At the point where it seemed that every angle on abortion ethics had been discussed and recycled, in May, a US senator put forward a novel suggestion that it is actually ‘anti-Christian’ not to support abortion.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, came to Georgia (where a ‘foetal heartbeat bill’ was being signed into law). There Gillibrand said that laws banning (or in any way restricting abortion) are ‘against [the] Christian faith’. As Al Mohler stated in his daily podcast, The Briefing, ‘that’s quite a statement.’1
At the rally, Gillibrand demanded that access to abortion be standardised across the country on the basis of Christian values. In the USA, no money from citizens is given directly to abortion through taxation. In fact one of the sticking points regarding ‘Obama Care’ concerns provision in health insurance for abortion. Such a demand would not only overturn the Hyde Amendment2, but would obviously distort the Bible’s teaching and indeed logical thinking with regard to the law.
Theological debate
Nevertheless, Gillibrand constructed her own so-called biblical argument. Using the theological language of ‘free will’ she justified the killing of a pre-born by stating that no true Christian should impose their faith on other people. Although there is separation of church and state in the US, which is different to the situation in the UK, there is obviously still not full acceptance of the unrestricted rights of the individual to exercise their free will. For example, free will is restricted with regard to murder (of those already born), and someone stealing would have to steal with the expectation of the law being enforced against them if they were caught. Indeed the concept of ‘law’ is entirely about how ‘free will’ is restricted in order to protect the individual, or society.
Mohler: ‘nonsense’
The theological implications of saying it is against the Christian faith to put boundaries on decision-making because free will is king, elevates free will to the highest doctrinal importance, making the human sovereign in terms of moral responsibility. This is not only un-Christian but ‘nonsense’.
Furthermore, to separate unrestricted human free will from human responsibility is extremely dangerous. To make free will into something prized by a society with scant regard to the consequences, shows a moral deficiency in the argument. The proponent of the argument seems to be ignoring what humans are really like. Even with restrictions on free will, the Bible (which Gillibrand attempted to reference) is littered with examples of human failure and the horrific consequences of free will operating outside of God’s loving constraints. Sadly society is no different today.
As Mohler concluded: ‘We need to note [the free will argument cannot] be consistently held in any sane society, before you even get to the question of abortion. It just becomes particularly reprehensible when abortion is the issue at stake in this kind of argument. This is an argument that is theological gibberish. It is also a very deadly form of theological confusion.’
