Recently, I wrote about a pastor’s reaction to the abortion bill recently passed in Massachusetts. That post led some people to ask about my own views on abortion. With that in mind, I decided to explain how I arrived at my current position—not because I think everyone should agree with me, but because I believe the questions I have wrestled with are important for Christians who want to think seriously about this issue.
What Is Life?
There are many ways to approach this question, but for this discussion I want to focus on the theological question: What is human life?
When I read Genesis 1–2, I see the Bible making a distinction between biological function (bios) and animated human existence (zoe). I will use these terms throughout because I think the distinction is important. My primary concern here is zoe, rather than bios. And yes, it appears possible for one to exist without the other under certain circumstances.
We generally say that a person has died when their biological functions have ceased. Yet Christians understand that death does not mean the end of their zoe—their life. Likewise, a person who is brain-dead may have experienced a separation between these two concepts, while modern technology continues to sustain some of their biological functions.
The fact that bios and zoe do not always perfectly overlap is important as we move forward. It means that when we talk about human life and the ending of human life, our primary concern is zoe, not simply bios.
Recognizing how difficult and sometimes unclear this boundary can be should also encourage humility. I am not an expert in these fields. I have read some books by people who are experts, but that is very different from being an expert myself.
When Does Bios Become Zoe?
Another way to ask this question is: When does a person become a person?
There are three historic Christian positions, along with a fourth position that has become more prominent in recent decades, that need to be considered:
- Life begins at fertilization.
- Life begins at conception.
- Life begins at quickening.
- Life begins at first breath.
It is important to recognize that all of these positions take the Bible seriously. With the possible exception of the first, each has been argued by Christians going back to the earliest centuries of the Church.
It is also important to understand that choosing one of these positions simply because of one’s political position on abortion gets the process backward. We should first wrestle with the theological question of when human life begins and then allow our conclusions to inform our political opinions. Our political position should not determine how we answer the theological question.
So let’s look at these positions more closely.
Life Begins at Fertilization
This is a relatively new position within Christian circles and seems to have emerged largely in response to the modern political debate over abortion, particularly from a desire to prohibit IVF, where multiple embryos may be created and subsequently destroyed.
The reasoning behind this position overlaps with some of the arguments used to defend conception as the beginning of life. However, I think the argument for fertilization is weaker than the argument for conception and is more clearly connected to a particular political concern.
First, the Bible has no concept of fertilization as we understand it today; it speaks instead about conception. Second, even if we limit ourselves to natural circumstances, approximately 30–40% of fertilized eggs do not result in pregnancy.
That scientific reality does not, by itself, disprove the position. However, it does raise serious questions about the process and whether God would regard every fertilized egg as a person. Overall, I find that difficult to accept.
Life Begins at Conception
Although the ancient world did not have the same understanding of conception that we have today—and some of its theories were quite different from modern biology—the Bible does treat conception as significant.
The Bible also treats sexual activity with a certain sacredness because of its potential to produce new human life. Historically, sexual intercourse was understood, at least in part, as humanity providing God with the material through which God creates new life. In that sense, it can be understood as an act of human participation with God and therefore as connected to the beginning of human life.
Modern Christians who hold this position, however, often ground their argument less in theology and more in science. The argument is usually that at conception, the resulting cells have unique DNA and therefore constitute a unique person, even though they are completely dependent upon the mother.
I think this reasoning faces at least two problems.
First, as we learn more about genetics, unique DNA becomes a less convincing argument. Many cells within our own bodies contain genetic material that differs from the DNA found in the rest of our bodies.
Second, as I argued earlier, there is a distinction between bios and zoe. We recognize this distinction at the end of life, so we should be cautious about simply equating biological function with human personhood at the beginning of life.
Passages such as Psalm 139—“I knit you together in your mother’s womb”—are also frequently cited in defense of this position. I regard such passages as poetry and therefore of limited usefulness for settling this particular question. However, there is an interesting problem with using them in the way some people do.
If we interpret these passages as describing God literally creating the person within the womb, then they seem to imply a process in which biological material exists in the womb and is subsequently formed into a person. Being “knit together” suggests development rather than necessarily identifying the precise moment at which personhood begins.
Life Begins at Quickening
This position holds that God’s Spirit works within the developing fetus at a particular point in the pregnancy, “quickening”—that is, making the biological system alive—and that this is when the fetus becomes human.
This view takes seriously the biblical passages that associate movement in the womb with life.
Like the position that life begins at first breath, this view requires us to make a stronger distinction between bios and zoe than many modern Christians may be comfortable making.
Life Begins at First Breath
This position focuses on the Bible’s repeated association between life and breath. Beginning with Genesis 2, Scripture repeatedly connects breath with life.
Of course, we can argue that these associations are metaphorical or reflect the limited scientific understanding of the ancient world. But the biblical association between breath and life is at least as strong as the arguments some people make from passages such as Psalm 139.
I recognize the emotional and pastoral implications of this position, particularly for anyone who has experienced a painful miscarriage or stillbirth. The proponents of this view whom I have read recognize those implications as well. I also understand why those realities may make this position difficult or even untenable for some Christians.
Where I Currently Stand
For the sake of clarity, I have shifted over the last few years from saying that life begins at conception to saying that life begins at quickening.
I say this because I honestly do not know exactly when human life begins. The position of quickening seems to provide the greatest amount of latitude while acknowledging that uncertainty.
In other words, there is admittedly an element of a cop-out in my position. I cannot say with certainty exactly when a person becomes a person. Because I cannot identify that moment with confidence, I have chosen the position that leaves the most room for uncertainty.
How Should These Questions Inform a Discussion About Abortion?
Recognizing how difficult it is to identify the precise moment when a person becomes a person—and recognizing that Christians throughout history have held different positions on this question—should affect how we approach the modern political debate over abortion.
First, even if you believe that life begins at first breath, you should still recognize that the development of a child is sacred. Even if you do not believe that the fetus is fully human at every stage of development, the process should be treated with tremendous respect.
On the other hand, if you believe that life begins at conception, you need to take seriously the dangers inherent in pregnancy. Unless you are prepared to argue that every instance of taking a human life constitutes murder—and I do not know anyone who consistently holds that position—you should be careful about saying that all abortion is murder.
For example, if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother and the baby must be lost in order to save her life, I do not believe that situation can simply be labeled murder. This is why I think the slogan “abortion is murder” is both overly simplistic and deeply unhelpful.
Once we acknowledge that there are circumstances in which a mother’s life may be in danger, universal claims about abortion—and universal bans on abortion—become much more complicated.
This is especially important if you believe that life begins at fertilization. Under that definition, certain medical treatments, such as treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, could involve ending what you believe is a human life. These complexities have to be considered when we support legislation.
Yet during my lifetime, abortion policies have often been presented as an all-or-nothing choice: either all abortion is legal or none of it is.
I do not think either approach adequately acknowledges the complexity of the situation.
If I am being honest, I will not support legislation addressing abortion unless it has been significantly shaped by both physicians and ethicists. Without professionals who understand the medical and ethical complexities of these situations helping to shape the legislation, I am not confident that the consequences for women will be adequately considered.
What Can We Learn from the Early Church?
At this point, I think it is helpful to look at the early Church.
Early Christians worked hard to oppose both abortion and the practice of exposing unwanted children. Yet it is important to recognize that even when Christians gained political influence, their primary response was not simply to make these practices illegal.
Instead, Christians developed ways of caring for women and children.
Rather than making pregnant women feel like pariahs, Christians sought to make them feel welcomed, protected, and cared for. This is very different from the simplistic political rhetoric we often hear today.
If a “pro-life” movement modeled itself entirely on the early Roman Christians, its primary focus might not be on passing laws to end abortion. Instead, it would focus on changing society so that caring for pregnant women and their children became a central priority.
Early Christians did not simply focus on abortion. They focused on the circumstances surrounding it. They sought to provide mothers with safe and supportive environments in which they and their children could be cared for.
I think there is something important for Christians today to learn from that approach.
At this point it is helpful to bring in the early Church since early Christians worked hard to eliminate both abortion and the practice of exposing children. It is important to note that even when Christians had political influence they did not attempt to make such practices illegal. Instead Christians enacted policies of loving women and children and this is what ended the practices. Rather than making pregnant women feeling like pariahs Christians made them feel welcomed and cared for. This is not the simplistic political rhetoric we have come to expect in our day. A “pro-life” lobby led by Roman Christians would not focus on ending abortion, it would focus on changing policies to make caring for pregnant women a priority. Instead of focusing on abortion early Christians focused on giving the mother a safe and comfortable environment.
Squinting in the Light 
Leave a comment