The Need for Clarity in our Public Dialogue 

For many opponents of the practice, abortion is clearly a religious issue. But in an important sense, it shouldn't be. Let me attempt to explain that loaded statement.

When I use the phrase "religious issue", what I mean is that many within the pro-life camp primarily justify their opposition to abortion with appeals to religion, especially the Christian religion: "God said...", "My church believes...", or "The Bible teaches...". But think for a moment about the difference between moral issues and religious issues. Without a doubt, moral issues are regularly addressed by religious texts and often align with religious issues. But while there can be overlap, the two categories differ. Take for example instructions in the New Testament about observing the Lord's Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). While moral issues might be involved in one's participation or misuse of this practice, such instructions are fundamentally concerned with a religious issue. If this were a moral issue, then it might be reasonable to have civic laws that required every citizen to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

But in contrast, the deliberate snuffing out of a human life is first a moral issue. Whatever one believes about the legal questions surrounding abortion, almost all of us are deeply concerned with the morality of life and death, and with laws that protect an individual, human life (or as Thomas Jefferson expressed it, laws that protect "certain unalienable Rights... among these are Life..."). That means the most important question regarding abortion is not "When should it be legal?" or "Who has a say on this matter?", but "When does an individual, human life begin?" If a newborn is legally protected, and thus, cannot be killed when he or she is an hour old, does it make sense to withhold the same legal protection an hour before the infant is delivered? And if one hour before delivery is reasonable in terms of legal protections, then why not one week? Or one month? Or one trimester? Such questions lead us back to that fundamental question, "When does an individual, human life begin?"

But as is the case with prohibitions against things like manslaughter or genocide, at the civic level, a religious justification is not needed to establish the moral force of such laws. Believers and unbelievers alike gladly support laws that protect individual, human life... especially their own. What does that mean for those who primarily see abortion as a religious issue? While an individual who seeks to protect the unborn may be religiously inspired in his or her advocacy of that position, making abortion a religious issue can actually work against such advocacy. How? When you link moral issues with religious issues in the public square, those who disagree with you can dismiss your moral arguments simply by dismissing your religion. Instead of having to grapple with the moral questions and implications surrounding abortion, the other person need only say, "Well, I don't believe the Bible is the word of God." Attempting to persuade someone to accept the divine origins of Scripture is certainly a good thing. But it can unnecessarily muddy the waters when the topic at hand is the moral argument against abortion. As fellow Americans, we don't need to agree on spiritual matters to agree that protecting human life at every stage of development and dependency is important.

In saying all this, am I suggesting that a religious text like the Bible has nothing important to add to this conversation? Absolutely not. While the Old and New Testaments do not explicitly address the issue of abortion, both collections are crystal clear about the unjustified taking of human life and God's call to love every person (Romans 13:8-10). "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (v. 10) But we might ask, biblically speaking, is the unborn child my neighbor? Yes! In places where it talks about unborn life, Scripture assumes a distinct person exists in the womb. For example, in Luke 1:43 the newly pregnant Mary is addressed as "the mother of my Lord", not "she who will be (or become) the mother of my Lord". Moreover, it's the presence of the unborn Christ child that causes another unborn child, John, to leap for joy in his mother's womb (v. 44). Though these are remarkable circumstances in many respects, the fact that distinct, unborn persons are involved here seems unremarkable (cf. Hosea 12:3). The Bible doesn't describe distinct individuals as coming into existence at birth. Instead, what is affirmed is a continuity of personal identity, beginning in the womb. Even more profound is how the Old Testament depicts the Creator himself at work through the process of pregnancy. We are said to be "fashioned" by God in the womb (Job 31:15; Psalm 139:13; Jeremiah 1:5)! Again, fellow citizens do not need to believe that God himself is at work in pregnancy in order to accept that abortion is morally problematic. But this spiritual perspective certainly does align with and deepen our understanding of the moral case against abortion.

So as I stated at the outset, in an important sense, abortion should not be presented in the public square as a religious issue. The reason is straightforward: our moral agreement as fellow citizens in a pluralistic society does not and should not require religious agreement as well. Instead, disciplines like science and medicine, as well as psychology and philosophy, can help us find common ground when it comes to that fundamental (albeit difficult) question of "When does an individual, human life begin?" I would argue that if we're willing to set other abortion-related questions to the side for a time, and tackle this foundational issue, we might recognize the evidence for and wisdom of protecting human life from the moment it begins (regardless of an individual's size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency). 

Of course, in another important sense, abortion is a religious issue. How so? In that God is not only the author and sustainer of all life, but also the One to whom we will one day, in light of every moral and religious issue, have to give an account. The believer will be both sobered and inspired by this. But it's helpful to remember that all of us are believers in something, even in regard to this topic. Every position on abortion is ultimately a faith-based opinion. Since personhood cannot be measured or monitored in the womb by any kind of sensor, each of us can only trust that we are acting morally, in line with the best evidence and reasoning. Thus, those who believe abortion to be amoral can only trust that they are not snuffing out an innocent life. So given the stakes involved in this moral issue, I would argue that it's far wiser to err on the side of caution. If our positions are ultimately faith-based opinions, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of that unalienable right to life?