The Christian church and abortion

"First, people may disagree with Judeo-Christian ethics on abortion. But Christian thinking, historically and theologically, is unabashedly pro-life. Second, the “good reasons” land decisively on not supporting abortion as a Christian conviction."

Brian Norton has written this very detailed free booklet BEING HUMAN Abortion and the Church to explain the historical context (including copious references) of abortion from the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christian Churches.

Norton felt called to write and publish this booklet after a friend asked his opinion on a blog written by a theologically liberal pastor. This was the pastor's conclusion about abortion:

• "Christian thinking on the issue has not always been what it is now.” 
• “There are good reasons to land on either side of this issue from Christian conviction.”

His conclusion was the spark that ignited Norton, and that ultimately ended in his 44 page response.

This:

"This is not to say there are not exceptions about the ethics of abortion by various theologically liberal or progressive individuals. In fact, there are a number of mainline Protestant denominations which are permissive about abortion, including the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, and the Episcopal Church (USA)."

The audience for the booklet: 

"A booklet designed for Jesus followers who are “pro-choice” or “undecided” on abortion, or uncertain about the Christian legacy and beliefs on abortion"

A quote from Peter Kreeft on abortion: 

"Our contemporary West has moved decidedly away from baseline moral absolutes (inherent with Judeo-Christian belief) to postmodern moral relativism. Christian ethicist Peter Kreeft observes that this worldview says that “only some humans are persons, for those who are given rights by others (that is, by those in power).” Consequentially, Kreeft laments, “‘Hard pro-choice’ denies the sanctity or inviolability of all humans; ‘soft pro-choice’ denies the humanity of the fetus.”"

From a pregnancy care centre on how they accompany women on their journey through an unexpected pregnancy -- the Christian virtue of love on full display from these centres:

“If a client of our centre obtains an abortion, we love her. If she carries to term, we love her. If she releases a child in an adoption, we love her. If she grieves after the abortion, with zero judgment we will mourn with her. If she is in need during parenting, we will care for her. If she struggles after the adoption, we will support her.”

On POST-ABORTION STRESS:

"From a 2023 study, women who experience pressure from partners, family members, employers, or healthcare providers, “reported more negative emotions; more disruption of daily life, work, or relationships.”76 (David Reardon and Tessa Longbons, “Effects of Pressure to Abort on Women’s Emotional Responses and Mental Health,” abstract, Cureus 15(1), (January 31, 2023): e34456, doi:10.7759/cureus.34456.

Women who experience negative emotions convey the following reactions: sadness, guilt or shame, emotional numbing, depression, nightmares, thoughts of self-harm, and alcohol or drug abuse.77" (Priscilla Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: Quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,” British Journal of Psychiatry 199(3), (September 2011): 180-86; and D.M. Fergusson, J.L. Horwood, and Joseph Broden, “Abortion and mental health disorders,” British Journal of Psychiatry 193(6), (December 2008): 444-451; and Natalie Mota, Margaret Burnett, and Jitender Sareen, “Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviour in a nationally representative sample,” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55(4) (April 2010): 239-247.)

Finally, Christian organizations that do adhere to Christian beliefs about abortion:

"If you wish to know about Christian international ministries which embrace a consistent life ethic, here are some examples: Caritas Internationalis, Catholic Climate Covenant, Evangelical Environment Network, Heartbeat International, International Orthodox Christian Charities, MaterCare International, Missionaries of Charity, Samaritan’s Purse International, The Salvation Army International, World Evangelical Alliance, and World Vision International"

Are moral issues complex?

Human Personhood Begins at Conception 

Non-Christians and even Christians can take opposite positions on abortion even when they think rationally, honestly, and with good will. The continuing controversy over abortion shows that it is a truly controversial issue. It is not simple and clear cut, but complex. Just as the choices for action are often difficult for a woman contemplating abortion, the choices for thought are often difficult for open-minded philosophers.

Then Kreeft goes on to say: 

Everything I have said so far is a lie.

 

And then this: 

Moral issues are always terribly complex, said Chesterton – for someone without principles

When is a Catholic not a Catholic?

Q. When is a Catholic not a Catholic?
A. When she is a Kennedy.

Carolyn Kennedy said:
"As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously. And today it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward.

Peter Kreeft has an eye-popping perspective on this non-Catholic, pro-abortion world-view in his book Christianity for Modern Pagans where he discusses Pascal's Pensée 8o6.

Kreeft has grouped this one interestingly enough under "Vanity".

First here is what Pascal said:
"We are not satisfied with the life we have in ourselves and our own being. We want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we try to make an impression! (A) We strive constantly to embellish and preserve our imaginary being, and neglect the real one. (B) And if we are calm, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to have it known so that we can attach these virtues to our other existence; we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to unite them with the other. We would cheerfully be cowards if that would acquire us a reputation for bravery. (C) How clear a sign of the nullity of our own being!"

Here is what Kreeft said regarding (C) above:
"...Test yourself. Use Plato's thought-experiment at the beginning of book 2 of the Republic. Ask yourself which you would rather be: a good soul whom everyone thought evil, hated, misunderstood, persecuted and victimized? Or an evil soul whom everyone thought good, loved and rewarded? Would you rather be really good but apparently evil, like Socrates; or really evil but apparently good, like the perfectly successful tyrant? Would you rather be brave and thought to be a coward, or cowardly but thought to be brave?

Would you rather be a Catholic or a Kennedy?"

Ouch.

Agnosticism is impossible

I am reading a fascinating book by Peter Kreeft on the writings of Blaise Pascal Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensées.

Kreeft's premise is that most Christian Apologetics are written for believers, whereas Pascal wrote for non-believers.

One excerpt I already posted was Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally.

I have read a couple of Peter Kreeft's books (all excellent), and he lists them all on his site.

Both these men are awesome writers and Christian apologetics.

Then as I was googling Pascal, I found this site of Kreeft's.

His essays are here.

There is an essay on "The argument from Pascal's Wager", "Hell", "The argument from design", "The Argument from Conscience", "The problem of Evil", and others. His essays are a couple of pages long and easy to read.

Because I am currently reading Kreeft on Pascal, I loved Kreefts' essay on the Pascal's famous Wager. Remember that this argument was written for sceptics. Here's a bit from Kreeft on Pascal's wager:
"...The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death."

He ends the essay with the following:
"An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power."

I wonder if Joyce Arthur, a self proclaimed atheist, has ever read Kreeft or Pascal?

Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally

Peter Kreeft on Pascal's Pensées (from his book Christianity for Modern Pagans)

Pascal is in Red and Kreeft is in Blue

Pascal's Pensée [12]

Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [I] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.

Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is.

Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.

Attractive because it promises true good.

The root of most atheism is not argument but attitude, not intellection but feeling, not the love of truth but the fear of truth...The point—that atheism's origin is not intellectual but volitional and moral-follows from Christ's promise that all who seek (God) will find (him). For unless this promise is a lie, and Christ a liar, there can be only two causes for not having found God, that is, for unbelief: (I) not seeking him, or (2) time. For eventually, however long the delay, all seekers find. See no. 160...

Pascal's Pensée [160]

There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.

There is no fourth class, none who find God without ever seeking him.

Group I are believers. They are "reasonable" or wise or sane because they seek and happy because they have found.

Group 2 are unhappy atheists and agnostics. They are "reasonable" because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found.

Group 3 are the happy atheists. They are "unreasonable", foolish, spiritually insane, because they do not even seek the truth; and they are unhappy (forever!) because they do not find.

Thus, paradoxically, unhappy atheists are destined for happiness eternally, and happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally (just as Jesus said in Luke 6:21-26).

The great divide, the eternal divide, is not between theists and atheists, or between happiness and unhappiness, but tween seekers (lovers) and nonseekers (nonlovers) of the Truth (for God is Truth). Thus it is the heart and not the head that determines our eternal destiny.

We all instinctively know this is right.

Can pride be defeated?

"Pride can never defeat pride; only humility can defeat pride."

From Peter Kreeft's book Christianity for Modern Pagans

 

If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong

Peter Kreeft from his book Catholic Christianity:
The basic arguments for and against abortion

There are three steps, or premises, to the argument for outlawing abortion:

The first is that one of the most fundamental purposes of law is to protect human rights, especially the first and foundational right, the right to life.

The second is that all human beings have the right to life.

The third is that the already-conceived but not-yet-born children of man beings are human beings.

From these three premises it necessarily follows that the law must protect the right to life of unborn children.

There are only three possible reasons for disagreeing with this conclusion and being "pro-choice" instead of pro-life. One may deny the first, second, or third premise. For if all three are admitted, the pro-life conclusion follows.

Thus there are three different kinds of "pro-choicers":

First, there are those who admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn children are persons but deny that this right should be protected by law (the first premise). This is a serious legal error.

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.

"'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin...3

"'The moment a positive' " [human] "'law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined' 4" (CCC 2273).

Second, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that unborn children are human beings but deny that all human beings have the right to life (the second premise). This is a very serious moral error.

It is essentially the philosophy of power, of "might makes right." Those in power—doctors, parents, legislators, adults—decree the right to kill those who lack the power to defend themselves: the smallest, most vulnerable, and most innocent of' all human beings. No good reason can justify this decree; a good end does not justify an intrinsically evil means. If the babies shared the powers of the abortionists and could fight back with scalpels, there would be few abortions.

Third, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have that right, but deny that unborn children are humans (the third premise).This is a serious factual and scientific error.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, all science texts taught the biological truism that the life of any individual of any species begins at conception, when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique genetic code, distinct from both father and mother. All growth and development from then on are a matter of degree, a gradual unfolding of what is already there. There is no specific or distinct point in our development when we become human. (What were we before that? Birds?) Only when abortion became legal did the science textbooks change their language and cease teaching this truism—not because of any new science but because of a new politics.

Abortion is not a complex issue. Few moral issues could be clearer. As Mother Teresa said, "If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong."