The Jubilee Sobor [Conference] which just took place in August, adopted a new social doctrine of the Church, by which an evaluation is provided for the severe problems of modernity. The problem of abortions, as one of the most relevant in Russia, was given attention as well. Unfortunately, the secular press gave a very free interpretation of the doctrine, and in particular indicated that the Church in some manner was giving its blessing to abortions in the so-called hard cases.
This article, called upon to comment on the new social doctrine, does not of course claim to consider the entire variety of life situations, which always require individual discussion with the spiritual father.
It needs to be underlined that one must differentiate the legal and moral prohibitions. The former limits human freedom, while the latter limits his freedom of choice. The document adopted by the Sobor dos not have a juridical nature, but examines the problem of abortion within moral categories.
For a believer, it is hard to listen when the Church is accused of various sins, including cruelty to a woman. Especially sharply is this question presented in regard to the Church’s position on so-called termination of pregnancy, which is condemned and unequivocably compared to murder, as in the Second Canon of St. Basil the Great and by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
Serious rows about the use of words rage about the “hard cases” – in particular, abortions for medical indications, which comprise approximately 1% of the total number of abortions. However, any priest with some length of service can recall dozens of examples from his experience, when the doctors were sending a woman for termination of her pregnancy, predicting am inevitable death in childbirth, but he blessed her to give birth – and was confirmed that all went well.
Tha fact of the matter is that, regarding threat to life, doctors keep in mind the danger to health and increased risk of complications. But childbirth is a complex physiological process, associated in any case with a definite risk for the woman. This form of service (just as service in the army for men) always contains a certain danger for the life of the mother, even if the pregnancy and the preparation for childbirth go well.
These two podvigs [self-sacrificing heroic deeds] – childbirth and defense of the native land – connected with the necessity to sacrifice oneself, are blessed by the Church, since without them the existence of the people and the state are impossible. Hence in wartime society sends a soldier for compulsory service in the army, which even in peacetime has some risk to life.
Examining the cases where pregnancy does actually threaten the life of the mother, we must take account of the fact that there is a difference between a risk to health and a risk to life, as well as between a risk to life and an inevitable death by continuing the pregnancy.
It is just such cases of a direct threat to the life of the mother that are mentioned in the “Foundations of the Social Conception of the Russian Orthodox Church”, adopted at the Jubilee Sobor of Bishops. Although the Church can not bless abortions, nevertheless when there is a threat of inevitable death the woman is not required to accept martyrdom, which can only be voluntary. In this case the resolution of the Sobor recommends to priests a certain mercy in the designation of a repentance: “In cases where there is a direct threat to to the life of the mother in continuing the pregnancy ... it is recommended to manifest mercy in the pastoral guidance.”
Modern-day medicine permits protecting a woman to such an extent that one can sooner speak of exceptional, remarkably rare cases of death during childbirth, usually associated also with the death of the fetus. There is an entire arsenal of means which permit saving the life of the mother and child even in extreme pathology – that being Caesarean section, which has become a common operation even in regional hospitals; modern-day methods of stopping hemorrhage and the use of blood replacements; the possibility of caring for premature babies weighing less than 1 kg [2 pounds], and much else.
Why do they direct women to abortion? The reason lies in the desire of a doctor to be insured and to improve the statistics in situations of heightened risk, since he is not responsible for mortality from abortions, no matter how high it may be, at the same time that even for one case of death of a woman in childbirth, great troubles threaten him. But such logic of playing safe does not account very well for the fact that abortions often lead to a lethal outcome, since the woman can die not only immediately after the interruption of the pregnancy, but also there are extended consequences leading likewise to death: post-abortion syndrome, associated with attempts at suicide; various women’s illnesses especially oncological – such as that several years after an abortion she can die of breast cancer. Pathologies associated with an actual threat to the life of the mother are usually fraught also with the inescapable and inevitable death of the child, which makes acceptable the termination of the pregnancy, since it is not the reason for the death of the child –it would be impossible to save his life. (For example, extrauterine pregnancy.)
But let us examine the situation where there arises the problem of a choice between the life of a mother and a child. Experience shows that nobody asks the opinion of the woman, who as a rule is unconscious. If we imagine an (extremely rare) case when an Orthodox woman finding herself in such as position, asks the advice of a priest, then is it possible to bless her for an abortion? And can the mother, from the point of view of the Church’s Orthodox consciousness, willingly die, giving life to her child? Will this step be equivalent to suicide? We shall find the answer in the lives of the saints.
The priest-martyr, Bishop Maksim of Serpukhov (Mikhail Aleksandrovich Zhizhilenko) was born in a family of nine children. As a student at the medical school at Moscow University, he married, but lived with his wife no more than half a year: she died from inability to survive pregnancy. Both spouses would in no way consent to terminate this pregnancy, even though they knew that she was threatened by death, and by the laws of the Russian Empire at that time aborion was permissible. Upon graduation from the University, Mikhail Aleksandrovich became a doctor or psychiatry and then chief physician of the Taganka Prison in Moscow. He slept on bare boards, ate prison food, and expressed sympathy in all things for those confined. After becoming bishop, he could not help but attract the attention of the Soviet authorities, was arrested in 1929, and executed on July 6, 1931.
Was the death of his wife suicide? It is obvious that, although after her death from severe toxicity of pregnancy the death of the child also followed, this action was willingly accepted on herself as a martyric and sublime Christian podvig, not less than that which the priest-martyr Maksim completed some years later.
The question arises: does a priest have the right to push a woman to death? It is well-known that the blessing of a priest bears the nature of a recommendation and in no way infringes upon the current “freedom” to have an abortion, hence no one can accuse the Church of limiting some kind of “rights”. And if a woman desires to dei, refusing an abortion, she does this only by her own wish and voluntarily.
In conclusion we note that although there are cases of actual threat to the life of the woman, one must realize how rare they are, in order to concentrate attention on them, and through their prism examine the problem of abortions overall. Nevertheless, the argument about mortal risk is very important and is often used in the stormy polemics between supporters and opponents of abortion. In our observations, today one rarly finds clear and open apologetics for termination of pregnancy, since RAPS [Russian Association for Family Planning] never expresses support for it. Its representatives speak approximately thus: “We are ahainst abortions, but one must understand that it is unavoidable in some cases. Hence it must be provided in the best possible conditions for the woman. Besides this, a woman must have the freedom of choice.” However, if you translate the word “abortion” into Russian, its true meaning – “child murder” – immediately show the fallaciousnes of this logic.
The firm position of the Church on this question and the absence in it of any compromises is extremely important. If inside the Church there were to come the slightest turn toward the side of liberalization, this would signify a capitulation to the adherents of abortion, and a crossing over to their camp. The witness of Orthodoxy and current Orthodox movement in our country in defense of life would lose its foundation, and this would unavoidably provoke an increase in the number of abortions.
Are there many healthy women now? Almost every one has medical indicators for killing the child in the womb. All who have any kind of problem with their health would interpret the liberal approach in an extended sense and take it as church blessing on child-murder, and the mass media would help them in this.
Of course, it is not possible to evaluate the multitude of individual “hard cases”, but one can most definitely say that church canons condemning abortion need not be under review.