Recently, N.T. Wright argued that in some circumstances, Christians may terminate a pregnancy. While he did not argue for unrestricted abortion, he believed that in certain situations, terminating a pregnancy could be “the best thing to do.”
Wright explains: “There are many, many cases where it is about the mother’s health versus the health of the child or whatever. And particularly that, as you cited, in cases of rape or in cases of incest, there may be a very, very strong argument for saying this ought never to have happened. And with sorrow, because we do not want to do this in principle, but with sorrow and a bit of shame, the best thing to do is as soon as possible to terminate this pregnancy.”
Christians have rightly rejected abortion as a way of death from the very beginning (see the Didache), and Wright verbally agrees that abortion is morally wrong. However, in his fuller comments, he believes that terminating some pregnancies does not abort a “viable human being.” For this reason, he does not appear to think that terminating an early pregnancy constitutes an abortion. And so he feels free to recommend terminating early pregnancies for this reason.
Steelmanning Wright’s Argument
Before responding to his statements, we can first steelman Wright’s argument in three ways:
First, Wright advocates only for exceptional circumstances. He is not promoting unrestricted abortion. For example, he points to a case where a woman contracted German measles while pregnant, which can lead to deformities in the womb. He explains that severe mental health problems (in the parents) and deformity (in the child) may make a compelling argument to terminate a pregnancy.
Second, Wright acknowledges the real suffering that women undergo through rape and incest. We cannot discuss these matters only theoretically—women suffer. As he notes, “And indeed one of the problems has been, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, when women, particularly say a girl who’s been raped or who’s had incest committed on her, then discovering that unmarried men from the Catholic hierarchy are telling her what she can and can’t do.”
He has a pastoral concern that celibate and unmarried priests may be insensitive to women’s real suffering. So he is not merely saying abort at will. He is rather trying to provide a pastoral approach to helping women who are the victims of rape and incest.
Third, Wright denies that any viable human being should be aborted. He is appalled at late-term abortions, for example.
In his view, however, an immediate abortion after rape or incest does not terminate a viable human being. As he explains, “At the same time, there may be certain exceptions of which severe deformity might be one, of which certainly incest and rape would be others, and in those cases I would say ‘the sooner the better’ because at a certain point—and I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line—then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.”
The crucial point—the most important point, I think—is that Wright does not view an early pregnancy as one that has “a viable human being” that should be cherished. Instead, Wright believes a non-viable human being (or perhaps he would not say “human being”) does not require us to cherish it. He thus feels free to recommend terminating early pregnancies.
After he makes the above comment, Wright immediately talks about how children in the womb are aware of all sorts of things. So it is clear that the line he makes is one between a “viable human being” and something else entirely, something that can be aborted.
Having articulated his view in his own words, I would like to offer a response by arguing that Wright’s position is morally impossible and contradicts the biblical teaching that God makes all human life through human begetting.
Who Decides When a Human Being Is Viable?
Wright’s acknowledgment that he cannot define when a human being is viable requires him to accept the premise that before a human being is viable, abortion is permitted. “I would say ‘the sooner the better’ [to terminate a pregnancy] because at a certain point—and I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line—then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.” For him, the key question is when a human being becomes viable.
His reasoning follows legal and medical arguments around fetal development. But as he implies when he says, “I am not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line,” Wright knows that the line is not clear. A medical professional will likely define that line differently than others would, and different countries define viability differently.
In other words, Wright holds to a position that is morally impossible to sustain. Let me put it simply: If I do not know when a human being is viable, then I am guessing. But if I am guessing, I may be wrong. If I am wrong, then I am terminating (killing) a viable human being. Without assurance that I am not terminating the life of a viable human being—and Wright acknowledges it is hard to know—then abortion runs the deep risk of killing a human being.
In my view, this is an impossible moral situation that arises from an incomplete understanding of what it means to be a human being.
God Makes Human Life
Secondly, the Bible teaches that God makes human life through human procreation. Put simply, when two people have sexual intercourse, they conceive a life. That life is made by God and begotten by humans. (For a full explanation of this argument, see this article.)
On this view, we would not ask whether a human being is viable or not viable. Nor would we see this question as determining whether we might terminate a fetus. Instead, we would recognize that God made that human life through human procreation. By contrast, to terminate a human life would be to unmake what God has made and humans have begotten.
We belong body and soul to God. Any human life is made in God’s image. Any human life is made by God. Therefore, any human life cannot be ours to take, any human made in God’s image cannot be ours to destroy, and any human made by God cannot be ours to unmake.
Acknowledging Real Suffering
I say all of this not to deny any real suffering among women. I cannot grasp how the violence of rape or incest could affect a woman’s well-being. And I can only imagine how evil it must feel that a human life was conceived in a woman’s womb through such vile acts, which defile a woman in outrageous ways.
With all of that said, human suffering does not change reality. What God has made through human procreation is still a human life. You may be expecting me at this juncture to defend God or find a silver lining. I do not know how. All I can say is that a human life should not be terminated.
The outrageous acts of rape and incest do not change Christian teaching on what constitutes created life. They only make it more tragic.
I will add one further point: a human life conceived in sin deserves to be protected and cherished. When a man rapes a woman, he violates a woman whom he should protect and cherish. Knowing how evil this act is, we should not respond by committing a similarly evil act. We should not harm the new human life but should instead protect and cherish it. It is life made in God’s image and life innocent of the evil that conceived it.
I can sympathize in the same ways that Wright does, therefore, but I cannot reach the same conclusions that Wright does.
Further Resource
“Does the Bible Speak about Abortion” by Wyatt Graham
Image: Screen capture from Premier Unbelievable?’s YouTube Page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CYZ2FdYcYg
