Wright Gets Abortion Wrong

Why is it that otherwise intelligent individuals often demonstrate a significant lack of clarity or “get very dumb” when discussing the profound issue of abortion? This very question lies at the heart of our mission on “The Case for Life Show”. Our aim is simple: to equip you, our listeners, to be smart on abortion, not dumb. To that end, we offer a critical resource, the Prolife 101 course, specifically designed to provide the necessary tools to intelligently, thoughtfully, and, most importantly, clearly engage with the ethics of abortion. In a world that often seeks to obscure truth, it is paramount that intelligent people are not only intelligent but also utterly clear on this vital topic.

The Perplexing Case of NT Wright

Before we delve into specific critiques, let me be clear: it is crucial to maintain balance. When people who are otherwise brilliant defenders of the Christian worldview articulate “dumb things” on sensitive issues like abortion or gay marriage, it is our duty to criticize them, but always with an acknowledgment of their positive contributions. For instance, the renowned theologian NT Wright—or Tom Wright as he is often known—has provided what is, without question, the most robust defense of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. This work is a brilliant defense of the historicity of the resurrection, meticulously debunking naturalistic counterarguments and affirming history as objective, driven by facts and evidence. I read this book in graduate school, refer to it frequently in my own talks, and commend it wholeheartedly to your reading.

However, as my colleague Greg Cunningham astutely observes, when it comes to the topic of abortion, intelligent Christians often experience what appears to be an “80 to 90 drop point drop in their IQ”. They suddenly lose the ability to think clearly, despite their brilliance in other areas of theology and apologetics. Regrettably, NT Wright has recently exemplified this phenomenon with comments that can only be described as “very dumb”.

NT Wright’s Compromised Stance on Abortion

In a recent interview, NT Wright basically argued that Christians “may terminate a pregnancy when there’s an issue of rape, fetal deformity, or the health of the mother might be in question”. While he attempted to qualify his stance by asserting he was not advocating for all abortions, his specific justifications betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the inherent value of human life. He cited “many, many cases where it’s about the mother’s health versus the health of the child or whatever,” particularly in situations of rape and incest. While agreeing that rape is a horrific tragedy that should “never have happened”, Wright then suggested that in such cases, “the best thing to do as soon as possible terminate the pregnancy,” but to do so with “sorrow and because we do not want to do this in principle, we have a bit of shame and we have sorrow”.

This immediately begs the question: why feel “sorrow or shame” about terminating a pregnancy if there is “nothing wrong with abortion in principle”?. If killing a human fetus is not inherently wrong, then why should we care about the number of abortions, or feel any moral qualms about the act itself? This perspective is functionally no different from Bill Clinton’s early 1990s assertion that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”. The obvious counter to Clinton, and now to Wright, is: if it’s not morally significant to kill a human fetus, “why care how many abortions there are? Who cares if it’s rare or if it’s common?”. Wright, of course, provides no answer to this inconsistency.

Admittedly, Wright, as a historian, correctly observes that Christians have historically rejected abortion, with first-century Christian literature robustly condemning it. He is correct on this historical point. However, he then posits that it’s acceptable to terminate early pregnancies because it “doesn’t appear to abort a viable human being,” thereby establishing “viability as what determines whether or not one has a right to life”. This is where his argument unravels entirely. While he may wish to limit abortion to specific cases, once you establish viability as the standard for the right to life, you have logically justified “every abortion leading up to the point of viability”. If the unborn are not considered “valuable human beings” or “imagebearers” until viability, then his stipulations about deformity or hardship become irrelevant.

The Flawed Foundation: Critiquing Viability and Other Justifications

The standard of viability itself is profoundly problematic for determining who lives or dies. Viability “does not measure the intrinsic worth of the human being” but rather “measures our technology”. Consider this: a child at 23 or 24 weeks in the womb in a major U.S. city with advanced medical facilities can be considered viable. Yet, that same child in Bangladesh, due to less advanced medical technology, might not be viable until much later. Are we to conclude that a child’s right to life is contingent upon geographical location and technological advancement? This is simply absurd. To illustrate the irrationality, imagine a pregnant woman at 24 weeks boarding a plane in New York where her child is viable, flying to a country where viability is, say, 28 weeks. Does her child’s “right to life” suddenly disappear upon entering different airspace with poorer technology?. Such an argument is not only “silly” but deeply illogical.

Wright further attempts to create a “compelling case” for abortion by stringing together multiple factors: a “severe threat to the mother’s health, the possible deformity of the child and the possible mental health issues the mother might have bringing this previable pregnancy to term”. This approach falls prey to what Anthony Flew, the famous atheist, called the “leaky bucket syndrome”. A “cumulative case is only as good as your weakest link,” and if individual arguments are weak, the entire case collapses. In Wright’s case, “every link” in his justification for abortion is a “weak link”.

Perhaps the most egregious error in Wright’s commentary is his foray into an ad hominem attack. He suggests that a problem in the Roman Catholic Church is “unmarried men from the Catholic hierarchy” telling women who have been raped or subjected to incest “what she can and cannot do”. This is, frankly, the “dumbest thing he says”. “Arguments do not have genders. They rise and fall on their merits”, not on the personal status or morality of the person making them. Even if the priests he refers to were “ethically challenged” or “guilty of all kinds of wrongdoing,” their personal failings would not invalidate the Church’s argument against abortion. The pro-life argument stands or falls on its own merits, period.

But the “most fundamental problem” with Wright’s argument is its underlying assumption: that “the unborn are not human”. When he suggests terminating a pregnancy due to “physical deformities” or a “hardship” on the mother, he implicitly treats the unborn as less than human. Would NT Wright suggest killing a two-year-old with Down syndrome because it’s a “hardship” on the parents? “I know he would say no”. The only logical reason to treat a human fetus differently due to deformities or challenges is to assume it is not human, which is “question begging”. The entire abortion debate hinges on the question: “what is the unborn?”.

Furthermore, Wright vaguely appeals to viability without providing an argument for why viability is “value-giving”. He even states he doesn’t know if his “mind can determine whether or not the unborn are human at a previable state”. My response is unequivocal: “If we don’t know if the unborn are human, we should not be killing them. Ignorance of a being’s status is no justification for intentionally killing it”. This principle is self-evident: you wouldn’t drive over what looks like a coat if it might be a person, nor would you open fire in a bush if you didn’t know whether it was a deer or your hunting buddy. If Wright truly doesn’t know the status of the unborn, he should not be advocating abortion, lest he be advocating for the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

The “Pastoral” Trap and The Call for Clarity

A recurring theme in such discussions is the appeal to being “pastoral.” When someone says, “We need to do more than just look at this ethically or theologically, we need to be pastoral,” it is “almost always a code word for we’re going to compromise”. While women facing difficult pregnancies, whether from rape or carrying a child with deformities, absolutely “deserve our compassion and care”, a genuine “pastoral response” does not mean “you don’t throw ethics under the bus in the name of being pastoral”. Yet, this is precisely what Tom Wright does.

We recently saw this same “have your cake and eat it too” mentality exemplified by Fuller Seminary. This prominent evangelical seminary, which historically affirmed a traditional biblical sexual ethic, recently stated that while they affirm this ethic, they “understand that there are other narratives out there that are just as legitimate”. This is not pastoral; “that’s relativism”. It’s “muddled thinking”. Imagine saying, “Spousal abuse is wrong, but I recognize that there are other people who have a different view about beating your wife, and therefore we’re going to acknowledge the legitimacy of that view”. The absurdity is clear. You cannot legitimately claim two contradictory views are equally valid.

For Christians, the argument for the pro-life position is straightforward and clear:

• The Philosophical Syllogism:
  1. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
  2. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
  3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
• The Biblical Argument:
  1. All humans have value because they bear the image of God, as taught in Genesis 1 and James 3, spanning both Old and New Covenants.
  2. Because humans bear the image of God, the shedding of innocent blood—meaning the intentional killing of an innocent human being—is strictly forbidden, as taught in Exodus 23, Proverbs 6, and Isaiah 1.
  3. The unborn are human from conception, a fact affirmed by the science of embryology.
  4. Therefore, the commands against the shedding of innocent blood apply to the unborn as they do to everybody else. The unborn are imagebearers just like you and me. Therefore, it is wrong to intentionally kill them.

This “very straightforward argument” seems to have “escaped Tom Wright’s notice”.

Conclusion: The Need for Clarity

In conclusion, it is critical for Christians to be clear on what we believe in terms of theology and right and wrong. This is no time to “muddy the waters”. Far too many pastors and Christian leaders succumb to this temptation, trying to “have it both ways,” pretending to hold orthodox views while simultaneously compromising them. To claim to be pro-life while promoting candidates who endorse wholesale abortion and other actions the Bible clearly condemns is “not being pastoral” but “being a compromiser”. We need clarity, not confusion, not muddled talk. Our Prolife 101 course is precisely designed to help you discern and stand firm against such muddled thinking.