If Aquinas Addressed Abortion

It would be difficult to exaggerate the praise the Church has given to the theologian saint Thomas Aquinas. There are many reasons for this, but paramount is his superb method of doing theology, a method that allowed him to look at many different angles of a given question and make many important distinctions.

This method that he and other Scholastic theologians of his day used is known as the “disputed questions method” or the “Scholastic method.” Using this method, one first raises a “disputed question”—e.g., “Does God exist?” In responding to the question, a “master” (a teacher of students, such as Aquinas) has a response in mind.

However, before simply giving the answer, this master will listen to—or perhaps himself consider—potential intelligent objections to his response. Having listened to (or, if he is producing a written work, having written down) these objections, the master will usually give his response to the question itself.

In Aquinas’s most famous work, the Summa Theologiae, this response is usually twofold: first, a short sed contra (Latin, “to the contrary”) and then a longer, more in-depth respondeo (“I respond”). Then, having given his response to the original question, he responds to the aforementioned objections (although, in some cases, the respondeo, otherwise known as the corpus or “body” of the given disputed question, will have responded to one or more of these objections).

As one might imagine, this is a beautiful method for considering many different viewpoints of a given question (it is thus a method that promotes being “open-minded,” as we moderns might say). This forces one to make important, sometimes necessary, distinctions to properly answer a question; to think about a question more seriously and deeply; and to be more charitable and just in responding to those with whom one disagrees.

In considering the objections, one sees that, while one might hold a different position than another, one begins to better understand from where the other is coming. This attitude promotes patience in debating with others, which is a quality of both charity and justice, in accordance with the command of 1 Peter 3:15 to give explanations of our faith to others with “gentleness and reverence.”

Here we utilize this Scholastic method for dealing with what is the most important social issue of our day: abortion. Although we know that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life—i.e, murder—it behooves us when conversing with those who do not see or acknowledge this truth to try to meet them where they’re at, to try to consider why they believe what they do with respect to abortion, and then to respond properly and charitably in an effort to help them see and acknowledge the reality of the horrific evil of abortion. In other words, we can employ this time-tested Scholastic method in discussing abortion.

* * *

Whether abortion is morally wrong and should it be illegal?

It seems that having an abortion is not morally wrong, nor should it be illegal. For . . .

Objection 1:

1. Having an abortion is a woman’s natural right.
2. But doing that which is one’s natural right is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, having an abortion is not morally wrong.

Objection 2:

1. Condemnation of abortion comes from a personal religious opinion.
2. But that which comes from a personal religious opinion does not determine what is morally right or wrong.
3. Thus, the condemnation of abortion does not does not determine whether it is morally right or wrong.

Objection 3:

1. Abortion removes/destroys that which is not human (at least not yet).
2. But that which removes/destroys that which is not human (at least not yet) is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, abortion is not morally wrong.

Objection 4:

1. Having an abortion is a legal right.
2. But utilizing one’s legal right is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, having an abortion is not morally wrong.

Objection 5:

1. Having an abortion can solve many difficulties in a woman’s life.
2. But solving difficulties in one’s life is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, having an abortion is not morally wrong.

Objection 6:

1. Keeping abortion legal prevents women from having dangerous procedures (i.e., illegal abortions).
2. But preventing women from having dangerous procedures is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, keeping abortion legal is not morally wrong.

Objection 7:

1. Keeping abortion legal allows women to advance in many areas of life in society.
2. But allowing women to advance in many areas of life in society is not morally wrong.
3. Thus, keeping abortion legal is not morally wrong.

But, to the contrary, it is written, “Thou shalt not kill,” meaning, “Thou shalt not kill an innocent human being.” But the unborn child who is killed in an abortion is an innocent human being.

Thus, abortion is wrong, and thus should be illegal.

I respond saying that abortion is morally wrong, and so should be illegal, because abortion is the taking of innocent human life. But the taking of innocent human life is always morally wrong. Thus, abortion is always morally wrong (and, since it is so grave, it should be illegal).
Replies to objections:

Reply to Objection 1:

It was claimed in the first objection that having an abortion is a woman’s natural right. But, this is not true. For, abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, and nobody has the right to that.

More than that, the mother of the child has a natural right, and responsibility, to take care of her child; abortion goes directly contrary to this natural obligation, which is why abortion causes such an emotional and spiritual wound to women who have them.

Reply to Objection 2:

It was claimed in the second objection that condemnation of abortion comes from a personal religious opinion. But, this is not completely true, since abortion can be condemned from natural reason, without using religious faith.
Further, it was claimed that that which comes from a personal religious opinion does not determine what is morally right or wrong. But, this also is not true. For, there are many things that religious beliefs (not “opinions”) can condemn correctly, e.g., slavery.

Reply to Objection 3:

It was claimed in the third objection that abortion removes/destroys that which is not human (at least not yet). But, this is not true. For the unborn child is human at the moment of conception; for science shows that, at conception, the newly conceived being has a distinct set of human chromosomes, thus showing that the newly conceived being is a human being.

Besides, even if there was doubt (which there should not be), one should err on the side of caution here, even as one always does when a human life is potentially at stake (e.g., one would not detonate a building if one had any real doubt as to whether or not a human being was in the building).

Reply to Objection 4:

It was claimed in the fourth objection that utilizing one’s legal right is not morally wrong. But, this is not always true. For example, those who held slaves during the time of slavery were exercising their legal right, but it was still morally wrong. Again, those who murdered Jewish people during the Nazi regime were exercising their legal right, but it was still gravely morally wrong.

Again, during the times of pagan Rome, a father could exercise his legal right be killing his born infant, but this was morally wrong. Examples could be greatly multiplied.

Reply to Objection 5:

It was claimed in the fifth objection that solving difficulties in one’s life is not morally wrong. But, this is not always true, as it depends on how one solves these difficulties; the means must be morally justifiable, not just the end.

Furthermore, as stated above, abortion never truly solves a woman’s difficulties but, rather, adds to them (for, in addition to the difficulties she previously had, she now has this one new, and very large, difficulty: dealing with the fact that she took the life of her very own child).
Women deserve better “solutions” than the proposed “solution” of tempting her to take the life of her own baby.

Reply to Objection 6:

It was claimed in the sixth objection that keeping abortion legal prevents women from having dangerous procedures (i.e., illegal abortions). But, this is not true.

For, first of all, legal abortion is dangerous for the woman; it is a dangerous procedure not only for the unborn child (whose life is taken) but for the mother too, as seen by the fact that a number of women every year are injured or even killed by legal abortion. Further, numerous women suffer severe psychological problems from legal abortion (indicating that something is wrong, morally, with abortion, as no other morally neutral medical procedure causes such widespread emotional distress; e.g., those who have their kidneys removed do not suffer from emotional afflictions because of the procedure).

Secondly, making abortion illegal is not the cause of women getting illegal abortions; their choice to have illegal abortions is the cause for it.

Reply to Objection 7:

It was claimed in the seventh objection that keeping abortion legal allows women to advance in many areas of life in society. But, it should be noted that, in the end, abortion hurts women more than anything else. It does not help them. Though they may be able to “advance” in certain professions, they do so at a great cost: the cost of the life of their own child and the motherhood that they had with their child. By abortion, women “gain an inch, but lose a mile.” Women (and their children) deserve much better than this!

Further, it was claimed that allowing women to advance in many areas of life in society is not morally wrong. But, again, this depends one how we are allowing women to advance—are the means moral? In the case of abortion, since abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, the answer is, clearly, “No!”