up brother & get working,…. & can the screeching at folks who believe just as strongly against abortion- without the soapbox sermonizing. You are accomplishing zip-nada-nothing,.. & alienating fellow believers. It is what is,.. Now deal with it.

    Barnabas

  8. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 24, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    Pardon. The “you” was not personal but general / generic.

    I know you wish it was not so but supporting Trump IS supporting his pro abortion position. (votes are endorsements) We are not to do evil so that good may come of it (Rom 3:8). We shouldn’t vote for a pro abortion candidate (evil) because we speculate that Trump abort fewer children (potential good).

    When millions of Christians voted for Trump they encouraged him. He won with a “some abortion some time” policy. Do you think he will change it next time and risk losing moderates? No chance. Also, NO ONE is pushing him to drop his exceptions policy. Can you nave one single person close to Trump that is telling him to adopt a policy of abolition?

    In any event. I think we understand each-other so that is something. I get where you are coming from but disagree with incrementalism on abortion. I, for one, am an abolitionist.

  9. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 29, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    My latest article is posted. It’s a response to a liberal leaning Christian who (wrongly) opposes capital punishment. Give it a read and comment if you are so inclined.
    https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/03/28/capital-punishment/

  10. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 24, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    Barnabas Wrote: You display no position or compassion for anyone of any like mind but
    your own demands,.. which screams- burn them all down. You are well on
    the road to overlooking the beam in your own eye while your brothers do
    not deserve your judgement. I will leave the judgement to God

    Clever. First you judge me – talking all “beam in your own eye” and accusing me of judging people who don’t deserve to be judged – then you claim the high ground saying you “will leave the judgement to God”

    If your going to judge me, judge me. Don’t judge me then pretend your so holy that your above it.

    For my part I’ll “Stop judging by appearances” and instead “judge with righteous judgment!” (John 7:24)

  11. Comment by JOB2001 on November 4, 2016 at 8:33 am

    I agree that rape and incest are no legitimate grounds for abortion. Indeed, research shows that mothers who became pregnant by such means often feel a sense of triumph over their attackers by bringing life out of evil. However, you did not consider the right of a person to protect their own life. Mother’s have a fundamental right to self-defense, which is applicable if their pregnancy truly threatens their life. In such rare cases, mothers have a right to protect themselves. They also have a right to put their lives at risk, as firemen do. Just as firemen are not required by law to enter a burning building, so it would be unjust for the law to require a woman to put her life in jeopardy. The law should allow them to protect their lives if they wish.

  12. Comment by G.M. Fyden on December 5, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Self defense law is not applicable. The baby is not attacking or threatening the life of it’s mother by virtue of simply being alive. A surgical or chemical abortion is not a treatment or a remedy for anything. An abortion is done to abort and is not done because it has healing properties.

  13. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 29, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    My latest piece is up. Give it a read and
    comment if you are so inclined.https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/03/28/capital-punishment/

  14. Comment by Stephen Goldsworth on November 4, 2016 at 9:50 am

    “At root there is only one objection to abortion; a moral objection to
    killing children. This argument is based on the premise that an unborn
    child in the womb is a human being with an inherent – Christians
    believe, God given – right to life.”

    Unless of course, God sovereignly decides to take the lives of babies–the firstborn of Egypt, the infants and children of some of the conquered peoples of Canaan, Bathsheba’s firstborn, etc. I am not arguing for abortion, just offering food for thought. Christians often like to quote Psalm 139, especially verses 13-16 or Jeremiah 1:5, without also reckoning with other passages in the Old Testament such as the ones I referred to above.

    As for medical emergencies, I don’t know of any Christians who would disagree that both lives should be saved as far as possible. If it’s one of those rare situations where they have to choose, however, do you believe only the baby’s life should be saved at any cost, and if so why? What if the mother already has older children to raise? Especially in the latter case, is there room within Christian ethics for giving first priority to the mother’s life because of the temporal consequences of the reverse?

  15. Comment by G.M. Fyden on December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Your attempt to paint God as a moral monster will only work on the uninformed or the unthinking. That slander is dealt with here: https://www.equip.org/product/god-moral-monster/ and elsewhere over thousands of years of Christian theology.

    As-to saving the life of the baby “at any cost”, that is a counter factual which I never ascribed to. I believe that the baby’s life should be considered of equal value with the mother’s and should not be discounted as an automatic matter of course. In-short: we should use our best efforts to do our best to save both, as best we can, with the full understanding that our best will sometimes fail.

    As-to the case of the mother with older children my position is that it is never okay for a mother to kill her child even if her domestic situation is challenging. If her domestic situation changes and becomes more challenging (the way my mother’s did when she had me -her third- and my younger brother -her fourth- and my younger sister -her fifth) that would not justify killing the younger to make life easier for her and the older siblings. I would think that would be an obvious sentiment.

  16. Comment by Kyle Grant on November 4, 2016 at 11:11 am

    “a child in the womb”. The problem is, it’s not “a child”. It’s not any child. It’s that child. That one that will be conceived next year by my neighbor’s teenage daughter. Is she more likely to remain alive with Clinton’s polices in place, or with Trump’s? If Clinton is elected because I won’t vote for Trump because he is not perfect on life issues, and late term or partial birth abortions are extended due to her polices, then I don’t see how the pro life cause is advanced. More importantly, I don’t see how my neighbor’s infant grandchild is more likely to stay alive. Ultimately it’s not about the pro-life movement, it’s about lives.

  17. Comment by G.M. Fyden on March 24, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    We are not called to pragmatism. We are called to obedience.
    The bible tells us we should never do evil that good may come of it.

    Supporting pro-abortion candidates is wrong. Regulating abortion as-if it’s a legitimate medical procedure is counter-productive.

  18. Comment by Nick Stuart on November 4, 2016 at 11:14 am

    The slave trade was not abolished in one grand act, it was accomplished a little bit at a time over many years. And it’s still with us.

    Abortion will not be abolished in one fell swoop. It will come about by taking many steps in the right direction. And sadly it is likely to be with us until the Lord returns, although please God it won’t be considered a morally acceptable choice as it generally is today in “civilized” countries.

    Voting for a candidate who will limit abortion is a step in the right direction compared to a candidate who is in favor of all abortions, at all times, for all reasons, paid for by taxpayers.

  19. Comment by G.M. Fyden on December 5, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    I would agree with any step “in the right direction” but
    regulating abortion is the wrong direction. We should not regulate an evil practice. We don’t regulate slavery or the killing of Jews or blacks, we reject those things categorically.

    William Wilberforce once (only once) supported a law that
    regulated the slave trade. (It involved improving conditions aboard slave ships and limiting the number of slaves that can be transported on one ship at one time). After it passed he recognized that it was counterproductive. He actually
    helped clean up the image of the slave traders and legitimized their business by regulating it as a normal trade!

    He repented and never again voted for a single law that
    ended with “then you can trade the slave” We should never support any law that ends in “then you can kill the baby”.

    Waiting period laws (supported by pro lifers) say: “Wait
    three days…then you can kill the baby”. Parental notifications laws (supported by pro lifers) say: “Tell your parents…then you can kill the baby”. Ultra sound laws (supported by pro lifers) say: “Look at an ultrasound…then you can kill
    the baby”.

    We should be saying “You can’t kill the baby”!

  20. Comment by Ronnie M on March 8, 2019 at 12:54 pm

    That G.M Fyden dude really knows his stuff and he doesn’t back down.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.