ABORTION THEOLOGY

By Willard Fuller, Th.D.

"If I have a real conviction about an issue, I must act on it," a friend of mine said to me. Most of us may agree that this is true. Action must follow the conviction. However, should we not determine the validity of the major premise upon which the conviction is based?

Many years ago another friend of mine set out on a solo voyage, in a very worthy sailboat, from California to China. There was no doubt in my friend's mind that he was going to China. If he had been asked anywhere on the trip "Where are you going?" he would have answered with real conviction, "China." With that deep rooted belief and never a doubt in his mind, he landed on the shores of Australia. He was following a faulty compass.

My friend's major premise was that his sailboat and all the equipment on board was completely reliable. He had developed a firm conviction on a faulty premise.

During my 91 years of life, I have seen a lot of actions and reactions due to deep convictions of the participants concerning the issues at hand. Men and women have chained and padlocked themselves to trees in an effort to protect the trees from those who are not as environmentally minded. Men and women have placed their lives in jeopardy in freedom marches, civil rights protests and a great number of deep conviction causes. Most of us agree that if we have a conviction, we must act on it.

I believe that one of the most divisive, dramatic and traumatic issues that has ever been faced by the American family is the issue of abortion. For most people involved, it is a moral issue that justifies their participation to whatever degree that is proportionate to the depth of their conviction.

If you have listened to the emotional arguments of the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" people; if you have been told by your friends that you should join in the movement; if you have been advised by the minister, priest or rabbi to fulfill your moral obligation; if you have followed your church, social club, lodge, fraternity or organization of which you are a member; if you have made up your mind – become firm in your conviction about the issue of abortion – and are looking for confirmation that you are right, this treatise may not be for you. However, if you want to know theological truth – what is right in the sight of God, what is Biblical and what is logical to the rational mind, read on.

What follows is written from my Christian viewpoint, but truth is truth with no contradiction, and can be found valid by all religions with the obvious exception of Satanism.

The logical place to start when considering this problem is with the question, "What is a human being?" As a Christian theologian, I believe the answer is clear. "A human being is a spirit that has a mind and inhabits a body." To move to the first person: I am a spirit; I have a mind and I live in a body.

I am not a mind. I have a mind. It is my mind – possessive pronoun "my" mind. I use my mind as a tool for thinking, reasoning, etc. In all the activities of the mental realm I use my mind.

I am not a body. I have a body. This is my body. I live in, inhabit, this body. This body takes me where I want to go, I use this body for all of my physical activities.

For all my physical accomplishments I use my body. For all my mental accomplishments I use my mind. Though I have a body, I am not physical. Though I have a mind, I am not a mental being.

I am a spirit, created in the image of God. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." (Genesis 1:27)

"God is spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24) If God is Spirit and I am created in the image of God, then I must be spirit. The real "me" is neither physical nor mental. The real "me" is spiritual.

When the physical body dies, it will return to the earth from which it came. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Genesis 2:7) The mind shall cease to exist and the spirit shall return to the dominion of God. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Many of the people on earth see a human being as a two-fold being. They see that s/he is tangible and intangible. The tangible part they call body. The intangible part they call soul or spirit, using the two words synonymously.

Actually, a human being is a three-fold being. "I pray God your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless." (1st Thessalonians 5:23) S/he is spirit, soul and body.

The fallacy in the thinking of some people lies in the fact that there are two intangible parts – soul and spirit. The Bible uses two entirely different words in the original languages of both the Old and New Testaments for the words "soul" and "spirit."

In the Old Testament Hebrew language, the word that is translated "soul" is the Hebrew word "nephesh" and the word that is translated "spirit' is the Hebrew word "ruach." In the New Testament Greek language, the word that is translated "soul" is the Greek word "pseuche" while the word that is translated "spirit" is the Greek word "pneuma."

From the Greek word "pseuche" we have the English derivatives "psychiatry," "psychology," and "psychic." It becomes readily evident that these words indicate the mental realm. The soul is the mind. "Soul" and "mind" are synonymous terms. The Bible is replete with evidences that these two words have parallel meanings.

The Greek word "pneuma" has a connotation of "airish" or "vapor-like." Thus, we have the English derivatives "pneumonia" and "pneumatic." This is the reason that in the Bible it is sometimes translated "spirit" and other times it is translated "ghost."

As you will recall, earlier I said that when the body dies, the mind (soul) ceases to exist. Souls die. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel 18:4) All souls die. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) "Fear him that is able to destroy both the soul and the body." (Matthew 10:28) "And every living soul died." (Revelation 16:3)

The spirit is eternal. "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish." (John 10:28) "The Lord is not willing that any should perish." (2 Peter 3:9) "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life." (1 John 5:11) The Bible is replete with the words "eternal life" and "everlasting life." Since the body and the mind (soul) can and do die, eternal life must apply to the spirit.

We know that physical life begins at conception. I submit that the soul commences at birth. "And God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

The Bible does not tell us whether the spirit enters at conception or at birth, but it does tell us that the spirit is eternal and cannot be destroyed. No real human being (the spirit) has ever died or been killed, as an embryo, infant, child, adolescent, or as an adult. Therefore, the woman who aborts an unwanted pregnancy is not guilty of murder, since the spirit (the real human being) is eternal and cannot be killed.

Someone might say that, if the above statement is true, the person who shoots to death another person is also not guilty of murder. Not so! The annihilation after birth, when breath entered and the individual became a living soul, might be considered murder.

The term "pro-life" when used to identify the anti-abortion movement is a misnomer. Life is in the spirit. All spirits are alive and will always be alive. There are great inconsistencies in the philosophy of these modern-day pro-life advocates. They contend that to abort a fetus is murder except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. Application of common logic to this philosophy brings up some very serious questions.

Why would the killing of the embryonic baby be considered murder if the mother becomes pregnant by consent and not be considered murder if the mother is impregnated against her will? Is not the embryonic baby exactly the same, regardless? Is it in any way responsible for the conception? Why kill it and say it is not murder, if the mother's life is in danger, and say that it is murder if the mother's life is not in danger? Is not the unborn baby exactly the same as when the mother is in good health? Is it right to kill one being to save another? Are those who do the abortion absolutely sure that the mother will die if there is no abortion? Who shall say who is to live and who is to die? Is not the child as precious to God as the mother? If the mother is the one to make the decision in this case, why should she not be the one to make the decision in any case? Is the unborn child any less a human being if the impregnation is incestuous? Is the embryonic baby in any way responsible for the incest? Why kill this baby and say that it is not murder? Does anyone have the right to force another person to adopt his code of morality? Should not each person be allowed to answer to God for his decisions of life?

Many psychiatrists, psychologist, psychotherapists and counselors agree that many women with unwanted pregnancies who choose abortion experience severe trauma at the time of decision. The behavior of the pro-lifers at the abortion clinic, with their blocking the entrance and their screaming accusations, multiplies the trauma and multiplies the therapy time necessary for healing. As a counselor with many years of experience, I can say unreservedly that, according to my experience, the emotional damage done to the woman, by the anti-abortion demonstrators is many times greater than the abortion itself.

Of course, I cannot speak for every woman that has undergone the traumatic confrontation with pro-life demonstrators at the abortion clinics, but I have never known one who was dissuaded by the confrontation. Also, I have never had a person tell me that they knew of a dissuasion resulting from the confrontation. So, it seems that the demonstrator's primary accomplishment is the emotional injury to the pregnant woman.

Righteousness cannot be legislated, either by the passage of prohibitive laws or by demonstrations. The idea of what is righteous and what is not righteous for one person can never be determined by another person. All decisions of righteousness must come from within the individual. All actions of righteousness must also come from within. Therefore, no person has the moral right to impose his righteousness code upon another person.

I notice that most of the pro-life demonstrators do not offer assistance in the case of the unwanted pregnancy. Most do not offer to adopt the child nor do they offer to finance the birth. More than that, most are not offering food, clothing, housing, medical care or educational support for the child. These concerns are certainly a part of the woman's decision for abortion..

It seems that the deep-rooted conviction of most demonstrators motivates them only to demonstrate. Most of these demonstrators show little or no concern or action beyond the emotionally charged issue of the abortion itself.

I have found that there are two main attributes that most of the pro-life demonstrators have in common: (1) the inability to calmly and logically discuss their reasons for participation in the demonstrations - they seem to operate on immense emotional energy, and (2) the lack of any research relative to the issue. A lot of them seem to be demonstrating because someone has told them that it is their moral duty to do so (usually their minister, priest, rabbi or organizational leader). I have noticed, too, that some of the ministers are rather adept at fanaticizing their congregations with excessive and unreasonable enthusiasm or zeal.

I will conclude by stating that I am aware that many churches and some major church denominations are wholly and solely pro-choice advocates.

Dr. Willard Fuller is founder of the Lively Stones World Healing Fellowship. He can be reached at

P. O. Box 396, Lloyd FL 32337-0396.
Phone 850-342-1411
Email: drfuller@willardfuller.com