From Conception to Natural Death: Reflections on The Wesleyan Church’s "Special Direction" on Abortion

Photo by Omar Lopez on Unsplash

In 1973 Roe v. Wade legalized abortion across all fifty states, and in 1975 Dr. Beverly McMillan moved to Jackson, Mississippi, to become the first working doctor for Jackson Women’s Health Association, the abortion clinic that prompted Dobbs v. Jackson in 2021. In a recent interview she recalled, 

This was ’75, two years after Roe and there was no abortion clinic in the state. They had everything they needed except for an abortionist. No one wanted to come forward and be identified, I guess. So they asked if I was interested in it. (Ranck 2021) 

McMillan took the offer. 

She soon after became depressed, but while at a secular bookstore she picked up a book called The Power of Positive Thinking. According to Ranck, 

She read through the list of steps and tried to put them into practice. All but one. Number seven on the list was…, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” [McMillan] thought, “what kind of trash did I pick up in this bookstore? I thought I bought a psychology book and here’s some religious nut.” After putting it off for as long as she could, Dr. McMillan finally gave up and decided to say it, though unenthusiastically. At that moment, she felt the presence of God in the car with her. She began to cry and felt overwhelmed with emotion. 

Soon after, she began attending church. 

While she didn’t become pro-life right away, she began becoming increasingly uneasy working at the abortion clinic. What used to be easy, started to become harder and harder. One night, she was showing an employee at the clinic how to count the fetal parts to make sure the abortion was complete. In the past, she just counted to make sure everything was there, and the abortion was complete. Looking at the remains of the aborted 12-week-old baby, Dr. McMillan saw the arm and bicep muscle of the aborted baby laying on the table. “I think about my youngest son used to go around showing off his muscles. And it was just a God moment, a Holy Spirit moment.” She realized, “Oh! If I’d left this alone, this child would have been as beautiful as mine.” After that she stopped doing abortions, though she continued to act as the medical director of the clinic.

In 1980, McMillan went to hear Dr. Paul Fowler present his vision to create the first pro-life group in the state of Mississippi. McMillan reflected on that time, saying, “I show up and it was like getting my medical education re-filtered through the scriptures.” It was then that McMillan became pro-life and stopped working for the abortion clinic and began delivering babies instead of aborting them.

Barely two years later, on February 2, 1982, she also delivered me. My father had been attending Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, a school known for its strenuous pro-life efforts and support of McMillan’s transformation. As every alumnus of WBS knows, it was normal for Dr. Matt Friedeman, a professor at WBS since 1987 and the current president, to take classes weekly to Jackson Women’s Health Association to pray and minister.

In 2018, because of the efforts of the pro-life movement in Mississippi, the state legislature passed HB 1510 whereby abortions could not be performed after 15-weeks. Though a complete abortion ban was desired, HB 1510 felt like a major victory. When the ruling was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court in 2021 as Dobbs v. Jackson, it resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The overturning of Roe v. Wade ushered in a new era of activism and apologetics for the American Church. One important task for Wesleyan Methodists is to reevaluate our stances and statements on abortion and, as in the case below, check our exceptions at the door. 

In what follows, I have one working assumption: If human life begins at conception, then all induced abortion is morally vicious. 

The Wesleyan Church on Abortion

In 2018, I joined The Wesleyan Church (TWC).

Every year on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, I revisit TWC’s commitment to this social issue. I also annually revisit my trouble with how it is worded in The Discipline. It can be found in our “Special Directions” under 410:11 (2022) as follows: 

The Wesleyan Church seeks to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and, thus, is opposed to the use of induced abortion. However, it recognizes that there may be rare pregnancies where there are grave medical conditions threatening the life of the mother, which could raise a serious question about taking the life of the unborn child. In such a case, a decision should be made only after very prayerful consideration following medical and spiritual counseling. 

Special Direction 410:11 was first introduced to The Discipline in 1980 as 187:10. 

The Wesleyan Church seeks to recognize and preserve the inherent rights of life by opposing indiscriminately induced abortion for personal convenience or population control; recognizing that there may be pregnancies that require deliberate termination by therapeutic abortion when there are sound medical conditions affecting the life of the fetus and/or of the mother. There may be pregnancies brought about by rape or incest which may threaten the physical or psychological well-being of the mother and therefore raise a serious question about terminating the pregnancy. In such cases a decision to abort should be made only on the basis of thorough medical and spiritual counseling. 

In 1984, Special Direction 187:10 became 187:11 and was amended to what it is today. The original terminology is more liberal. The psychological and physical well-being of the mother could potentially justify intentionally terminating the life of the unborn baby. 

Though the language was amended, it amounts to a similar conclusion: TWC takes a firm stance against killing a person in the womb on purpose except when the health of the mother is in grave danger. Consequently, TWC is opposed specifically to some abortions but not all even though the expressed premise in the 1980 edition is that life is accompanied by inherent rights (language also removed). 

Morally Vicious Acts and Morally Justifiable Exceptions

It is implied that the reason TWC is opposed to some induced abortions is because human life begins at conception and because human life has inherent rights. To affirm that human life begins at conception is a strong premise with important consequences. If the premise is affirmed, then two other things follow. First, it necessarily follows that whatever inherent rights apply to human persons applies to human persons in the womb. Second, it follows that whatever virtue principles apply to the protection of one’s neighbor or children now become active. If a person has no neighbor, then he or she has no virtue responsibility, but when a person has a neighbor, certain virtue responsibilities are activated. 

When a child is conceived, we are put into a position to refrain from acting in a morally vicious way toward that child. Special Direction 410:11 assumes that to  kill an unborn child intentionally would be morally vicious. However, it makes an exception to this rule when the value of the unborn’s life competes with the value of the mother’s. In this case, it is assumed that the value of the mother’s life provides a morally sufficient reason to have an induced abortion (“taking the life”), to do what would otherwise be morally vicious. Certainly it would be morally vicious to disregard the life of the mother and certainly the mother also has an inherent right to live.

There are a number of conceivable factors that make such a situation even more morally complex, but there are potential factors that make it less complex. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the unborn baby will not survive within the womb because he or she grows outside the uterus. The infant cannot survive, and the mother’s life is severely threatened if the baby is not removed. 

But why does it follow that the child must be terminated? In 410:11, it is claimed that the sanctity of life is to be protected from conception to natural death. In TWC’s position statement on euthanasia, the concept of natural death is explained. 

There are no justifiable grounds to deliberately end the life of an individual through medical or any other means. However, removal of life-support systems is not to be confused with or considered a part of infanticide or euthanasia. Life-support systems sustain physical life after the natural functions of the body are destroyed or greatly impaired by disease or injury. Their removal is not taking life but rather leaving the natural process of disease or injury to take its course. The Wesleyan Church believes that removing support systems that only prolong physical life-signs, without reasonable medical hope of regaining consciousness, is a matter of conscience for the persons concerned. (https://www.wesleyan.org/sanctity-of-life)

It says specifically that “there are no justifiable grounds to deliberately end the life of an individual through medical or any other means.” But Special Directions 410:11 on abortion does suggest grounds to deliberately end the life of an individual through medical means! What is to be done?

Abortion v. Life Support Removal

I suggest we apply the same principle from the position statement on euthanasia to Special Directions 410:11 on abortion. In cases of extreme medical emergency where the life of the mother is imminently threatened, TWC should not recommend induced abortion but rather that the infant be removed from the life support of the womb. In effect, this means early delivery rather than termination. 

This would align with the Catholic Church who uses the natural death qualifier to distinguish between direct abortion and indirect loss of life. It states, “direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (2271, 2nd ed.). 

In this way, abortion is to be neither a goal nor a means. Instead, the life of both the mother and the infant are to be handled in such a way as to be offered the dignity of intended preservation. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the infant is separated from the womb of the mother with the intent to preserve both patients even if it is understood that the baby will not naturally survive. Instead of violating the baby’s inherent value for life, that life is honored and committed to the best efforts available rather than deliberately terminated. 

Furthermore, many accept the fact that being pregnant is inherently dangerous. Consequently, if induced abortion is acceptable upon circumstances threatening the mother and if those circumstances are left undefined, then it follows that abortion just is, then, acceptable.  

I suggest that in Special Directions 410:11, TWC is promoting permissiveness of what is morally vicious, medically killing an unborn infant’s life without a morally sufficient reason (as defined in TWC’s position statement on euthanasia). 

Toward a Better “Special Direction” 

So how might Special Direction 410:11 be amended? I suggest the following:

The Wesleyan Church seeks to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and, thus, is opposed to the use of induced abortion. It recognizes that pregnancy is inherently dangerous to the health of the mother. Consequently, in some grave circumstances imminently threatening the life of the mother it might be necessary to medically deliver the child early. Nevertheless, every effort should be made to preserve the life of both the mother and the infant insofar as medically possible. 

The recommendation does four things. First, it brings the inherent dangers of pregnancy to the forefront. Second, it removes the exception clause and implies that there are no exceptions. Third, it shifts the language from implied “self-defense” to a motivated effort to preserve life. Finally, this amendment allows TWC to take a firm stance against all legalized abortion without ignoring the inherent right to life in the mother, and thus shifting the discussion to medical advancement (cf. https://www.wesleyan.org/maternalinfant-health-addresses-abortion-in-sierra-leone-5885).

Closing Thoughts 

There must be more discussion about how compassion and love operate in morally complex circumstances involving pregnancy. Nevertheless, that discussion should not terminate at the point of abortion but should begin at the point of preservation. The right to life cannot be forfeited at the point of tragedy or difficulty.

Kenny R. Johnston is an ordained pastor in The Wesleyan Church and a PhD student at London School of Theology.

Avery, Dan. “What is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization? Inside the Supreme Court Case that Overturned Abortion Rights.” CNET. June 23, 2022. Found online at https://www.cnet.com/health/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-overturn-roe-abortion/ 

Ranck, Katherine. “From Abortionist to Pro-Life Activist: Dr. Beverly McMillan’s Story.” Can’t Say You Didn’t Know Blog. October 13, 2020. Found online at https://cantsayyoudidntknow.home.blog/2020/10/13/from-abortionist-to-pro-life-activist-dr-beverly-mcmillans-story/