It is clear that the Christian Tradition opposes abortion because it is the wilful killing of another human being. But are there no exceptions? What about pregnancies that result from rape? Should abortion be allowed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman?
By ROLAND CHIA
WHILE the Christian faith opposes
abortion for reasons spelt out in last month's article (Abortion
is 'wilful destruction of a human being': Methodist Message April
2007), the Christian anti-abortion position does not prohibit
abortion under all circumstances.
The late Christian ethicist Paul Ramsay introduced the distinction
between direct and indirect abortion in his attempt to show that
under some very limited circumstances, abortion must be allowed.
The difference between the two forms of abortion has to do with
the primary thrust of the act, its main intention.
In direct abortion, the main intention is to kill the conceptus,
while in indirect abortion it is to save the life of the pregnant
woman. For this reason, direct abortion must always be prohibited.
But indirect abortion may be allowed, but only when all other
avenues of saving the life of the woman have been exhausted.
Indirect abortion restricts the circumstances in which abortion
can be carried out. To repeat: only when the pregnant woman is
in mortal danger, and when there is no other alternative, is abortion
allowed. This means that all other reasons - quality of life,
convenience, peace of mind, financial burden, etc - must be ruled
out. Indirect abortion is one of those inevitable consequences
of living in an imperfect world where in order to save a life
physicians must take that of another.
But does this apply to pregnancy that results from rape? If a
victim of rape were not allowed to abort, she would have to bear
the responsibility of bringing the pregnancy to term and taking
care of the child once he or she is born. The abortion option
would relieve her of such responsibility, which is not the result
of her own actions. In addition, some victims of rape may be under-aged
or mentally ill and therefore unable to discharge their maternal
responsibilities.
Christian ethicists have made several responses to this. The first
is the statistically proven fact that very few women who are subjected
to this violent attack become pregnant. Several reasons have been
offered to explain why this is so. The woman may be infertile
at the time because of either the menstrual cycle or the use of
contraceptives. There may be lack of actual penetration, or her
male attacker may be suffering from sexual deficiencies like impotence.
Secondly, if the victim were to present herself to the emergency
department of a hospital within 24 hours, she will be subjected
to certain protocols. Some of these protocols, such as flushing
the reproductive tract and hormonal treatment, would prevent fertilisation.
Thus, if proper steps are taken promptly, the chances that the
violent sexual encounter would result in pregnancy can be greatly
minimised.
Sometimes hospitals use abortifacient drugs like Ovral and RU
486 to prevent pregnancy in rape victims. There is some ambiguity
in the description of such drugs and what they do. Are they contraceptives,
abortion drugs or contragestation drugs? Drugs like Ovral have
often been described as a contraceptive mainly because they "render
the endometrium hostile to a possible fertilised egg". In
other words, these drugs cause a miscarriage. RU 486, however,
prevents the implantation of the embryo on the wall of the uterus.
The drug causes the uterus to react in a way similar to the end
of a menstrual cycle. 
Judging from what these drugs actually do, we must conclude that
they primarily cause an abortion to take place. This means that
it is misleading to call these drugs contraceptives. Their introduction
has in fact already changed the entire course of the abortion
debate, causing a shift from surgical to chemical abortions, and
from abortion clinics to the physician's office. Their introduction
has made abortions easier, cheaper and much more private.
Even though the chances of a rape victim becoming pregnant are
very slim, there is still a possibility that this might happen.
Should the rape victim be allowed to abort the baby? To answer
this question we must look beyond the individual and the crime
that is committed against her, and set both the victim and the
crime in the larger social context.
To put the matter plainly, although rape is a crime committed
against an individual, it is never a private matter. This crime,
like all other crimes, involves the entire community - the family,
the church, the larger society. Thus it is the entire human community,
not just the victim alone, that must bear the responsibility for
the consequences of this violent act. Here the community must
care for the victim and her child. It must provide her with the
material, emotional and physical support she needs. It must care
for her and the child she is carrying in every possible way.
Abortion is a convenient solution if society is unwilling to take
up this responsibility. The abortion option is therefore welcomed
by pragmatists. But such an attitude would surely erode the moral
fibre of our society and drive it to embrace an ever more extreme
form of individualism.
Dr Roland Chia is Dean of Postgraduate Studies and Lecturer
in Historical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological College.
He worships at the Fairfield Preaching Point in Woodlands.
QUOTE:
WHEN ABORTION MAY BE ALLOWED
'The late Christian ethicist Paul Ramsay introduced the distinction between direct and indirect abortion in his attempt to show that under some very limited circumstances, abortion must be allowed. The difference between the two forms of abortion has to do with the primary thrust of the act, its main intention.'