Abortion does not kill a potential human being. It kills a human being with great potential.
—Elizabeth Johnston—
If there are no penalties for a mother who aborts her child, then abortion is still legal. Therefore, if you want no penalties for mothers who abort their baby, then you want abortion to be legal.
—Matt Travis—
Does the “value” of life follow the baby or the mother? Seems like people are mixing these up a lot lately. Either life has value or it doesn’t. Convenience or origin story don’t affect that.
—Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, now a pro-life advocate—
Key point: If the unborn are human, government has a duty to protect them from any and all who would consider ending their lives, including their mothers.
A slightly different version of this article is available here.
On Thursday, May 19, 2022, an interesting article appeared on the Internet written by Wes Brown, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Plumerville, Arkansas. The article is titled “The Pro-Life Movement’s Newfound Hatred of Women.” Rev. Brown wrote in part,
For years, those who have fought against abortion have been labeled as women-haters. I have always brushed this attack off as ridiculous, but recent events have shown the accusation to be true — just not in the way it was intended. Those who believe abortion is a right or merely healthcare claim that the pro-life position hates women because it would deny them the type of healthcare that would include the termination of a pregnancy. This argument falls on its face, though, since the termination of a pregnancy is not just healthcare but the murder of a baby. It is not hating any group of people to disallow them to murder infants. Because of this, I have always been confident that this type of hatred does not exist in the pro-life movement. But to my great sorrow, recent events have revealed that another type of hatred against women does indeed exist within its ranks.
I was extremely encouraged to hear the news that Louisiana’s State Legislature was considering the Abolition of Abortion Act [Lousiana HB 813]. This act sought to extend equal protection under the law to the unborn. I expected to see a groundswell of support from pro-life groups all over the nation, especially in light of the recent news that Roe v. Wade was likely to be overturned. But, instead of support for the legislation, a stunning open letter signed by 76 groups claiming to be pro-life was released condemning the measure and any like it that might arise in the future. [The letter is available here.] I thought I might have missed some glaring mistake in the proposed law, but when I read the letter, I was shocked to find that the reason these groups rejected the law was a bold and deep hatred of women.
They [the individuals and groups endorsing the letter] object to the law and any measure that would see unborn infants equally protected under the law, because under such a system women who freely and willingly participate in the killing of unborn babies would be subject to criminal penalties. The letter puts it clearly, “We state unequivocally that any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women is not pro-life and we stand firmly opposed to such efforts.” In defending this firm opposition, leaders of these groups have argued that women may be unaware that they are taking a life when they have an abortion, or they may make the decision due to bad advice or pressure from unfortunate circumstances, and that in many cases the woman merely procures an abortion rather than actually performing it with her own hands. I will argue that, though it may not be their conscious intent, this position and the arguments defending it hate the women they claim to be defending.
Essentially, Rev. Brown makes the compelling case that not treating women equally with men by not holding them responsible for taking innocent lives, in this case through abortion, is both insulting and demeaning to them. It would be like saying, You’re not capable of refraining from having an abortion; you’re unable to stop yourself from murdering your child. Your circumstances are so difficult you cannot rise above them. Therefore, we oppose any penalties the law making bring against you for arranging an abortion and submitting to one. This approach creates women as less than human.
A Refreshing Perspective
Wes Brown’s take actually is a refreshing perspective. Refreshing, because it rings true! I agree that it is demeaning to women, and indeed a form of hatred, to oppose any efforts to hold them accountable for having abortions.
Take careful note of what the letter from “pro-life” organizations said. This portion of the letter appears in bold type:
Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion.
As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.
Not only was the number of “pro-life” organizations represented in the letter shocking, but also which ones endorsed the letter. In particular, Southern Baptists should be, and are, angry that Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the SBC’s own ethics and public policy organization, signed the letter on behalf of the ERLC. This occurred even after a resolution was passed by Southern Baptists calling for an immediate end to abortion rather than taking an incremental approach. The resolution was adopted in Nashville on June 16, 2021, at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. The following video of the debate and vote is twenty-three minutes long. I encourage you to watch it, even if you have to carve out time and opportunity to do so. I provide it here for your convenience and information.
Even if the folks at the ERLC actually favor an incremental approach to ending abortion, Brent Leatherwood’s signing the letter opposing the Louisiana legislation because it held mothers accountable for ending their children’s lives flew in the face of the resolution that passed in Nashville last June. For whom does Mr. Leatherwood and the rest of the employees at the ERLC work?
Holding Mothers Accountable Means Respecting Them and Treating Them with Dignity
In this post, I would like to discuss eight reasons why I believe women are indeed morally responsible for having a hand in ending innocent human lives when they have abortions, and why our laws should hold them accountable for their their actions.
First, it should be noted the proposal that would have legally held women accountable for abortion would simply have afforded unborn children the same legal protections that belong to people already born. Capstone Report described the situation this way:
The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention is under fire for fighting a Pro-Life Bill in Louisiana. The ERLC joined a letter with other national pro-life groups resisting the legislation in Louisiana that would have provided Equal Protection to the unborn baby and a post-birth baby. And Southern Baptists were not happy with it—especially as this action directly contradicted the Abortion Abolition resolution adopted at last year’s Southern Baptist Convention’s Annual Meeting.
I’m prompted to ask, What is the end game here for these “pro-life” groups? Is it to make abortion illegal, to finally put a stop to abortion altogether? If so, then how do they plan to accomplish this without extending the same legal protections to unborn children that already protect men, women, boys, and girls?
Second, the idea that mothers must not be legally held accountable for ending innocent lives through abortion undermines the argument that a pregnant woman ought not to abort her baby because the baby’s body isn’t her own body. Conversely, this idea adds credence to the pro-choice argument that “a woman ought to be able to decide to abort her baby because she can do what she wants with her own body.” Here’s the truth. A woman certainly can make health decisions about her own body — but the baby inside of her has a body of his or her own. That body does not belong to the mother! She’s not talking just about her own health anymore. She’s talking about someone else, and someone else’s life.
Third, it’s true that many women who’ve had abortions are victims. Abortion kills children and exploits women. But being a victim does not give anyone an excuse to kill another human being. Moreover, not all abortive women who’ve aborted their children or otherwise been involved with abortion are victims. Do you believe these women are?
Fourth, pro-choice advocates distort beyond recognition the meaning of the terms right and rights. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution speak of rights, but the rights of which these documents speak are inherent, God-given rights — rights that belong to every human being by virtue of having been created by God in His image.
Moreover,
Who can argue with any credibility that any person has a God-given right to take an innocent human life, or to participate in the taking of an innocent human life? God has declared human life to be sacred. Any so-called “right” to abortion isn’t a right authorized by the Constitution at all, but one created by government in blatant disobedience to God and His laws.
Fifth, the idea that the woman should not in any way be held responsible for an abortion she chooses to have reinforces the tenets of situation ethics and attempts to undermine the biblical teaching that right and wrong are absolute — applicable to all people, at all times under all circumstances. See items 1 and 2 on this list and explore them here.
We should emphasize at this point that quite often, men who are involved in the lives of women who have abortions are responsible to some degree, and in some cases to a great degree, for the abortions that occur. The father of a child recently conceived often will pressure the mother to have an abortion, make arrangements for an abortion to occur, pay for the abortion, or in some other way make an abortion possible or likely. Just so no one misunderstands, I believe our laws should protect unborn children from anyone, male or female, who might take their lives. We can put it another way. Men who are parties to abortion also have blood on their hands. Their actions contribute to the deaths of innocent children, and they also should be held liable.
That said, it is undeniable that the mother’s say about the matter usually (though not always) is the final word. Abortionists certainly should be held responsible for their actions. So should mothers, as we have said — and the men involved. Yet we need to recognize this reality: If the mothers aren’t held accountable for abortion, the men won’t be, either. The realities that 1) only women can get pregnant and that 2) only women can have abortions make the debate, at least initially, about whether or not unborn children should be legally protected from losing their lives at the hands of their mothers. (Putting it that way actually gives great clarity to the situation, doesn’t it?) The mother’s responsibility, therefore, is the primary focus of this article.
Sixth, exempting women who are guilty of taking their unborn babies’ lives though abortion from penalty or punishment ignores and even repudiates the natural instinct of mothers to protect their babies. King Solomon of Israel wisely tapped into a mother’s natural instinct to protect her child when he rendered a judgment between two women, both of whom claimed to be the mother of a surviving child (see 1 Kings 3:16-28). Just as did Solomon’s wise judgment, and just as do ultrasounds in our day, our laws need to tap into this natural maternal instinct. Yet this will never happen if we refuse to hold women morally accountable for how they treat their children, especially with regard to whether or not they allow them to live.
But wait! someone will say. Isn’t it unduly harsh to punish a mother for aborting her child when she feels she has no alternative? No, it isn’t. Why? Because she does have alternatives, alternatives that do not involve the taking of an innocent life.
I also would point out that Solomon’s recommendation seemed overly harsh at first, but in the end, it was life-saving and just. The same can be said about holding people, including mothers, accountable for violating the rights of unborn babies. In the end, the effect of any just law is going to be to be life-saving or life-affirming.
Seventh, ending abortion means no longer having the issue of fighting abortion as a cause. People who pride themselves on being members of the pro-life community will cringe over this idea and object to it strenuously. Even so, it is apparent that the loss of their cause would be painful to many. Such a loss looms as a threat to them because they’ve done what they’ve done for so long, they don’t know how to operate and effectively be advocates for life in a world where abortions are illegal. I say to them: Learn how! Even when abortion becomes illegal, the need to advocate for life still will be as great, or even greater, than ever.
Eighth, the truth matters, and the truth is that the unborn are human and are people of infinite worth. Pro-life advocate Scott Klusendorf puts it this way:
The morality of abortion comes down to just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, elective abortion is a serious moral wrong that violates biblical commands against the unjust taking of human life (Exod. 23:7; Ps. 106:37–38; Prov. 6:16–17; Matt. 5:21). It treats the unborn human being, made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; James 3:9), as nothing more than disposable tissue. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.
If the unborn aren’t human, there’s no justifiable reason to be pro-life in the first place. But they are! Every human being, every human life, is infinitely valuable and has the inherent, God-given right to life. As we indicated earlier, God has made each person in His own image, whether born or pre-born. Each one of us is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (see Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6; Ps. 139:13-16), and inherently, each of us possesses a God-given life and a God-given right to live it and to “pursue happiness” under “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (see item 3 on this list and explore it in this article).
Let’s reiterate. Every pre-born individual is a person that the government and its laws should, and indeed must, protect, even from harm or potential harm from his or her own mother.
Otherwise, abortion won’t ever end.
It’s that simple, and it’s that serious.
Copyright © 2022 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
top photo credit: Photo by Gayatri Malhotra on Unsplash
Additional resources on this topic:
If you want to know in detail about what took place in Louisiana regarding HB 813 and the suspect politicking that took place from the pro-life movement. Watch this podcast: https://t.co/ymBFQ0LzL3
— Travis McNeely (@travismcneely) May 18, 2022
Yes, It Would Be Just To Punish Women For Aborting Their Babies by Georgi Boorman at The Federalist
If you’re going to condemn the woman for having an abortion, then you have to condemn the MAN that assisted in conceiving the child.
Thank you for your comment. Without question, many men have participated in and/or encouraged abortion. They, too, have blood on their hands. Our laws ought to protect the unborn from both men and women who would put their lives at risk. Your comment prompted me to add a couple of paragraphs in order to make this point. Another important point worthy of emphasis is that marriage is the ideal, God-ordained environment for sex, pregnancy, and children. (We need to rediscover the sanctity of marriage as a major key to bringing and end to abortion.)
That said, I do not believe that a man who merely impregnates a woman who aborts their baby necessarily is responsible for putting an end to that child’s life. Some men strongly try to dissuade the mother of their child from having an abortion, yet to no avail. Even so, your point that men and their actions also are important is well taken. Thank you again for emphasizing this.
— B. Nathaniel Sullivan