> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.dustinburdin.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Pro-Abortion Amendments Hide Immoral Dangers - URL: https://www.dustinburdin.com/pro-abortion-amendments-hide-immoral-dangers/ - Published: 2024-11-05T22:01:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-08-11T22:07:31.000Z - Description: Christians must use biblical ethical principles when they vote & must not be tricked by clever pro-abortion marketing. This article uses the pro-abortion Amendment 3 (Missouri) as an example. - Author: Dustin Burdin - Tags: Explainer, Bioethics The Bible applies to all areas of our lives, including how we should vote. It is not my job to tell you *who* to vote for; I will not do that in this article. However, suppose a political issue is on the ballot that directly touches on a biblical ethical issue. In that case, my job as a pastor and a Christian ethicist is to help people understand the issue since God has something to say about it. Jesus said His disciples are to be salt and light on earth (Matthew 5:13-16). This means more than sharing the Gospel of Jesus. Salt is a preserver of flavor and prevents spoilage of meat. Light dispels darkness. As Christians, we must make sure our actions flavor the world with Jesus and dispel the darkness of sin with the light of God’s truth. Christians should participate in the political process of our land and aim to be the salt and light of Jesus in our country. It is a blessing to live in a free society like ours where we can take part in voting. Even if you think your vote does not matter, the mere fact you can go vote is a huge blessing not known for much of human history in societies. This election year, some states have ballot initiatives up for vote involving abortion. I am in Missouri, and a constitutional amendment called Amendment 3 is on the ballot in that state. Missouri currently has a ban on abortion with the only exception of saving the life of the mother. The abortion must be medically necessary to preserve life, and healthcare providers must give a legal defense that their abortion was following state law and truly medically necessary to save life.[\[1\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn1) Amendment 3 wants to overthrow the ban on abortion in Missouri. Readers of this article may not live in a state where abortion is a ballot issue this year. Nonetheless, I want to use Missouri’s Amendment 3 as an example to help Christians in any state carefully consider how abortion must be kept in its proper context. Abortion is not a political issue nor is it a healthcare issue. Abortion is a moral issue. Amendment 3 is a case where its authors want voters to think of abortion as a right and as legitimate healthcare. They also want voters to believe bans on abortion harm women and block them from getting proper healthcare. Christians must be careful not to fall for the smoke and mirror show and succumb to the clever marketing of those who may want to enshrine abortion on demand into law. Christians must learn the relevant facts of an issue up for a vote, especially when the issue is moral. This article does not give a comprehensive case against abortion. I will only provide enough biblical information to establish a general case against abortion because my focus in this article is the wording of a pro-abortion amendment. I strongly urge all Christians, regardless of their state, not to support ballot initiatives that are pro-abortion. Even if abortion initiatives are marketed as pro-women’s healthcare, Christians must affirm that there is always a better option to help pregnant women besides abortion. Pro-abortion amendments such as Missouri’s Amendment 3 are vaguely written on purpose and lead to abortion on demand. The ethical foundations that ballot initiatives like Amendment 3 rest upon are immoral and ungodly and will lead to a host of other unethical activities that a Christian should not support. # The Bible’s Position on Abortion Sometimes, pro-choice people like to point out that the Bible does not directly talk about abortion, so therefore, it has nothing to say on the matter. This is not true. First, this is a lousy form of argumentation. Just because the Bible may not directly call an action a sin does not mean it condones it. Often, the Bible spends more time teaching the things God wants people to affirm and uphold. We look to these principles of the good things God wants for people and then reason that anything that goes against those principles must be sinful. Here is an example. Sometimes, people say Jesus did not teach homosexuality is a sin; therefore, homosexual marriage is ok. However, Jesus did not need to say homosexuality is a sin. Jesus affirmed that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). Jesus did not always speak to every sin. Instead, He spent much of His time teaching what God wants and that anything against these principles is a sin. We find in the Bible a strong affirmation that all people are made in the Image of God and special to God. Human life is sacred to God and must be protected. Furthermore, the Bible teaches God views unborn children as equally valuable and equally worthy of human moral status just as people existing outside the womb. *Here is a snapshot of the biblical case against abortion.* ### Human Life is Sacred & Must be Preserved Genesis 1:26-27, God made people in His image. This means human life is sacred and must be protected and preserved. This is why one of the Ten Commandments is we cannot murder another human life (Exodus 20:13). Jesus affirmed and enhanced these concepts as well (Matthew 5:21-22; 19:4-6). ### Children are Precious to God The Bible also teaches God views children as special. One example is when Jesus said the disciples should let the children come to Him so He could bless them. He even said the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such people as children (Matthew 19:13-14). ### Unborn Children are Equally Sacred & Must be Protected The question at this point is, “But what is God’s view of unborn children? Do they have the same sacred status?” The answer is positively, yes! David said in Psalm 139:13-16 that God formed him in his mother’s womb. God “knitted” David together when he was the fertilized egg who became a fetus. David knew that God was directly supervising his development in the womb from zygote to fetus to birth. Verse sixteen says God could see David’s “unformed substance.” Before David was a fully developed fetus, God could see David for the person he was and would become. Since God could see David for the person he was and would become when he was yet “unformed” in his mother’s womb, God sees unborn children, from fertilized eggs to fetuses, as real humans precious in His sight. Furthermore, God included unborn children in the protections against personal injury under the Law in the Old Testament. In Exodus 21:22-24 God says if a pregnant woman is harmed in a fight and it causes her to give birth prematurely, there will be a penalty. If the baby is unharmed, simply born early but otherwise ok, the offender will pay a fine. If, however, there is harm to the prematurely born baby, then God says there shall be equivalent retribution rendered against the offender. If the child dies, then the offender is to be killed. If the child is physically harmed, then the offender is to be physically punished, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” This shows us clearly that God considers unborn children fully worthy of equal protection just as people who are outside of the womb. God does not have a separate class for unborn children based on their stage of development. God sees human life at any stage of development (from a fertilized egg, fetus, born baby, adolescent, and elderly) as equally sacred and worthy of dignity. Even secular law in America understands this idea. One example is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004,[\[2\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn2)which amended the US constitution, making it a separate and additional crime if someone injures or kills a pregnant woman. The offender may be charged on two counts, one against the pregnant woman and one against the unborn child. US law considers the unborn child worthy of equal protection from personal injury and murder. I hope this matter is straightforward for Christians that according to the Bible, any action involving the intentional ending of the life of an unborn child is considered murdering a human being made in God’s image, sacred, and worthy of full human rights protections. Intentionally aborting an unborn child is a violation of God’s moral law. Abortion is first and foremost a moral issue. Christians must have these foundational ethical principles in mind when they evaluate and vote on abortion initiatives. # Words & Phrases Hide Hidden Dangers: The Case of Amendment 3 This brings us to the specific issues with the wording of Amendment 3 in the state of Missouri. I would like to think that just about any rational thinking Christian would agree with the case I have made so far that killing an unborn child (abortion) is wrong in God’s sight. However, some Christians may sympathize with Amendment 3’s claims. I have seen the commercials and read the cases supporting Amendment 3\. These people are good at marketing and choosing carefully crafted words and phrases to garner sympathy. Reading Amendment 3 and examining how it is worded should cause grave concern for morally minded people. The marketing of this amendment hides its dangers beneath the surface. I encourage you to read the amendment in full, what follows will be a highlight of select portions from it. Missouri Amendment 3’s complete text can be found here: [https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/Elections/Petitions/2024-086.pdf](https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/Elections/Petitions/2024-086.pdf?ref=dustinburdin.com) Amendment 3 is touted as addressing proper medical care and human rights issues. I doubt any advocate for Amendment 3 would say publicly, “I support murdering unborn babies.” No sane person would say this. I also doubt most supporters of Amendment 3 would say, “We need this amendment so that women can have unrestricted access to abortions on demand.” Contrary to what they say, Amendment 3 is an amendment to overturn Missouri’s existing abortion ban laws and bring back elective (at-will) abortions in the state. Amendment 3 is called “The Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative.” The words *Right* and *Freedom* are key. This tells us what the framers of this amendment want. On the surface, we can already see that this issue is not about women’s health or proper medical care, which is how this amendment has been marketed. Advocates for this amendment have used other claims such as “Take back Freedom,” “Reproductive Right,” and the current Missouri ban, “Goes too far, hurting women and families.” I’ve watched women painfully share their stories about how they suffered a miscarriage and were told under the current Missouri law, they had to carry their dead child to term. These stories are hard to listen to, and I am grieved to hear some of these women’s stories. However, I ask us to think about this question. Does Amendment 3 *only* seek to right those wrongs? No! Amendment 3 does so much more than merely give women another *healthcare*option if they have suffered a terrible calamity during their pregnancy. Amendment 3 opens floodgates for elective, on-demand abortions and a host of other reproductive treatments no Christian should support. Paragraph 2 of Amendment 3 says there exists a “Fundamental Right to reproductive freedom.” If this amendment passes, it will give people in Missouri the “Right to carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive healthcare.” That is a vague statement. The following sentence goes on to say what they mean. “Including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.” There are many loopholes in these words since they lack specificity. Advocates for Amendment 3 are not telling us that these vaguely written words go beyond abortion. For instance, it will allow for “treatment” options for people seeking gender change medical intervention. Because transgender treatments are being labeled as healthcare treatments and part of reproductive care. Do not be tricked. This amendment goes beyond abortion if it passes. It will open pathways for people, including minors, to have gender reproductive treatments. Paragraph 3 explicitly makes these reproductive “freedoms” enshrined in state law. Paragraph 4 might be the most troubling. It says that after Fetal Viability has been determined, the government can regulate abortion. That sounds reasonable on the surface. I have seen commercials claiming this amendment still lets the state regulate abortion. Their definition of Fetal Viability is how they can technically say that is true. The way they define Fetal Viability is a play on words. Their definition of Fetal Viability is “the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures." The key phrases to zoom in on are “good faith judgment,” “sustained survival,” and “extraordinary medical measures.” These open doors for abortion-on-demand, and here is how. A good faith judgment of the treating healthcare professional just means whatever the healthcare professional determines. There will be no objective medical standard for determining fetal viability. This is why some states required heartbeat standards to have some objective way of measuring “viability.” This amendment has no explanation for how the physician must measure Fetal Viability. If this amendment passes, there will be doctors willing to sign women up for abortions because it was in their “good faith judgment” that the child is not viable. Furthermore, if Amendment 3 passes, it will do away with a provision in the current Missouri law that requires healthcare professionals who carried out an abortion to give a legal defense that the abortion was necessary to preserve the pregnant mother’s life. I submit to you that this will open the doors for physicians to start profiting from abortions in our state. They will sell their “good faith judgment,” especially since they won’t have to prove it legally. The following phrases, *sustained survival* and *without extraordinary medical measures*require consideration. For instance, if a pregnant mother finds out their unborn child is diagnosed with Trisomy 18 (Edward’s Syndrome) or Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome), Amendment 3 would permit her to have the child aborted. The vague phrases of Amendment 3 provide these loopholes. Conditions like trisomy 18 or 21 could be argued that they do not permit “sustained” survivability of the child “without extraordinary medical care.” This amendment does not have clear verbiage explaining what they mean by “sustained” and “extraordinary medical care.” That opens doors for abortions of unborn children with a host of medical conditions that they could otherwise have lived with after birth. If this wasn’t bad enough, the rest of paragraph 4 makes it even worse. Even if Fetal Viability is determined, Amendment 3 says the government may not restrict abortions that “in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person.” Again, this sounds innocent and reasonable on the surface; however, it is very morally dangerous. Current Missouri law allows abortion if the physician determines that the abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother (Title XII.188.030).[\[3\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn3) However, the wording of “physical”or “mental health” is troubling. Amendment 3 would stop the government from restricting abortions if a physician agrees that the pregnant mother is at risk of physical harm. Amendment 3 does not define what it means by “physical harm”. That could mean a host of things that range from serious harm to non-life-threatening issues. The final notion in paragraph 4 that seals the deal for me to say this amendment is terrible and should be voted down is *mental health harm* to the pregnant mother. Amendment 3 offers no clarifying definitions as to what constitutes a danger to mental health for a pregnant mother, and that is a big problem. If Amendment 3 passes, a pregnant woman can claim she cannot carry her child to term because it causes her too much mental health harm. How much is too much? The amendment does not say. That is the point, I think. **It permits abortion on demand since a pregnant woman can make any case that her pregnancy is harming her mental health**. I am willing to wager just about any woman who has been pregnant will testify that carrying a child in the womb causes some level of mental stress and strain. Mental health is taxed during pregnancy. The idea that a woman can terminate her pregnancy for reasons of *mental health*creates a floodgate for pregnant women to claim just about any reason they can come up with as to why it harms their health to keep their unborn child. All they will need to do is find a physician willing to sign off with their “good faith judgment,” and congratulations, you have abortion-on-demand back in the state of Missouri. # Pro-Abortion Amendments are Dangerous & not the Right Solution People supporting Amendment 3 say it’s about women’s health and ensuring they get necessary care. I hope I have shown you that the wording in Amendment 3 goes well beyond the idea of women’s healthcare. Amendment 3 is a complete reversal of Missouri’s abortion restriction. Advocates of Amendment 3 want abortion-on-demand. Why? Because they think it’s a human right. This is the ethical foundation upon which Amendment 3 rests. It is not about women’s healthcare; it is about having “reproductive freedoms” enshrined in law. Some of these so-called reproductive freedoms are sinful, ungodly, and unbefitting for a Christian to support. If the advocates of Amendment 3 truly cared about women’s healthcare and if they have concerns about women possibly suffering under the current Missouri law, then they need to go back to the drawing board and craft an amendment that specifically deals with those cases only. Amendment 3, as it is currently written, is not the solution to the problems it claims to address. I’ve heard supporters of Amendment 3 say it lets women get the care they need if they have been raped or their life is in danger. Consider the data, though. Multiple studies across America have found that abortions for rape and incest make up less than 1% of all cases.[\[4\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn4) Furthermore, abortions that were considered medically necessary to protect the life of the mother make up less than 0.5% of all abortions.[\[5\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn5) Over 95% of abortions are purely elective.[\[6\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftn6) That means the pregnant mother made a free will choice to terminate her child, and there were no medically necessary reasons for it. Amendment 3 is worded in such a way that takes abortion well beyond the less than 1% of cases for rape or medical necessity. I have not read other state’s pro-abortion ballot initiatives, but I wager that they are all similar in this regard. Pro-abortion camps market these ballot initiatives as pro-women’s healthcare, when in fact they are worded in ways that go way beyond the 0.5% of medically necessary cases. Amendment 3 is missing something that makes it very morally dangerous. It gives no restrictions on abortions based on gestational weeks. The way Amendment 3 is written, an abortion could be carried out up to the moment of delivery. If I may be so bold as to say, that is sickening to me. The data is clear as to how dangerous abortions become after 12-14 weeks gestation. The health risks to a woman who gets an abortion after 15 weeks rise exponentially. If Amendment 3 truly cared about women’s healthcare, then why did its framers offer no restrictions based on gestational weeks of pregnancy? # Conclusion I hope I have shown you that Amendment 3 is not about women’s healthcare. Amendment 3 goes way beyond and seeks to bring back abortion-on-demand in the state of Missouri. It is vaguely written so that this will happen if it passes. As Christians, we must be the salt and light of Jesus in our state. Our job is to be a moral witness to society and uphold God’s standards of right and wrong. Elective abortions are immoral according to God’s standards. Abortion is the murdering of an unborn child made in the image of God, whom He deems worthy of full dignity and value, just as people outside the womb. Christians should use their vote to advocate for God’s standards of morals and virtues. I fail to see how Amendment 3 is virtuous and moral in any sense of those words. It certainly is not about women’s healthcare. Amendment 3 is dangerous and will bring a moral stain on Missouri if it passes. I stress again that if someone thought they might support Amendment 3 just because they believe the current Missouri ban is too restrictive, I urge that person to see that the way Amendment 3 is written is terrible. It goes beyond the less than 1% of abortion cases that involve rape or medical necessity. Amendment 3 is not the correct answer to fix the problems someone thinks exist with the current Missouri ban on abortion. As Christians, we do not need to think like the world about abortion. Abortion is not *healthcare*; it does not *care* at all. Abortion is immoral and a moral plight to societies. As Christians, we must seek to preserve and protect life, all life, including the life of the unborn. Do not get caught up in thinking that pro-abortion initiatives, like Amendment 3, are trying to right wrongs done against women. Missouri’s current law already has a provision to permit abortion to protect the life of the mother. Advocates say the current law is too restrictive, but even if they are right about that, Amendment 3 is not the solution to the problem. Pro-abortion initiatives such as Amendment 3 go too far and violate God’s standards of ethics. When you vote this year, vote according to biblical principles of ethics and virtue. Do not leave your biblical principles at the door. Take them with you to the voting box. If you live in a state that does not have a pro-abortion initiative this year, I hope the example we explored in this article shows that we must pay close attention to the wording of ballot initiatives. We must make sure, as Christians, we do not get fooled into supporting ungodly and immoral initiatives. --- [\[1\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref1) For reference’s sake, you can find the text for the current Missouri laws regarding abortion here (Title XII 188): [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=54595&hl=](https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=54595&hl=&ref=dustinburdin.com) [\[2\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref2) https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.htm [\[3\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref3) https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspxsection=188.030&bid=34834&hl= [\[4\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref4) https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf [\[5\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref5) https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-reasons-for-abortion/ [\[6\]](applewebdata://83435A88-06C8-4D9B-9922-31604CFEFAC3#%5Fftnref6) https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abortion-in-the-us-what-you-need-to-know/