Several years ago I explored my own beliefs on the ethical issue of abortion. Those thoughts and prayers were exceptionally difficult for me but eventually coalesced into an earlier post on the topic as well the revelation of a sixth message. The beliefs I came to in that article, like all my beliefs in this blog, were never certain but became increasingly problematic for me as time progressed. Eventually it led me to reevaluate my beliefs on this most difficult of issues. This article is the outcome of that reevaluation. The earlier problematic post remains but should be considered deprecated by this later post.
The problems with the earlier post can be broken down into two1 issues.
The first issue with the earlier post was that I failed to properly consider the sixth message. That sixth message came while I was attempting to discern a milestone that once achieved would indicate an unborn child had been ensouled. The Greatest Love replied with what, I believe, were words meant for all of us: “How dare you judge?”
The impact of these words on me cannot be understated. They brought me to my knees in tears. They were not tears of fear, despite the firm language, but were instead tears of awe brought on by the absolute clarity of the message as revealed to me by the Divine. But even given this clarity I proposed a circumvention in the earlier article. I implied that expectant women can in fact make such a judgement when I stated they have “the individual right to determine for themselves when the being growing inside their body represents human life“. I now believe that statement, and subsequently much of the earlier post that was based on it, was wrong. I now believe no person or organization, state or church, can judge when the Divine ensouls life thereby making it sacred. This holds true for all of us, all people, including expectant mothers. None of us can judge.
The second issue was similar. I did not judge when ensoulment occurred but I did conclude when it could not have occurred based on my belief in a trinity centered around the love from the fetus, human life, and a soul. That trinity did an end run around the sixth message and I now believe that it cannot be. Instead I believe that the sixth message is absolute: humankind can never judge when the unborn has been ensouled nor when it has not been ensouled. When ensoulment occurs is completely the domain of The Greatest Love and is not for any of us to judge.
So where does that leave the debate for me?
At first glance this new focus on adhering strictly to the sixth message would seem to imply that since I cannot know when human life has been ensouled I must be conservative and always err on the side of caution. I must support legal protections on all human life as early as conception. But for me there is a problem with that conclusion. It completely ignores the woman. As stated in my earlier post, and which I continue to believe:
… Love is an infinitely complex condition and the issue of abortion involves love for the mother along with love for the fetus. Both must be considered. We must empathize with both.
When I searched my heart I wept for the victims of rape and incest, who want no part of the being growing inside of them. And I wept with the young woman who is frightened, and worried about whether her family and friends would abandon her if she tells them she is pregnant. And yes my heart also wept for the unborn: the innocent who never asked to be part of this struggle.
As a father of three beautiful boys, and as a husband in a loving and long-term relationship I view the abortion debate from a privileged vantage point. I have the emotional and financial resources to help bring another life into this world. But as a member of society I also recognize my fortune is not shared, and it is in these cases where I see the abortion debate as a collision between two conflicting sympathies: a love for the woman along with a love for the unborn.
Many legal jurisdictions address this conflict by codifying into law a threshold in time after which the unborn acquires certain rights including the right to life. This threshold has traditionally been referred to as “personhood“2. However personhood is a human invention. It is not ensoulment which is a Divine action that sanctifies human life. Although both thresholds reflect that human life, at some point, is deserving of protection they can never be harmonized. The sixth message makes that clear. We can never know the mind of The Greatest Love in this regard. When ensoulment occurs will forever remain a mystery to us.
And perhaps that is the point. Perhaps the sixth message is a statement from The Greatest Love that any conclusions we draw with absolute certainty on the issue of abortion must be viewed very skeptically. Preaching certainties to expectant women on when their unborn is ensouled speaks with false authority. The Divine is not speaking on this issue, and our beliefs are not certainties. When we treat them as such we pretend to know the Mind of The Greatest Love. We must never dare to pretend.
So why then? Why does The Greatest Love not provide a clear answer on when ensoulment occurs? I believe it is because They need us all to struggle with this question ourselves. To dispense with any certainties we may hold on the issue, and open our hearts to the possibility that love can provide a space for painful choices to be made, including the termination of human life, without fear of judgement from the heavens.
I believe The Greatest Love does not pass judgement on a woman’s choice. Instead They embrace the woman who may struggle with her decision. The woman who sees the unborn growing within her as human life but simply cannot see a clear path by which she can bring forth such a life into this World. All such paths obscured by a thick fog of enormous consequences and conflicting emotions. Into this painful mix the woman does not need to hear condemnation, but compassion.
And I believe the woman must be free to choose.
I believe, in the specific case of abortion, that love dictates the right of the woman to control her own body. That this right becomes more imperative than the right to life of the unborn. I believe this because I believe requiring a women to proceed with an unwanted live birth, against her will, can result in severe psychological distress, trauma, and long-term mental health challenges. This includes anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress (PTSD), shame and guilt, and in more serious cases suicide ideation. It can irreparably harm the woman and for me, it meets the threshold of torture. And freedom from torture is one of the very few absolute and non-derogable rights under international human rights law.
It can be worse than death.
But prioritizing a woman’s choice above the unborn’s life raises troubling possibilities. The most extreme example resulting from the above beliefs would occur when a late third-trimester healthy fetus is aborted from a healthy women, by a doctor willing to perform such a procedure without even being given so much as a reason by the woman. That reason could be arbitrary or superficial, such as in the case of sex-selective abortions.
And it pains me to say that. Even though it is an extreme example, it still shocks my conscience and compassion for the unborn. Despite late-term abortions in Canada being “rare and usually occur(ring) because of serious medical issues” my concern is with that word “usually”. But I also believe we, as a society, must endure such rare tragedies in order to prevent a much more frightening and typical outcome where bans on abortion are in place: society judging on a woman’s behalf what she can and cannot do with her own body, especially when it can result in her severe mental and/or physical suffering.
That, I believe, could take us down a very dystopian path where strangers end up wielding more and more control over the most intimate aspects of a person’s mind and/or body. Some pro-choice advocates claim anti-abortion mandates are intentionally used to control and punish women. I do not believe this is the case today. We are still far away from there. I believe the majority of the pro-life movement3 is honestly and sincerely advocating on behalf of the unborn. The problem is when advocating on behalf of the unborn requires controlling another person. Even if control is not the intent it becomes a consequence and sets a very dangerous precedent.
The right to personal autonomy is not absolute. It can have boundaries placed on it when it conflicts with the rights of other persons. For example in Canada a person can be detained and medically treated against their will if they lack the mental capacity to make treatment decisions and pose a serious risk of harm to themselves or others. But compulsory treatment for the mentally ill is a very different infringement of a person’s autonomy than forcing a woman to proceed with a live birth that she does not want. For me it is a question of degree, and I am not sure if there is any conflicting right, including even an unborn child’s right to life, that can warrant such a violation of a women’s autonomy than forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Despite the above discussion I continue to weep for the unborn. I still strongly believe we must empathize with both the woman and the child. Yet the conclusions above are strongly in favor of upholding a woman’s right to choose. Is there any space for advocating on behalf of the unborn? To provide a voice to the voiceless? It is here, while contemplating these questions that I believe a tenth message was revealed to me by my god. It was:
You must.
Again the feeling was deep compassion. I believe The Greatest Love is asking us to advocate on behalf of the unborn but with a kind heart and a soft touch. Not through shaming the woman, but by providing her assistance and removing as many barriers as possible that may prevent her from choosing to bring her child to term.
I believe The Greatest Love is not just asking us to act, The “must” in Their two words has more gravitas than that. They are commanding us to act. They are commanding us to advocate on behalf of the unborn but never at the expense of a woman’s autonomy. The implication is that we must provide women as many options as is feasible. We reduce the barriers that prevent a women from bringing a child to term by supporting her before, during, and after her pregnancy, while acknowledging that ultimately the decision is hers and it must not be judged. Neither on Earth nor in the heavens.
We support women before pregnancy through universal sex education, access to affordable and effective contraception, and the promotion of equal rights and dignity for all women with the aim of reducing sexual violence while increasing female empowerment.
We support women during pregnancy through affordable health and prenatal care along with financial support that reduces the burden of bringing an unborn child to term. Affordable shelter and housing may also need to be provided. Information on adoption options that are sensitive to the woman’s needs just as much as the child’s, and adoptive parents needs are also necessary. And yes we must support women by providing informed, affordable, and accessible abortion care.
We support women after pregnancy through everything from affordable diapers and formula, to maternity benefits and leave, to childcare, along with scholarships and education in later years. But also through the promotion of post-birth human life in general. Prohibitions against capital punishment, gun-control legislation, and affordable healthcare in general, are all examples of the value a society places on all human life after birth.
These supports are critical. They are key touchstones by which a society declares their love for human life. And the greatest change will come when our societies heed the sixth message and stop judging.
Next time you see a pregnant teenager ask yourself what do you truly see? Do you see strength, or weakness? Do you see resilience, or recklessness? Do you see love, or foolishness? Then correct yourself for judging either way. You don’t know her or her circumstances. And if we, as a society, changed our judgement into support for that woman choosing to bring her child to term perhaps the abortion numbers would drop. Because the most tragic example of abortion is not the late third-trimester example cited earlier. It is instead when a woman has come to love the life growing within her but fears ostracization from the friends, family, and community that surrounds her. To choose to end a love such as this is an even greater tragedy. That is on all of us.
But we must also concede that even with all of these supports in place, as well as others, there will be cases where a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. We cannot prevent all such occurrences. In fact, I believe, we must not even attempt to prevent all such occurrences. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the conception and pregnancy, doing so could result in extreme suffering for the woman. I believe the tenth message is a call to advocate on behalf of the child while still having compassion for the woman and respecting her right to choose. Treating her with that kind heart and soft touch as mentioned earlier. It is a delicate balance that I believe The Greatest Love asks from all of us.
Finally there is an inference from the above discussion that bears mentioning. I believe that just as a woman’s right to choose precludes any others from dictating what she can, and cannot do with her own body, the same also applies to her doctors and abortion care providers. There may be cases where a doctor will be conscientiously opposed to performing an abortion. They may need to ask reasons for why the woman wants the abortion in order to allay their ethical concerns, and if at any time that abortion care provider does not feel comfortable performing that abortion their consciences must be respected.
Doctors too must have the right to choose what they can and cannot do with their own body.
This is what I believe.
1There was also a third issue with the earlier post that involved terminology. The post defined the start of human life as the point whereupon that life is ensouled. However the start of human life is much more commonly understood to mean the moment of conception which is when biological human life starts or just human life for short. In this article, unlike the previous article, I will use the term human life to mean biological human life.
2Many jurisdictions equate the threshold of personhood with the moment of conception. This is one end of a spectrum. At the other end is Canada which has no criminal laws restricting abortion regardless of gestational age. In Canadian law the moment of personhood is effectively the moment of live birth. In practice however this means abortion is governed entirely as a healthcare procedure which involves provincial/territorial regulatory bodies as well as institutional oversight committees setting professional codes of conduct, and rules for doctors providing abortion care
3Although there are concerns surrounding the origins of the pro-life movement within the Evangelical community.
