Abortion and the Bible

Every year in the United States of America, more than one million children are butchered by abortion doctors. Since 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand, some forty-three million babies have been slaughtered in America (see "Consequences," 2003). Every year, an estimated forty-six million abortions occur worldwide (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2002). In three decades, an entire generation of children has been forever eliminated. In fact, more than 20% of all babies conceived in this country are killed before they ever see the light of day (Finer and Henshaw, 2003, p. 6)-and the slaughter continues….

Some encouraging signs have surfaced recently. In March 2003, the United States Senate, by a 64-33 vote, approved a ban on the particularly barbaric abortion procedure known as "partial-birth" abortion (Kiely, 2003). In their efforts to sort out the moral and ethical issues involved in human cloning, the President's Council on Bioethics concluded, among other things, that "the case for treating the early-stage embryo as simply the moral equivalent of all other human cellsis simply mistaken" (Kass, 2002, p. liv). But even these laudable attempts to turn back the tide of moral degradation that has swept over the nation are too little, too late.

A significant number of Americans consider abortion to be an acceptable option. What would one expect? They've been browbeaten with the "politically correct" agenda of the social liberals for decades. The highest court in the land has weighed in on the matter, making abortion legitimate by means of the power of "the law." The medical profession has followed suit, lending its prestige and sanction to the practice of abortion-in direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath. But have the majority of Americans heard the biblical viewpoint? Do they even care how God feels about abortion? Are they interested in investigating His view of the matter? After all, the Bible does, in fact, speak decisively about abortion.

American civilization has undergone a sweeping cultural revolution for over forty years. The American moral framework is being restructured, and this country's religious roots and spiritual perspective are being altered. The founding fathers and the American population of the first 150 years of our national existence would not have tolerated many of the beliefs and practices that have become commonplace in society. This list of practices would include gambling (i.e., the lottery, horse-racing, casinos, etc.), divorce, alcohol and public drunkenness, homosexuality, unwed pregnancy, and pornography in movies and magazines. These behaviors simply would not have been tolerated by the bulk of American society from the beginning up to World War II. But the moral and religious foundations of our nation are experiencing catastrophic erosion. The widespread practice of abortion is simply one sign among many of this cultural shift in our country.

But there is still a God in Heaven-the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe. He has communicated to the human race in the Bible, and He has stated that He one day will call all human beings who have ever lived to account, and He will judge them on the basis of their behavior on Earth. Therefore, every single person is responsible for carefully studying God's Word, determining how He wants us to behave, and then complying with those directions. It is that simple, and it is that certain.

While the Bible does not speak directly to the practice of abortion, it does provide enough relevant material to enable us to know God's will on the matter. In Zechariah 12:1, God is said to be not only the Creator of the heavens and the Earth, but also the One Who "forms the spirit of man within him." So God is the giver of life. That alone makes human life sacred. God is responsible for implanting the human spirit within the human body. We humans have no right to end human life-unless God authorizes us to do so. But taking a human life, biblically, is based on that human's behavior. Taking the life of an unborn infant certainly is not based upon the moral conduct of that infant. So if God places the human spirit in a human being while that person is in the mother's womb, to end that life is a deliberate attempt to thwart God's action of "forming the spirit of man in him."

But when does the human spirit enter the human body and thereby bring into existence a human being? When does God implant the soul into the body-at birth or prior to birth? The Bible provides abundant evidence to answer that question. For example, the Bible states: "As you do not know what is the way of the spirit, or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes all things" (Ecclesiastes 11:5). In this passage, Solomon equated fetal development with the activity of God. Job described the same process in Job 10:11-12. There he attributed his pre-birth growth to God. David was even more specific.

For You have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them (Psalm 139:13-16).

David insisted that his development as a human being-his personhood-was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother's womb. Some have suggested that Ecclesiastes, Job, and Psalms are all books of poetry and, therefore, not to be taken literally. However, poetic language has meaning. Solomon, Job, and David were clearly attributing their pre-birth personhood to the creative activity of God.

Of course, many additional passages that make the same point are not couched in poetic imagery. Jeremiah declared: "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations' " (Jeremiah 1:4-5). Compare this statement with Paul's equivalent claim, in which he said that God set him apart to do his apostolic ministry even while he was in his mother's womb (Galatians 1:15). Isaiah made the same declaration: "Listen, O coastlands, to me, and take heed, you peoples from afar! The Lord has called me from the womb; from the matrix of my mother He has made mention of my name" (Isaiah 49:1).

These passages do not teach predestination. Jeremiah and Paul could have exercised their free will and rejected God's will for their lives-in which case God would have found someone else to do the job. But these passages do teach that God treats people as human beings even before they are born. These passages show that a pre-born infant is a person-a human being. There is no significant difference between a human baby one minute before birth and that same human baby one minute after birth. And that status as a human being applies to a person throughout his or her pre-natal development from the moment of conception.

Consider further the recorded visit that Mary, the mother of Jesus, made to Elizabeth, the mother of John the baptizer. Both women were pregnant at the time.

Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy" (Luke 1:39-44).

Notice that Elizabeth's pre-born baby is being represented as a living human being. In fact, the term "baby" used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So in God's sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! In Luke 1:36, John the Baptist is referred to as "a son" from the very moment of conception. All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11-birth, pregnancy, and conception.

If abortion is not wrong, Mary would have been within her moral and spiritual rights to abort the baby Jesus-the divine Son of God! Someone may say, "But that's different, since God had a special plan for that child." But the Bible teaches that God has special plans for every human being. Every single human life is precious to God-so much so that a single soul is more significant than everything else that is physical in the world (Matthew 16:26). God sacrificed His own Son for every single human being on an individual basis. Each human life is equally valuable to God. The unrealized and incomprehensible potential for achieving great things by millions of human beings has been forever expunged by abortion. The remarkably resourceful potential of even one of those tiny human minds-now extinguished-may well have included a cure for cancer, or some other horrible, debilitating, and deadly disease.

Another insightful passage from the Old Testament is found in Exodus 21:22-25. This passage describes what action is to be taken in a case of accidental injury to a pregnant woman:

If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (NKJV).

This passage has been mistranslated in some versions. For example, some versions use the word "miscarriage" instead of translating the Hebrew phrase literally-"so that her children come out." The text is envisioning a situation in which two brawling men accidentally injure a pregnant bystander. The injury causes the woman to go into early labor, resulting in a premature birth of her child. If neither the woman nor the child is harmed, then the Law of Moses levied a fine against the one who caused the premature birth. But if injury or even death resulted from the brawl, then the law imposed a parallel punishment: if the premature baby died, the one who caused the premature birth was to be executed-life for life. This passage clearly considers the pre-born infant to be a human being, and to cause a pre-born infant's death was homicide under the Old Testament-homicide punishable by death.

Notice that this regulation under the Law of Moses had to do with injury inflicted accidentally. Abortion is a deliberate, purposeful termination of a child's life. If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: "[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked" (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is "hands that shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:17).

This matter of abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely must base our views on God's will-not the will of men. The very heart and soul of this great nation is being ripped out by unethical behaviors like abortion. We must return to the Bible as our standard of behavior-before it is too late.

When one contemplates the passages examined above, and compares them with what is happening in society, one surely is amazed and appalled. For example, women have been indicted and convicted of the murder of their own children when those children have been just a few months old. The news media nationwide, and society in general, have been up in arms and outraged at the unconscionable behavior of mothers who have so harmed their young children so as to result in death. Most Americans have been incensed that a mother could have so little regard for the lives of her own children. Yet the same society and the same news media that are outraged at such behavior would have been perfectly content for the same mother to have murdered the same children if she had simply chosen to do so a few minutes or a few months before those children were actually born! Such is the insanity of a civilization that has become estranged from God.

A terrible and tragic inconsistency and incongruity exists in this country. Merely taking possession of an egg containing the pre-born American bald eagle-let alone if one were to destroy that little pre-birth environment and thus destroy the baby eagle that is developing within-results in a stiff fine and even prison time. Yet one can take a human child in its pre-born environment and not only murder that child, but also receive government blessing to do so! Eagle eggs, i.e., pre-born eagles, are of greater value to American civilization than pre-born humans! What has happened to our society? This cannot be harmonized in a consistent, rational fashion. The ethics and moral sensibilities that lie behind this circumstance are absolutely bizarre.

The ethical disharmony and moral confusion that reign in our society have escalated the activity of criminals who commit a variety of heinous crimes-killing large numbers of people, raping women, and doing all sorts of terrible things. Yet, a sizeable portion of society is against capital punishment. Many people feel that these wicked adults, who have engaged in heinous, destructive conduct, should not be executed-a viewpoint that flies directly in the face of what the Bible teaches (Romans 13:1-6; 1 Peter 2:13-14). God wants evildoers in society to be punished-even to the point of capital punishment. Yet, we will not execute guilty, hardened criminals, while we will execute innocent human babies! How can one possibly accept this terrible disparity and the horrible scourge of abortion?

The ultimate solution to every moral issue is genuine New Testament Christianity and the objective standard of the Bible. If all people would organize their lives around the precepts and principles presented in the Bible, civilization would be in good shape. No other suitable alternative exists. There is simply no other way to live life cohesively, with focus, with perspective, with direction, and with the proper sense of the purpose of life.

“What does the Bible say about abortion?”……Answer: The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God's view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty-death-for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).……The first argument that always arises against the Christian stance on abortion is "What about cases of rape and/or incest?" As horrible as it would be to become pregnant as a result of rape and/or incest, is the murder of a baby the answer? Two wrongs do not make a right. The child who is a result of rape/incest could be given in adoption to a loving family unable to have children on their own, or the child could be raised by its mother. Again, the baby is completely innocent and should not be punished for the evil acts of its father.……The second argument that usually arises against the Christian stance on abortion is "What about when the life of the mother is at risk?" Honestly, this is the most difficult question to answer on the issue of abortion. First, let's remember that this situation is the reason behind less than one-tenth of one percent of the abortions done in the world today. Far more women have an abortion for convenience than women who have an abortion to save their own lives. Second, let's remember that God is a God of miracles. He can preserve the life of a mother and a child despite all the medical odds being against it. Ultimately, though, this question can only be decided between a husband, wife, and God. Any couple facing this extremely difficult situation should pray to the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5) as to what He would have them to do.……Over 95 percent of the abortions performed today involve women who simply do not want to have a baby. Less than 5 percent of abortions are for the reasons of rape, incest, or the mother’s health at risk. Even in the more difficult 5 percent of instances, abortion should never be the first option. The life of a human being in the womb is worth every effort to allow the child to be born.……For those who have had an abortion, remember that the sin of abortion is no less forgivable than any other sin. Through faith in Christ, all sins can be forgiven (John 3:16; Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:14). A woman who has had an abortion, a man who has encouraged an abortion, or even a doctor who has performed one-can all be forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ.

Abortion in the Bible and Church HistoryThere is a small but influential circle of prochoice advocates who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible. They maintain that “nowhere does the Bible prohibit abortion.” [1] Yet the Bible clearly prohibits the killing of innocent people (Exodus 20:13). All that is necessary to prove a biblical prohibition of abortion is to demonstrate that the Bible considers the unborn to be human beings.

Personhood in the Bible

A number of ancient societies opposed abortion, [2] but the ancient Hebrew society had the clearest reasons for doing so because of its foundations in the scriptures. The Bible teaches that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As the climax of God’s creation mankind has an intrinsic worth far greater than that of the animal kingdom placed under His care. Throughout the Scriptures, personhood is never measured by age, stage of development, or mental, physical, or social skills. Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation – before which there was not a human being and after which there is. That moment of creation can be nothing other than the moment of conception.

The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to refer to the unborn (Exodus 21:22-25) is yeled, a word that “generally indicates young children, but may refer to teens or even young adults.” [3] The Hebrews did not have or need a separate word for unborn children. They were just like any other children, only younger. In the Bible there are references to born children and unborn children, but there is no such thing as a potential, incipient, or "almost" child.

Job graphically described the way God created him before he was born (Job 10:8-12). The person in the womb was not something that might become Job, but someone who was Job, just a younger version of the same man. To Isaiah, God says, “This is what the Lord says – he who made you, who formed you in the womb” (Isaiah 44:2). What each person is, not merely what he might become, was present in his mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:13-16 paints a graphic picture of the intimate involvement of God with a preborn person. God created David’s "inmost being," not at birth, but before birth. David says to his Creator, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Each person, regardless of his parentage of handicap, has not been manufactured on a cosmic assembly line, but has been personally knitted together by God in the womb. All the days of his life have been planned out by God before any have come to be (Psalm 139:16).

As a member of the human race that has rejected God, each person sinned “in Adam,” and is therefore a sinner from his very beginning (Romans 5:12-19). David says, “Surely I was sinful at birth.” Then he goes back even further, back before birth to the actual beginning of his life, saying he was “sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Each person has a sinful nature from the point of conception. Who but an actual person can have a sinful nature? Rocks and trees and animals and human organs do not have moral natures, good or bad. Morality can be ascribed only to a person. That there is a sin nature at the point of conception demonstrates that there is a person present who is capable of having such a nature.

Jacob was given prominence over his twin Esau “though not yet born” (Romans 9:11). When Rebekah was pregnant with Jacob and Esau, Scriptures says, “The babies jostled each other within her” (Genesis 25:22). The unborn are regarded as "babies" in the full sense of the term. God tells Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). He could not know Jeremiah in his mother’s womb unless Jeremiah, the person, was present in his mother’s womb. The Creator is involved in an intimate knowing relationship not only with born people, but with unborn people.

In Luke 1:41,44 there are references to the unborn John the Baptist, who was at the end of his second trimester in the womb. The word, translated baby, in these verses is the Greek word brephos. It is the same word used for the already born baby Jesus (Luke 2:12, 16) and for the babies brought to Jesus to receive His blessing (Luke 18:15-17). It is also the same word used in Acts 7:19 for the newborn babies killed by Pharaoh. To the writers of the New Testament, like the Old, whether born or unborn, a baby is simply a baby. It appears that the preborn John the Baptist responded to the presence of the preborn Jesus in His mother Mary when Jesus was probably no more than ten days beyond His conception (Luke 1:41).

The angel Gabriel told Mary that she would be “with child and give birth to a son” (Luke 1:31). In the first century, and in every century, to be pregnant is to be with child, not with that which might become a child. The Scriptures teach the psychosomatic unity of the whole person, body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Wherever there is a genetically distinct living human being, there is a living soul and spirit.

The Status of the Unborn

One scholar states: “Looking at Old Testament law from a proper cultural and historical context, it is evident that the life of the unborn is put on the same par as the person outside the womb.” [4]

When understood as a reference to miscarriage, Exodus 21:22-25 is sometimes used as evidence that the unborn is subhuman. But a proper understanding of the passage shows reference is not to a miscarriage, but to a premature birth, and that the "injury" referred to, which is to be compensated for like all other injuries, applies to the child as well as to his mother. This means that, “far from justifying permissive abortion, in fact grants the unborn child a status in the eyes of the law equal to the mother’s.” [5]

Meredith Cline observes, “The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code.” [6] All that was necessary to prohibit an abortion was the command, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Every Israelite knew that the preborn child was indeed a child. Therefore, miscarriage was always viewed as the loss of a child and abortion as the killing of a child.

Numbers 5:11-31 is an unusual passage of Scripture used to make a central argument in A Prochoice Bible Study, published by Episcopalians for Religious Freedom. [7] They cite the New English Bible’s peculiar translation, which makes it sound as if God brings a miscarriage on a woman if she is unfaithful to her husband. Other translations refer to a wasting of the thigh and swelling of her abdomen, but do not take it to mean pregnancy, which would presumably simply be called that directly if it were in mind.

The woman could have been pregnant by her husband, assuming they had been having sex, which Hebrews couples normally did. It appears that God was expected to do some kind of miracle related to the bitter water, creating a dramatic physical reaction if adultery had been committed. The text gives no indication of either pregnancy of abortion. Indeed, in the majority of cases of suspected adultery, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no child at risk.

The Prochoice Bible Study that cites the NEB‘s unique translation suggests if God indeed causes miscarriage, it would therefore be an endorsements of people causing abortions. This is a huge stretch, since neither the wife, husband, nor priest made the decision to induce an abortion, nor would they have the right to do so. The passage does not seem to refer to a miscarriage at all; but even if it did, there is a certainly nothing to suggest any endorsement of human beings initiating an abortion.

Child Sacrifice

Child sacrifice is condemned throughout Scripture. Only the most degraded societies tolerated such evil, and the worst of these defended and celebrated it as if it were a virtue. Ancient dumping grounds have been found filled with the bones of hundreds of dismembered infants. This is strikingly similar to discoveries of thousands of dead babies discarded by modern abortion clinics. One scholar of the ancient Near East refers to infant sacrifice as “the Canaanite counterpart to abortion.” [8] Unlike the pagan sacrifices, however, with abortion, child killing need no longer be postponed till birth.

Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 19:10; Proverbs 6:17; Isaiah 1:15; Jeremiah 22:17). While the killing of all innocent human beings is detestable, the Bible regards the killing of children as particularly heinous (Leviticus 18:21; 20:1-5; Deuteronomy 12:31). The prophets of Israel were outraged at the sacrifice of children by some of the Jews. They warned that it would result in the devastating judgment of God on their society (Jeremiah 7:30-34; Ezekiel 16:20-21, 36-38; 20:31; compare 2 Kings 21:2-6 and Jeremiah 15:3-4).

Abortion and Church History

Christians throughout church history have affirmed with a united voice the humanity of the preborn child. [9] The second-century Epistle of Barnabas speaks of “killers of the child, who abort the mold of God.” It treats the unborn child as any other human "neighbor" by saying, “You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated” (Epistle of Barnabas 19:5).

The Didache, a second-century catechism for young converts, states, “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant” (Didache 2.2). Clement of Alexandria maintained that “those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well” (Paedogus 2:10.96.1).

Defending Christians before Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 177, Athenagoras argued, “What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? ├ö├ç┬¬The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care” (A Plea for the Christians, 35.6).

Tertullian said, “It does not matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. In both instances, destruction is murder” (Apology, 9.4). Basil the Great affirmed, “Those who give abortifacients for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers themselves, along with those receiving the poisons” (Canons, 188.2). Jerome called abortion “the murder of an unborn child” (Letter to Eustochium, 22.13). Augustine warned against the terrible crime of “the murder of an unborn child” (On Marriage, 1.17.15). Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysotom were among the many other prominent theologians and church leaders who condemned abortion as the killing of children. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger comments, “It is really remarkable how uniform and how pronounced was the early Christian opposition to abortion.” [10]

Throughout the centuries, Roman Catholic leaders have consistently upheld the sanctity of human life. Likewise, Protestant reformer John Calvin followed both the Scriptures and the historical position of the church when he affirmed:

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life, which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light. [11]

Modern theologians with a strong biblical orientation agree that abortion is the killing of a child. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lost his life standing up against the murder of the innocent in Germany, argued that abortion is "nothing but murder." [12] Karl Barth stated,

“The unborn child is from the very first a child├ö├ç┬¬ it is a man and not a thing, not a mere part of the mother’s body├ö├ç┬¬ Those who live by mercy will always be disposed to practice mercy, especially to a human being which is so dependent on the mercy of others as the unborn child.” [13]

In the last few decades it has become popular for certain theologians and ministers to be proabortion. The Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, for instance, has adopted the motto, "Prayerfully Prochoice," and prochoice advocates point to it as proof that conscientious Christians can be prochoice. Yet the arguments set forth by such advocates are shallow, inconsistent, and violate the most basic principles of biblical interpretation. Their arguments are clearly read into the biblical texts rather than derived from them. [14]

The "Christians" prochoice position is nothing more than an accommodation to modern secular beliefs, and it flies in the face of the Bible and the historical position of the church. If the church is to be the church, it must challenge and guide the morality of society, not mirror it.

Conclusion: The Bible and the Children

Even if church history were unclear on the matter, the Bible is very clear. Every child in the womb has been created by God, and He has laid out a plan for that child’s life. Furthermore, Christ loves that child and proved it by becoming like him – He spent nine months in His mother’s womb. Finally, Christ died for that child, showing how precious He considers him to be.

Christ’s disciples failed to understand how valuable children were to Him, and they rebuked those who tried to bring them near Him (Luke 18:15-17). But Jesus called the children to Him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” He did not consider attention to children a distraction from His kingdom business, but an integral part of it.

The biblical view of children is that they are a blessing and a gift from the Lord (Psalm 127:3-5). Society is treating children more and more as liabilities. We must learn to see them as God does – “He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18). Furthermore, we must act toward them as God commands us to act:

Defend the cause of the weak and the fatherless;… Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.…Rescue the weak and needy;… Deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4).

As we intervene on behalf of His littlest children, let’s realize it is Christ Himself from whom we intervene (Matthew 25:40).

What does the Bible teach about abortion?…Pro-life or pro-choice?

Biblically, life definitely begins at conception. King David said he was sinful from the time he was conceived (Psalm 51:5). Therefore, he became a person at the moment of conception, for only a person can have a sin nature.

Many scriptures speak of fetuses as children and persons. As soon as she conceives, a woman is "with child." God sometimes relates intimately with the fetus. (See: Psalm 119:73; 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5; Job 10:8-12; 31:13-15; Genesis 25:22; Hosea 12:2-3; Matthew 1:18-20; etc.) God sometimes even prepares them for a specific calling (Rom. 9:11; Judges 13:3-5; Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15).

John the Baptist responded in the womb to the presence of Jesus, who was newly conceived in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:39-44).

When did Jesus Christ leave Heaven, come to Earth and become flesh (John 1:14)? Biblically and doctrinally, it was clearly the moment that He was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Human's have an intrinsic worth because our ancestors, Adam and Eve, were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

The Bible prohibits the killing of innocent people (Deu. 19:10). "Thou shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13, NKJV; Genesis 9:5).

Biblically and historically, it is certain that the Israelites knew that the fetus was a child (a person).

In Old Testament Israel, a criminal injury that caused a pregnant woman's unborn child to die was treated the same as any other murder. The criminal was punished less severely, only if the baby was born alive, although premature (Exodus 21:22-25, NKJV).

"These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood" (Prov. 6:16-17, NKJV).

What did early church writings say about abortion?

"You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated" (Epistle of Barnabas 19.5; second century).

"Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant" (The Didache 2.2; second century catechism for young Christian converts).

"The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God's care" (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35.6; 177 A.D.).

Equality – "Jesus Christ broke through the false barriers that separated Jews from Samaritans, lepers from the healthy, children from adults, wanted from unwanted. He taught the equal dignity of all. The barrier that divides born from unborn is likewise offensive to His teaching."

Justice – "God saves the helpless, who cannot save themselves. This God of justice expects His people to do likewise, rescuing the orphan and the widow, and intervening to prevent bloodshed."

Hope – "Abortion is essentially an act of despair. Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, from whom we can expect every good, opens the door to hope, which in turn enables us, despite our fears, to welcome new life into the world." [above three points supplied by National Pro-life Religious Council]

Editor: Paul S. Taylor, Eden Communications

Many people, sadly including many Christians, think abortion is a difficult and controversial issue. In reality, there is no difficulty or controversy at all-providing we allow the Bible to teach us, and not impose the ideas of fallible people on to its plain meaning.

There are two main issues to consider:

• Is the unborn child ("fetus") a human being?
• If so, is it ever acceptable to kill the unborn?

The answer to both questions is found in the beginning of the Bible, in Genesis.

"and Rebekah his [Isaac's] wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her" (Genesis 25:21-22).

Note that Rebekah's unborn twins, Jacob and Esau, are referred to as "children" (the Hebrew word used, banim, plural of ben), commonly refers to children after birth, and often has a more specific meaning "sons."

The New Testament uses the usual Greek word for baby, brephos, to refer to the unborn John the Baptist, who "leaped in her [Elizabeth's] womb" because of the presence of the unborn Christ (Luke 1:41-44).

Unborn babies are not disposable clumps of tissue, despite the claims of many pro-abortionists. And they are always human right from fertilization, because all the DNA coding needed to build each individual's physical features is there in the fertilized egg.

It is absolutely false that the developing human goes through any fish or reptile stage, despite some blatantly fraudulent evolutionary claims.

See:

• Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac? Answer
• Fraud Rediscovered, Creation, Volume 20, No. 2 (March 1998), pp. 49-51 – for the shocking truth, with photographic documentation, about the lies made telling people that the human fetus recapitulates an animal ancestry
• Is it true that humans have occasionally been born with gills? Answer

No, the Bible, supported by science, teaches that the unborn baby is a human child (see also Psalm 139:13-16, Jeremiah 1:5).

Is it biblically acceptable to kill an unborn human?

This is also answered in Genesis. Genesis 1:26-29 and 2:7-23 make it clear that man was created distinct from the animals, made in God's image. In Genesis 3 we read how this image was corrupted by the sin of the first humans, Adam and Eve. Only one generation later, Cain committed the first murder, a destruction of this image, thus a grievous affront to God. Violence (and other evils) spread throughout the world, so God destroyed all people apart from the Ark's passengers with a globe-covering flood (Genesis 6-8).

Right throughout Scripture, murder-that is the intentional killing of innocent humans-is regarded as a heinous sin (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 19:18, Romans 13:9). Since abortion kills an innocent human being, it is nothing less than murder. So all the usual "hard cases" pushed by pro-abortionists, e.g. "What if the woman was raped?," "What if the child is deformed?," "What if she can't afford to keep the child?" are irrelevant.

We should also remember Ezekiel 18:20, which prohibits executing a child for the crime of his/her father. This means that even the tragic cases of pregnancies due to incest or rape are no justification for killing the innocent child conceived.

Author of above: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International.

---

The father of lies

Jesus said of the devil,

"He was a murderer from the beginning When he lies he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

It is no accident that Jesus speaks about Satan's murders and lies in the same breath. Lies are the wheels that turn every holocaust. to pull of his murders, Satan tells us lies. He is so eloquent, so persuasive in his lies, and we are so gullible, that we fall for his schemes (2 Corinthians 2:11). He masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), calling right wrong, making us think-as many prochoicers do-that they are taking the moral high ground even as the defend something unspeakably immoral.

If some of the prochoice arguments momentarily cloud and eclipse what you know to be right, realize it is simply because the devil is behind the persuasive rhetoric of the prochoice movement. He is fluent in the language of lies and uses the prevailing assumptions of culture, education, and media to draw us away from God's thoughts about children and abortion and toward his.

Randy Alcorn, Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000), p. 296.

Also read: Abortion in the Bible and Church History by Randy Alcorn

Is abortion justifiable in cases of rape or incest?

A woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare,[1] there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. Bioethicist Andrew Varga summarizes the abortion argument from rape and incest in the following way:

It is argued that in these tragic cases the great value of the mental health of a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest can best be safe-guarded by abortion. It is also said that a pregnancy caused by rape or incest is the result of a grave injustice and that the victim should not be obliged to carry the fetus to viability. This would keep reminding her for nine months of the violence committed against her and would just increase her mental anguish. It is reasoned that the value of the woman’s mental health is greater than the value of the fetus. In addition, it is maintained that the fetus is an aggressor against the woman’s integrity and personal life; it is only just and morally defensible to repel an aggressor even by killing him if that is the only way to defend personal and human values. It is concluded, then, that abortion is justified in these cases. [2]

Despite its forceful appeal to our sympathies, there are problems with this argument.

• It is not relevant to the case for abortion on demand, the position defended by the popular pro-choice movement. This position states that a woman has a right to have an abortion for any reason she prefers during the entire nine months of pregnancy, whether it be for gender-selection, convenience, or rape.[3] To argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from the fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare circumstances, such as when one’s spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital. Proving an exception does not establish a general rule.
• Since conception does not occur immediately following intercourse, pregnancy can be eliminated in all rape cases if the rape victim receives immediate medical treatment by having all the male semen removed from her uterus.[4]
• The unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger its mother’s life (as in the case of a tubal pregnancy). It is the rapist who is the aggressor. The unborn entity is just as much an innocent victim as its mother. Hence, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the unborn is an aggressor.
• This argument begs the question by assuming that the unborn is not fully human. For if the unborn is fully human, then we must weigh the relieving of the woman’s mental suffering against the right-to-life of an innocent human being. And homicide of another is never justified to relieve one of emotional distress.

Although such a judgment is indeed anguishing, we must not forget that the same innocent unborn entity that the career-oriented woman will abort in order to avoid interference with a job promotion is biologically and morally indistinguishable from the unborn entity that results from an act of rape or incest. And since abortion for career advancement cannot be justified if the unborn entity is fully human, abortion cannot be justified in the cases of rape and incest. In both cases abortion results in the death of an innocent human life.

As Dr. Bernard Nathanson has written,

“The unwanted pregnancy flows biologically from the sexual act, but not morally from it.”[5]

Hence, this argument, is successful only if the unborn are not fully human.

Some pro-choice advocates claim that the pro-lifer lacks compassion, since the pro-lifer’s position on rape and incest forces a woman to carry her baby against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the rapist who has already forced this woman to carry a child, not the pro-lifer. The pro-life advocate merely wants to prevent another innocent human being (the unborn entity) from being the victim of a violent and morally reprehensible act (abortion), for two wrongs do not make a right.

As theologian and ethicist Dr. Michael Bauman has observed:

“A child does not lose its right to life simply because its father or its mother was a sexual criminal or a deviant.”[6]

Furthermore, the anguish and psychic suffering caused by rape and incest has been treated quite effectively. Professor Stephen Krason points out that

“psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile.” [7]

The pro-life advocate believes that help should be given to the rape victim…

to make it as easy as possible for her to give up her baby for adoption, if she desires. Dealing with the woman pregnant from rape, then, can be an opportunity for us-both as individuals and society-to develop true understanding and charity. Is it not better to try to develop these virtues than to countenance an ethic of destruction as the solution?[8]

FOR FURTHER READING

To use our Handy Pregnancy Calculator, click here

REFERENCES

• Concerning this, Dr. Stephen Krason writes: “A number of studies have shown that pregnancy resulting from rape is very uncommon. One, looking at 2190 victims, reported pregnancy in only 0.6 percent.” (Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984], p. 283.) [up]
• See Andrew Varga, The Main Issues in Bioethics, revised edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), pp. 67-68. Varga himself, however, does not believe that abortion is morally justified in the cases of rape and incest. [up]
• On the fact that abortion on demand is legal in America, see Part One in a series on abortion by Francis J. Beckwith, Christian Research Journal (Fall 1990). [up]
• See the results of studies of 4,800 victims of rape in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area, as cited in John F. Hillabrand, “Dealing With a Rape Case,” Heartbeat 8 (March 1975), p. 250. [up]
• Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 238. [up]
• Michael Bauman, “Verbal Plunder: Combatting the Feminist Encroachment on the Language of Religion and Morality,” paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, Louisiana, Nov. 15-17, 1990, p. 16. [up]
• Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), p. 284. For an overview of the research, see Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, “Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,” in David Mall and Walter F. Watts, M.D., The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979), pp. 67-68. [up]
• Krason, p. 284. [up]