JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Research Paper: Final Assignment
Whose Decision Is It? The Struggle of Abortion
Submitted to Dr. Schulze /Professor
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
THEO 650 – D05
Public Theology
by
Shaneil A. Guidry
December 12, 2021
2
Table of Content
Abstract Summary… ................................................................................................. 3
Thesis Statement ........................................................................................................ 4
Introduction… ............................................................................................................ 4
Understanding the Unborn Child… ............................................................................ 5
The Perspective of Abortion Early On… ................................................................... 7
The Effects of Judicial Involvement in the West ........................................................ 9
The Church and State Joins Forces ............................................................................ 13
Conclusion… ............................................................................................................ 15
Bibliography… .........................................................................................................17
3
Abstract Summary
The purpose of this research paper is to discuss the effects of government and citizens on
crucial matters, such as abortion. Within the various sections of this paper, the reader will come
to understand the history between church and state, the term of “unborn” child, government vs
citizens regarding abortion, the churches attitude toward abortion, and the struggles of abortion
in modern day.
Over the course of time, humans began to lean on their own understanding, which
became an understanding that is slowly eliminated God from the picture. The belief of
diminishing the relevance of God to appease man has become a law that society now lives by
and becoming completely unaware of the damage it is causing. Meanwhile, only utilizing God to
prove a point, whether it be personal or political.
4
Thesis Statement
Regardless of how much a government attempts to keep the entity of both church and
state separate from one another, crucial societal issues such as abortion has a way of drawing the
two back together again; it is inevitable.
Introduction
A philosopher such as Aristotle believed religion to be a farce. He believed that religion
and/or God was just a way to distract individuals from the true reality that surrounded them
daily. Aristotle’s teacher Plato also believed that the flourishing of a person is based on the path
he or she may choice and that the government would use tactics such as religion or God
specifically to restrain individuals from being completely able to have the final say so in major
life changing decisions.
However, despite Aristotle’s unwavering conviction, Aristotle concluded that the
introduction of any higher being into a societal setting would benefit those societies both
politically and financially, as well as provide a level of structure that would otherwise be absent.
“Aristotle allows those traditional religious practices can be useful for rulers to keep the
populace in line.”1 This seems like a contradiction made by Aristotle, but he knew that a bit of
motivation would not hurt and could go a long way, so if that meant encouraging the masses to
believe in something greater than themselves would lead to the growth of society and control,
then why not?
This practice was found exhibited within the Roman Empire. Yes, there were masses that
believed in the true and living God; however, societies such as the ancient Roman government
knew that such a religious institutional structure would benefit the growth of the Roman Empire
1 Segev. Aristotle On Religion New York. 192.
5
in the long run but with the government pulling the strings of those institutional structures by
way of emperors. The Greeks on the other hand took it a step further and introduced the concept
of multiple gods, with multiple “capabilities”. This presented to the citizens within places like
Athens and Sparta an even greater sense of power and pride in their government. Such power
and pride began to make the Bible look more and more like a collection of tales and the God
represented within it no greater than the Demi-gods that have now been created by man.
Despite the way various governments portrayed whom they believed their nations to be
founded upon (God or a liberal religious perspective), that government made it a continuous
practice to induce a level of influence that would sway the even most faithful believer. Having
this level of power that seemed to be stamped with Gods’ or “the gods” approval came with a
level of influence that would impact laws globally for centuries to come. This research paper
will identify such government influence on abortion and how the continuous battle between
citizens and government on this crucial matter remains just as relevant in modern day American
society.
Understanding the Unborn Child
An “unborn child” according to medical science is called the “progeny” within utero. Per
medical science, an unborn child is identified as a child that was miscarried or aborted. As the
years progressed, the term that became more socially acceptable was that of “unborn”,
discouraging terms such as fetus and embryo due to these terms seeming less sympathetic. As
many words derived from Latin or Greek origin, the definition for the words embryo and fetus
were not every extensive. “Unfortunately, Latin and Greek terminology for the foetus and
embryo were very vague. There was no term in Latin that specifically applied to an unborn
child.”2 The reason for this could have been due to the medical limitation the Romans faced, as
2 Barr. Tertullian and the Unborn Child. 19.
6
they had no true understanding of the stages of pregnancy. Meaning, unlike today’s technology,
such as ultrasounds and various medical equipment that can enable a doctor to determine the
state or stage in which the fetus was unavailable during the Roman era. To ensure consistency
and without presenting a judgmental front, many Latin authors utilized an idiomatic approach
that would grant them more fluidity within their dialogue when referring to the fetus. Author
Michael Gray-Fow indicated that the lack of such a word within the Roman vernacular speaks to
how the embryo was not much of a major concern and that the significance of a child’s life
commenced at their birth and not before.
In search of obtaining greater understanding of how to define the unborn child, various
perspectives were presented and gave a better understanding of how the unborn child should be
perceived, as well as gave reason for why the unborn child should be protected. “Misguided
developments in science in the seventeenth century led to the notion that the male sperm was in
fact a pre-formed human being feeding from the female ovum until it reached proper size for
birth. That view obviously led to the notion that the human being already existent must be
protected.”3 Regardless of this newfound understanding of the unborn child, the protection of
the unborn child was still not as a monumental matter that was of grave concern during this era.
However, the selected terms of modern day do not concern itself with such discretion.
Those that are not supporters of women that have a right to choose even found a way to make the
newly accepted term “unborn” sound judgmental and disapproving. Even harsher names have
been given to label women that went through with abortions. Names such as “murders” or even
“baby killers.”
3 O'Brien. The Church and Abortion. 15.
7
As medical science progressed, so did the progression of individual’s understanding of
the fetus, as well as the embryo on a whole. Having access to detailed information on the subject
matter granted individuals a closer look into every intricate stage the fetus underwent and
generates emotions that were unfortunately not experienced by the individuals during B.C and
early A.D.
The Perspective of Abortion Early On
When scholars sought out to gain a greater perspective on how both Greek and Roman
societies perceived the concept of abortion, these scholars discovered that neither the Greeks nor
the Roman perspective on the matter contained continuity. These two very influential societies’
ideas regarding the concept of “family” changed frequently, and their concepts would vary on a
person’s or individual’s overall situation. “Scholars of Greek and Roman history have long
adhered to the idea that attitudes towards children are not constant throughout history. Rather,
attitudes towards children which ancient authors express in their literature are subject to
numerous factors, such as rhetorical precepts, religious concerns, medical theories, as well as
social customs and ideas of family.”4
Observing very little knowledge on this subject matter, an early Christian by the name of
Tertullian began to study the untouch topic. Tertullian was a Latin presbyterian author that felt
compelled to inform not just the church but the pagan as well on the importance of being pro-life
and pro-choice. Abortion was not a topic that abruptly grabbed the attention of society at the
time of Roe vs. Wade, but a matter that reared its head among the Romans and the Greeks alike,
and Tertullian did not shy from bringing this topic to light.
4 Ibid., 16.
8
Of all the Christian writers during Tertullian’s time, he was the very first to address the
beginning of human existence being within the womb. “Though his ideas as presented on the
page were far from consistent, Tertullian of Carthage was the first Christian writer to argue
rigorously that human existence began in the womb and that abortion was therefore homicide.”5
As mentioned previously, there were some scholars that did not believe the fetus to be important
to the Romans, as this unborn child did not yet have a purpose. Nonetheless, Tertullian was
convinced that if the Romans were more enlightened, then their level of concern for the fetus
would likely increase.
Tertullian research, however, would later become questionable, as many scholars found
his words to be contradictory and often irrational. While Tertullian argued that life began within
the womb early on, he then later indicated that life actually commenced at the time of
conception. This type of fickle thinking presented skepticism and cause for dismissal in some
cases. “In fact, a close reading of Tertullian’s corpus reveals that in some treatises he argued on
the basis of embryological theories that favoured a gradual process of embryonic hominisation,
while in others he expressed the view that human existence began at conception.”6
Scholar Tertullian did not restrict his research and beliefs to just his writings, he also
presented compelling speeches within Roman courtrooms, that later led some scholars to believe
that he was a lawyer that advocated for the unborn child publicly. “The similarity of Tertullian’s
rhetoric to courtroom speech has also led some to suggest that he was a practising lawyer.”7
Bring the matter of abortion before government courts was just beginning.
The Effects of Judicial Involvement in the West
5 Ibid., 16.
6 Ibid., 17.
7 Ibid., 31.
9
Western society census showed that in the nineteenth century, despite the large migration
of European immigrants, birth numbers were at an all-time low among Caucasian American
women. The American government perceived the contribution to the low birth rate of babies
were due to the increasing numbers of contraceptives, as well as abortions. “Immigration from
Southern and Eastern Europe had spiked, and the birth rate among Anglo-Saxon women had
fallen by half over the course of the nineteenth century—a result historians have attributed partly
to women’s use of abortion and birth control.”8
This invoked fear within the American government, as they were seeing their nation
fading. The question of, “how we will repopulate our nation, if there are no children being born?
With such a fear looming over this nation, the call for laws to bring a halt to the increasing
numbers of abortions were presented and labeling such individuals as criminals for those that
dared break these new laws. America had now been presented with a problem that needs to be
addressed and addressed immediately.
Prior to the mid 1800’s, abortion was both acceptable and legal by the US government
right before the quickening period a woman would experience. The quickening period was the
stage of the pregnancy before a woman would feel any movement within her womb. Once the
woman felt the movement of the unborn child, she could no longer undergo an abortion. By the
mid to late 1800’s the call for states to band together and agree to stricter laws regarding
abortions was now in outcry. These stricter laws would classify abortions to be unlawful unless a
woman was at medical risk, more specifically the risk of death. These stricter laws, as well as
punishments were strongly advocated by influential KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) like Dr.
Horatio Storer. “Between 1860 and 1880, many states answered Storer’s call for strict new laws
8 Ziegler. Abortion and the Law in America. 13.
10
by outlawing abortion unless a woman’s life was at risk.”9 Settling into the year of 1873, a
federal mandate put into place that band contraceptives and abortions. The irony of these laws
was that it did not stop abortions within private homes and doctors’ offices that were not in
support of the new laws. While the birth of children slightly increased, so did the death of the
women that followed through with unmedically supervised abortion procedures within private
locations.
Rolling into the 1900’s, there was still no handle on the abortion matter within America.
Abortions were still sought out in private residences and doctors’ offices that believed that
women had the right to make such a choice. By the 1930's to the 1940’s, an outcry for the
government to do more to stop the illegal abortions by instituting more severe punishment now
spewed from the mouths of reformed-minded physicians. Obstetricians became the biggest
advocates within the world of medicine due to seeing such a strain on their therapeutic area and
the effects this action was having on their female patients after the procedure was completed my
non-medical professionals, in some cases.
However, not all obstetricians were on board with the implementation of stricter abortion
laws. There were some that believed that some abortions can be justified and that dealing with
abortions should take on a situational approach; not dumping all abortions into one overall
category. In other words, not all women that want or do undergo abortions are seeking to hide an
indiscretion. “Reform-minded physicians like obstetrician Frederick Taussig instead began
popularizing arguments about the medical and social benefits of certain abortions. Pointing to
the struggles many faced during the Depression, Taussig reasoned that woman should be able to
end a pregnancy to avoid dire poverty.”10
9 Ibid., 13.
10 Ibid., 13.
11
The 40’s and the 50’s saw an improvement in obstetric care within the United States.
With better healthcare being provided to pregnant women and the United States bouncing back
from its financial hardship, it become hard for women to justify the need for an abortion. This
new prenatal care did not just address the physical well-being of a woman, but it also addressed
her mental health as well. Reform-minded doctors fervently believed that if they provided full
medical coverage to their pregnant female patients, then this can assist with the government
making abortions outlawed and criminal once and for all. The goal was to make abortions much
harder to justify and the reformed-minded physicians were making sufficient headway.
Pushing toward more modern day, just as Tertullian presented his case regarding the
unborn child to the Roman courts, the western world begins to vocalize their perspective on the
open floor of the American courthouse. Roe vs. Wade is one of those examples that impressed
upon the American society both negatively and positively in a way that Tertullian impressed
upon the Roman society and many scholars after him. The monumental decision made regarding
the case of Roe vs. Wade would rock the American nation for years to come.
Roe vs. Wade was an abortion case that started in 1970 and ended by 1973. The outcome
of this case presented a law that state, “The United States Supreme Court ruled that the U.S.
Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus, US
Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 1973.” The case came about as there was a single pregnant
woman by the name of Roe that brought forth a class action suit against the Texas government.
In March of 1970, Roe challenged and brought action to the 1854 Texas criminal abortion law
that only dismissed criminal charges, if a woman underwent an abortion due to saving her life.
Roe believed that as a United States citizen, five of her US Constitutional rights were
being violated and she would not allow such restrictions of her Constitutional rights and the
12
rights of other women in her position to be violated. While Roe was not a pregnant woman
facing any medical risks, she did however believe that her civil liberties were at risk. “She
claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of
personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.”11
Knowing her rights, Roe proceeded to sue the Texas government for infringing upon her ability
to make a choice that she believed could only be made by her and her alone. This suit lit a fuse
across the nation and the effects were felt by both pro-abortion groups and anti-abortion groups
alike.
Organizations such as the American United for Life (AUL), National Right to Life
Committee (NRLC), National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, and the American Medical Association (AMA), to name a few became
even more robust in the 1960’s and 1970’s now that medical science was advancing. Not only
did these organizations now have medical proof to back their cause, but they were also able to
gain the support of religious leaders nationally. This was a nation founded on God and so it was
time to implement God into this equation; so, government officials believed. Yet, with such
concrete backing, Roe vs. Wade would somehow overshadow the strong influence of the new
medical proof.
The sprouting of grassroot activists and feminist groups in the 60’s and 70’s was rapidly
surfacing, presenting the government with new opponents that were not going quietly. Radical
feminists of the late 60’s felt that the liberties of women were being taken away from them and
that abortion is a woman’s right and no one should have the authority of making that decision for
her, especially a government or religious institute. “In the late 1960s, radical feminists claimed
11 Jane ROE, Et Al., Appellants, V. Henry WADE.
13
that access to abortion was a central component of women’s liberty, and that the decision to have
an abortion should be made by the woman involved, not by her doctor, the Church, or the
State.”12
Just as the feminist groups voiced their discontent with the government trying to take
away civil liberties from women, the Catholic church felt that the government was not doing
enough to hold women morally responsible. “From conservative Catholics to radical feminists,
all these actors attempted to control abortion policy by promoting specific discourses to define
the issue, and by framing their policy demands in a way that spoke to their broader political
goals.”13 How can the government appease both groups? Whose argument was more compelling
between the two?
The Church and State Joins Forces
Church and state did not benefit from separatism when it came to the topic of abortion.
Seeking to help the American people to remember on what their nation was founded upon. So,
the church took hold of the bullhorn and begin to profess God’s position on human life,
regardless of that human life being a child that was not yet born. “Behold, children are a
heritage from the Lord,
The fruit of the womb is a reward, Ps. 127:3, NKJV.” With all that was taking place in the world
at that time (i.e., Vietnam war, civil rights movement, etc.), the church believed that it was
indeed the time to get people back on moral track.
The Catholic church did not enter the ring around the same time as the grassroot activists
and the feminists, they had been putting up a fight since before the 1970’s to keep the laws of
12 Nossiff. Before Roe: Abortion Policy in the States. 30.
13 Ibid., 30.
14
abortion intact. Their position on the matter did not just spoken within the four walls of the
Catholic church but they held a political position that was just as solid. The relationship between
the Catholic church and the government was very much developed. “Most members of the
antiabortion coalition before 1973 were affiliated with the Catholic Church, which used its
political arm, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and its state affiliates to propagate a religious
discourse advocating the retention of restrictive abortion laws on the state level.”14
A large percentage of Christians saw abortion as unchristian and a rebellious act toward
God. According to the church, the government to stand by and support such an action only
meant that our society was becoming unholy and has turned their face from God entirely. “From
a conservative Christian viewpoint, however, abortion is homicide and legal abortion is a sign of
an unchristian society.”15 This was message that the church tirelessly worked to convey to the
government. Will the government just sit back and allow the godless to take over the nation, was
a question that the church boldly asked? Religious denominations joined forces on this rally to
bring the American people back to their moral and ethical senses. “Catholics as well as
Evangelicals have described legal abortion as an attack on God’s creation and Christian
values.”16
Quickly the church realized that the godly foundation that this nation was founded upon
was no more and that this was now a nation of liberties that excluded God entirely. Almost 50
years later, the struggle that the church once faced with the government regarding abortion has
again resurfaced. Now with a greater influence of evangelicals within political parties, various
14 Ibid., 31.
15 Stensvold. A History of Pregnancy in Christianity. 162.
16 Ibid., 162.
15
State governments are taking on the matter of abortion relentlessly and this time they are not
backing down. Individuals’ states have vocalized that, “if the federal government cannot stand
up against the pro-abortion groups, then they are left to fight this fight within the perimeters of
their own state.”
Once a battle fought between two parties (federal government and the people), has now
become a battle fought by a party of three; the federal government, state government, and the
people. Has the voice of the unborn child gotten muffled yet again by the noise of the various
parties’ incessant need to make a point and not actually save the helpless? Losing sight of the
initial endeavor has left us ultimate confused on why this fight was being fought in the first
place.
Conclusion
While Scripture (Rom. 13:1-2) reminds us that government leaders are an extension of
God’s authority, government leaders must also remember that their authority is to align with
God’s and not be utilized to advance a personal agenda. Government institution that seeks out
the true and living God should not succumb to the demands of their people, yet they are to guide
in the capacity that enables citizens to follow the will of God. As centuries continues pass, the
separation of church and state became more prominent and the ability to keep the alignment
between man and God became an almost unachievable task to say the least. However, how can a
government present such an authority when God is so far removed from its entity? How can the
argument of how God is the creator of life stand strong, when the concept of God is placed in the
same category as the Easter bunny, tooth fairy, and Santa Claus?
Free will has become the new god and the government is now just an entity that ensure
that we do not completely nihilate ourselves while in the process of living our lives the way that
16
we believe is best. With all our medical, technological, and self-evolutionary advancements, we
have derived to the concept that we know better than some “fictious” God that is written about in
what some believe to be an ever-changing book of unconfirmed authors. We have no idea of the
mess we have gotten ourselves into nor how our arrogance continuous to restricts us from
admitting that we have really screwed things up.
Bibliography
Barr, Julian. Tertullian and the Unborn Child: Christian and Pagan Attitudes in Historical
Perspective. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017.
Feibleman, James Kern. Religious Platonism. New York: Taylor and Francis Publishing Group,
2013.
Herman, Arthur. The Cave and the Light. New York: House Publishing Group, 2013.
Jane ROE, Et Al., Appellants, V. Henry WADE.". LII / Legal Information Institute, Last modified
2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.
17
Koulakiotis, Elias, and Charlotte Dunn. Political Religions in The Greco-Roman World.
Cambridge Scholars Publisher, 2019.
Makolkin, Anna. Aristotle’s Views on Religion and His Idea of Secularism. E-LOGOS. 2015.
Nossiff, Rosemary. Before Roe: Abortion Policy in The States. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 2011.
O'Brien, Dennis. The Church and Abortion: A Catholic Dissent. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2010.
Segev, Mor. Aristotle On Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Stensvold, Anne. A History of Pregnancy in Christianity. New York: Routledge, 2015.
Verhoeven, Timothy. Secularists, Religion and Government in Nineteenth Century America.
Palgrave MacMillan, 2019.
Ziegler, Mary. Abortion and the Law in America: Roe Vs. Wade to The Present. Cambridge
University Press, 2020.
