Abortion supporters try to foist the burden of proof on abortion foes by claiming that the issue is puzzling. They argue that, since no one can prove that personhood begins at conception,1 one can assume that it does not.2

Professing Christians sometimes offer similar arguments:3

In the absence of consensus among religious groups as to fetal personhood and the value of fetal life or its claims on the pregnant woman and the community, no law could be based on the most narrow and rigid proposal without violating the First Amendment.4

Others suggest that implantation marks the point at which a “fertilized egg” enters into relationship with its mother, when it definitely bears God’s image.5 On this model, some embryo experimentation might be permissible in its early stages. They try to place the burden of proof on those who oppose such experiments.

Christians should put the burden of proof back where it belongs, on those who would cheapen and harm the human being from the point of conception. Firstly, “Scripture never suggests that the unborn child is anything less than a human person.”6 Secondly, it seems clear that Scripture regards unborn children as truly human.7 Thirdly, even if Scripture were not clear, the “doctrine of carefulness”8 (and its correlate, the prohibition against moral negligence) would prohibit abortion unless there was a watertight case that the fetus was not yet a human being in the image of God.

Here is how the “doctrine of carefulness” works: imagine a man hunting in the woods. Seeing a shape in the bushes, he raises his rifle, uncertain whether he sees a man or a deer. He cannot, at that moment, prove that it is a man. Yet, of course, he has no right to shoot until he can be certain that the shape is not that of a human being. He must not risk taking an innocent life. Similarly, unless pro-abortionists can prove beyond reasonable doubt that fetuses are not human, they have no right to destroy nascent human lives.

Pro-life counseling can be more difficult when the counselee does not accept the authority of Scripture, but the doctrine of carefulness can bridge the gap. For even when the unbelieving, expectant mother is skeptical of proof in these matters, she need not doubt where the burden of proof lies—squarely on the shoulders of those who would presume to kill the contents of her womb. When so much has been written about the psychological, physical, and spiritual trauma of abortion, those who affirm abortion must surely be on the defensive.
 
Footnotes:
 
1  See Kairos Journal article, “Human Non-Persons?”
 
2  Polly Rothstein and Marian Williams, Choice (New York: Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, 1983).
 
3  Paul D. Simmons, “Personhood, the Bible and the Abortion Debate,” Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Website, http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/personhood%20and%20bible.pdf, (accessed July 3, 2003).
 
4  The writer refers to the opening words of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, which read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
 
5  Francis Bridger, “Morals at the Beginning of Life,” Church of England Newspaper, May 3, 2002, 23.
 
6  John Frame, “Pastoral and Social Ethics Lecture Outline, Part Five: Exposition of the Law of God: Sixth through Tenth Commandments,” Third Millennium Ministries Website, http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/93180~12_19_01_2-31-07_PM~TH.Frame.Ethics.5.pdf, pg. 214. Emphasis his.
 
7  See Kairos Journal article, “It’s a Baby.”
 
8  Frame, 215. See also Randy Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 51-53.
 
article adopted from Karios Journal

First Baptist Church is located in Perryville across from the Principio Health Center.