What the Bible Says

2005-12-17 21:00:00

The first thing of note is even though the Bible is used extensively to preach against abortion, it says virtually nothing specific in support of anti abortion views. It does, however, seem to give some evidence as to when life begins in the creation of Adam.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

He became a "living soul" when the breath of life entered into him. Of course, the breath of life enters into a baby when he is born and takes a breath, not before.

The vision of Ezekiel follows this logic. The prophet saw a vision of the dead bones of Israel coming back to life. Note in the story when the point was reached that the creation was considered alive.

¹ The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
² And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.
³ And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.
⁴ Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
⁵ Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
⁶ And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
⁷ So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone.
⁸ And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.
⁹ Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.
¹⁰ So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Ezekiel 37:1-10

¹⁴ And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. Ezekiel 37:1-14

Take note of verse 8:

"And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them."

This is comparable to the developed fetus in the womb. It has form, "sinews" "flesh," and "skin," "but there was no breath.

Next the scripture reads:

"breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army."

Evidently the creation was not considered fully alive until "breath came into them."

The second criteria for life is noted in verse 14:

"And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live."

This scripture notes that two things are essential for a person to be considered fully alive:

That he have the breath of life in him - or that he be a breathing person.
That he has a spirit in him.

Now there is no scientific way to determine when the spirit enters the body but it is scientifically established when the body breathes and that is at birth.

Here is a scripture used by both sides. Let us examine it to see which is most likely to be correct.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow (a mortal wound), then thou shalt give life for life. Exodus 21:22-23

The word "mischief" here comes from the Hebrew ACOWN and implies an injury that ends in death.

The pro-life group believes the mortal wound applies to the child in the womb, but the pro-choice side sees this as applying to the mother.

Let's go through the verse line by line and see which is correct.

"If men strive (are in a fight), and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her (a miscarriage), and yet no mischief (mortal wound) follow:

Does it sound like the injury spoken of here applies to the fetus or the woman?

The overwhelming evidence is that it applies to the mother for these reasons:

In those days almost all miscarriages due to injury of the mother resulted in death. One would therefore logically assume the baby died and the injury, or lack of injury, spoken of applies to the mother.
If the injury spoken of applied to the fetus then the mother's injury also needed to be addressed. Because it wasn't, this implies the fetus died in the miscarriage and the mother's injury is the point being presented.
The scripture ends with: "And if any mischief follow (a mortal wound), then thou shalt give life for life."

Pro-lifers say that the mortal wound applies to the baby and not the mother. Because the life of the attacker is demanded this tells them that the life of the unborn has the same value as a living person.

Unfortunately, this logic does not work. Throughout the writings of Moses payment for a crime was demanded in kind as closely as possible. The death of a fetus would therefore demand the death of another fetus, but the demand for the death of the attacker if the mother dies fits much more closely with the Mosaic law.

Taking this into consideration what is being said here?

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

If a person through a fight or brawl cause injury to a woman so her child is aborted he will be punished as determined by the husband and the judges. This would most likely have been a fine in those days.

"And if any mischief follow (a mortal wound), then thou shalt give life for life."

If the mother also dies then the one who attacked her will be put to death.

What does this tell us of the ancient Hebrew view on the value of an unborn child?

It tells us that its death was not considered in the same league as murder, but neither was it harmless. It was considered a crime and punished, probably with a fine.

We must also consider that in this example the mother wanted the baby and the abortion of the fetus was not desired by her. We are not given a clear example of how the Hebrews dealt with a mother who aborted her own child. It is probably that no example is given because they had the liberal attitude that it was the mother's business what she did and no laws governed such a thing.

Numbers 5:11-31 gives an interesting account of the Hebrew leaders actually forcing an abortion on a woman suspected of getting pregnant though adultery.

In this situation the husband thinks the baby belongs to another man, but the wife insists she has been faithful. Since the leaders do not know if she is telling the truth about the ownership of the baby they force her to drink "bitter" or polluted water.

The leaders reasoned that if she had not sinned, all would be well and "she shall conceive seed." If she is guilty she shall become ill and the baby will be aborted.

Here we have an example of the Israelites actually forcing an unfaithful woman to abort her baby through bringing injury to herself. Obviously they did not offer the fetus the same right to life as a breathing person.

So what's my point in bringing this up? The point of this book is to reveal fallacies in thinking and it is indeed a fallacy to claim a divine right to be against abortion because of what is written in the Bible. Its verses can be used for or against abortion, but from my looking into it, there seems to be more Biblical evidence supporting the pro-choicers rather than the pro-life group.

Does this mean that I think the pro-choice side is correct, that abortion is no big deal and no harm is done?

I don't think so. The pro-choicers also have their fallacies, which we shall examine next.

When a thought is too weak to be expressed simply, simply drop it. Marquis de Vauvenargues