What does the Bible say about abortion? (With link)

[°Leprechaun]

I was not surprised by what I read in this link, that the Bible is not anti abortion.


https://electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/May19.html#item-6

[brucejoel99]

Fixed link to what I presume you meant to link to (& to what I presume the link in the OP did link to, but only on May 19th)

And yes, it's an unspoken fact that the beliefs of some Christians don't really have anything to do with what the Bible says.

[afleitch]

No where near as based as the Talmud on the issue.

[°Leprechaun]

Fixed link to what I presume you meant to link to (& to what I presume the link in the OP did link to, but only on May 19th)

And yes, it's an unspoken fact that the beliefs of some Christians don't really have anything to do with what the Bible says.

Yes thanks I posted from my cell phone so I didn't catch that.

I edited op so as not to confuse anyone.
The site doesn't include the current day's date in link unless I go to yesterday and then hit the forward arrow.

[DaleCooper]

It's only mentioned once, I believe, when it's sort of prescribed as the solution to an unfaithful wife's pregnancy in Numbers.

[brucejoel99]

It's only mentioned once, I believe, when it's sort of prescribed as the solution to an unfaithful wife's pregnancy in Numbers.

Exodus 21:22-25 concerns involuntary abortion & rather notably treats the fetus like property in such an instance, thereby similarly indicating that God doesn't regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far along it is. After all, Lev. 24:17 plainly exacted that "(i)f a man kills any human life he will be put to death," but according to Exodus 21:22-25, the destruction of the fetus isn't a capital offense, so, in contrast to a mother, the fetus must clearly not have been a biblically reckoned soul.

[DaleCooper]

It's only mentioned once, I believe, when it's sort of prescribed as the solution to an unfaithful wife's pregnancy in Numbers.

Exodus 21:22-25 concerns involuntary abortion & rather notably treats the fetus like property in such an instance, thereby similarly indicating that God doesn't regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far along it is. After all, Lev. 24:17 plainly exacted that "(i)f a man kills any human life he will be put to death," but according to Exodus 21:22-25, the destruction of the fetus isn't a capital offense, so, in contrast to a mother, the fetus must clearly not have been a biblically reckoned soul.

Very true.

[DC Al Fine]

I read the piece and the author does not seem interested in serious engagement with the Evangelical pro-life position. The principle of charity suggests that when critiquing our opponent's position, we ought to consider the best, strongest possible versions of their arguments. Instead of engaging with the best Evangelical arguments, the author straw man's some Evangelical arguments and omits others altogether:

The author sets up a false dichotomy between the "literalist", "fundamentalist" view of Scripture and the non-literal "Catholic" view. The literalist view described in no way resembles how I was taught to read Scripture, in Sunday School, not during Confirmation. This is unfortunately a common issue for critics of Evangelicalism.

The literal/non-literal framework arose from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the 1920's about whether the biblical account of creation, Jesus' miracles etc should be viewed as actual historical events or not. It is useful for comparing Evangelicals to a now near-extinct sort of liberal Protestant, and for a few specific passages like the first few chapters of Genesis. Once you get outside of those contexts the framework ceases to be useful, but many critics still force Christian views of scripture onto this framework, no matter how much of a stretch it is. Taking the entire history of how Catholics view the Bible, forcing it into a 20th century Protestant controversy, and declaring it "non-literal" is ludicrious. I wonder how our Catholic posters would react to the news that they read the passages about the Virgin Birth or Resurrection "non-literally"

In that vein, the author ignores some awkward history for his thesis. He criticizes the pro-life Protestant position as hypocritical because pro-life is only tenable with a Catholic view of Scripture. However, the great-granddaddies of Protestantism and the Sola Scriptura position; Luther and Calvin, are both well-documented as viewing abortion as murder. Why then, are the founders of Protestantism both holding a view he says is incompatible with the tradition they founded? I would suggest it is because the author has strawmanned their view of Scripture. It's a relevant issue as to why he thinks he understands Sola Scriptura better than Luther and Calvin, yet it's not addressed at all.

As for the arguments based on the text of Scripture, the author deals with two segments of Scripture; an analysis for the Hebrew word for breath and how it is used to mean life, and the passage in the Mosaic code about men hitting a woman and causing her to expel her child. What's wrong with this? Two things:

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

Given the strawmanning and lack of substantive engagement about the Evangelical position, it is hard to take the piece seriously as a critique of pro-life Protestants.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Conservatives don't look at specifics in the Bible all it says it must be fruitful and multiply my Dad told me this as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, but that was 2K yrs ago, every living thing has a soul even a fetus but you can't apply Biblical standards to today's standards and don't forget the first Christians were Jews and Catholics Protestant came after the Magna Carter where Martin Luther simplified Catholicism, just like the Magma Carter simplified the King, Protestant simplicity of the Pope

It also applies to LGBT when you get involved in that you aren't fruitful and multiply, but again that was 2 K yrs ago, what do Liberals interpret the Constitution it's a living doctrine the same as the Bible

I don't want to get involved with specific reasons why people turn gay but some have better relationship with sane sex than opposite sex

[Alcibiades]

I read the piece and the author does not seem interested in serious engagement with the Evangelical pro-life position. The principle of charity suggests that when critiquing our opponent's position, we ought to consider the best, strongest possible versions of their arguments. Instead of engaging with the best Evangelical arguments, the author straw man's some Evangelical arguments and omits others altogether:

The author sets up a false dichotomy between the "literalist", "fundamentalist" view of Scripture and the non-literal "Catholic" view. The literalist view described in no way resembles how I was taught to read Scripture, in Sunday School, not during Confirmation. This is unfortunately a common issue for critics of Evangelicalism.

The literal/non-literal framework arose from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the 1920's about whether the biblical account of creation, Jesus' miracles etc should be viewed as actual historical events or not. It is useful for comparing Evangelicals to a now near-extinct sort of liberal Protestant, and for a few specific passages like the first few chapters of Genesis. Once you get outside of those contexts the framework ceases to be useful, but many critics still force Christian views of scripture onto this framework, no matter how much of a stretch it is. Taking the entire history of how Catholics view the Bible, forcing it into a 20th century Protestant controversy, and declaring it "non-literal" is ludicrious. I wonder how our Catholic posters would react to the news that they read the passages about the Virgin Birth or Resurrection "non-literally"

In that vein, the author ignores some awkward history for his thesis. He criticizes the pro-life Protestant position as hypocritical because pro-life is only tenable with a Catholic view of Scripture. However, the great-granddaddies of Protestantism and the Sola Scriptura position; Luther and Calvin, are both well-documented as viewing abortion as murder. Why then, are the founders of Protestantism both holding a view he says is incompatible with the tradition they founded? I would suggest it is because the author has strawmanned their view of Scripture. It's a relevant issue as to why he thinks he understands Sola Scriptura better than Luther and Calvin, yet it's not addressed at all.

As for the arguments based on the text of Scripture, the author deals with two segments of Scripture; an analysis for the Hebrew word for breath and how it is used to mean life, and the passage in the Mosaic code about men hitting a woman and causing her to expel her child. What's wrong with this? Two things:

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

Given the strawmanning and lack of substantive engagement about the Evangelical position, it is hard to take the piece seriously as a critique of pro-life Protestants.

While this is a decent refutation of the suggestion that the Bible explicitly condones abortion, it certainly does not mean that the inverse — that the Bible provides a strong and explicit condemnation of abortion as morally akin to murder — is necessarily true. Bluntly, from the way that the American Religious Right treats banning abortion as its overriding policy priority, you’d think that ‘ABORTION IS MURDER’ is one of the central social messages of the Bible, frequently reiterated throughout Scripture … which evidently isn’t remotely the case at all.

[brucejoel99]

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

While this is a fair critique of the relevant section of the piece, it & the OPC point ignore a problem with the said Evangelical position: that requiring a penalty to be paid in the event that a baby is born prematurely but otherwise unharmed doesn't comport with Exodus 21:18-19, which proclaims that in the event of a fight in which one causes injury to another, the assailant is free of liability in the event that the injured person recovers, unless said person is injured severely enough to the extent that they're bedridden, in which case, the penalty makes up for any lost wages, a clearly utilitarian function.

[DC Al Fine]

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

While this is a fair critique of the relevant section of the piece, it & the OPC point ignore a problem with the said Evangelical position: that requiring a penalty to be paid in the event that a baby is born prematurely but otherwise unharmed doesn't comport with Exodus 21:18-19, which proclaims that in the event of a fight in which one causes injury to another, the assailant is free of liability in the event that the injured person recovers, unless said person is injured severely enough to the extent that they're bedridden, in which case, the penalty makes up for any lost wages, a clearly utilitarian function.

I don't think that really follows. A woman struck so hard that she goes into premature labour will be by definition, put out of commission for some time. My wife couldn't stand up for an extended period of time for several days after the births of our children and her labours didn't start with a physical assault!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I read the piece and the author does not seem interested in serious engagement with the Evangelical pro-life position. The principle of charity suggests that when critiquing our opponent's position, we ought to consider the best, strongest possible versions of their arguments. Instead of engaging with the best Evangelical arguments, the author straw man's some Evangelical arguments and omits others altogether:

The author sets up a false dichotomy between the "literalist", "fundamentalist" view of Scripture and the non-literal "Catholic" view. The literalist view described in no way resembles how I was taught to read Scripture, in Sunday School, not during Confirmation. This is unfortunately a common issue for critics of Evangelicalism.

The literal/non-literal framework arose from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the 1920's about whether the biblical account of creation, Jesus' miracles etc should be viewed as actual historical events or not. It is useful for comparing Evangelicals to a now near-extinct sort of liberal Protestant, and for a few specific passages like the first few chapters of Genesis. Once you get outside of those contexts the framework ceases to be useful, but many critics still force Christian views of scripture onto this framework, no matter how much of a stretch it is. Taking the entire history of how Catholics view the Bible, forcing it into a 20th century Protestant controversy, and declaring it "non-literal" is ludicrious. I wonder how our Catholic posters would react to the news that they read the passages about the Virgin Birth or Resurrection "non-literally"

In that vein, the author ignores some awkward history for his thesis. He criticizes the pro-life Protestant position as hypocritical because pro-life is only tenable with a Catholic view of Scripture. However, the great-granddaddies of Protestantism and the Sola Scriptura position; Luther and Calvin, are both well-documented as viewing abortion as murder. Why then, are the founders of Protestantism both holding a view he says is incompatible with the tradition they founded? I would suggest it is because the author has strawmanned their view of Scripture. It's a relevant issue as to why he thinks he understands Sola Scriptura better than Luther and Calvin, yet it's not addressed at all.

As for the arguments based on the text of Scripture, the author deals with two segments of Scripture; an analysis for the Hebrew word for breath and how it is used to mean life, and the passage in the Mosaic code about men hitting a woman and causing her to expel her child. What's wrong with this? Two things:

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

Given the strawmanning and lack of substantive engagement about the Evangelical position, it is hard to take the piece seriously as a critique of pro-life Protestants.

This was an excellent post, but I'd also add a few scriptures that definitively show the unborn as living.  First, the entirety of Psalm 139 (highlighted by verses 13 and 14) shows the value of human life, especially unborn life.  Then, in Jeremiah 1:5, we see God calling someone from the womb.

The example that I find most powerful, however, is Luke 1:41.  There, Elizabeth visits Mary while both are pregnant (with John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively).  John the Baptist (in the womb) recognizes the Messiah (also in the womb) and leaps for joy.

[°Leprechaun]

I think that the issue of abortion is a very complicated one. I am aware that some people will not agree with that opinion.

Human life and life are not the same thing.*

Life and existence are not the same thing.

*A life begins at conception (and are the egg and the sperm alive?) As I understand it the zygote has all the genetic material that is needed to become human, but is hard the comprehend that it is fully human. Plants and animals are life forms. Rocks exist but are not alive.

One thing that makes someone human is the ability to think, to reason and to ask the questions about what the definition of life is. This definition is insufficient because non human animals seem to be able to think and perhaps may have some ability to reason. Can a fetus think?

[brucejoel99]

Second, the author just flatly asserts that the Exodus 21 passage refers to a miscarriage and with only a minor penalty for causing it, with no argument whatsoever. But that is disputed by Evangelicals! For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church report on abortion (the go to text for the Reformed view), says that the passage uses the standard Hebrew word for childbirth, while other Biblical passages use another word for miscarriage. Similarly it disputes that the noun used for the child refers to a miscarried child based on word choices elsewhere on the Bible for a miscarriage. Ergo, the Exodus passage is better read as saying that causing a premature birth is a fineable offense and additional harm to mother or child should be punished eye for eye. This is extremely relevant to understanding and critiquing the Evangelical position! Yet the author just deals in flat assertions and doesn't engage the text at all.

While this is a fair critique of the relevant section of the piece, it & the OPC point ignore a problem with the said Evangelical position: that requiring a penalty to be paid in the event that a baby is born prematurely but otherwise unharmed doesn't comport with Exodus 21:18-19, which proclaims that in the event of a fight in which one causes injury to another, the assailant is free of liability in the event that the injured person recovers, unless said person is injured severely enough to the extent that they're bedridden, in which case, the penalty makes up for any lost wages, a clearly utilitarian function.

I don't think that really follows. A woman struck so hard that she goes into premature labour will be by definition, put out of commission for some time. My wife couldn't stand up for an extended period of time for several days after the births of our children and her labours didn't start with a physical assault!

See, I don't think that really follows from penalties being levied not as assessments of a human being's overall value but simply to make up for a loss in terms of actual family or economic value. Given the biblically applicable social structure, compensation would be required not as a result of the mother being put out-of-commission after the event of an induced-&-ultimately-unsuccessful premature birth, but because the parents would've already expended a significant amount of time, effort, & resources to get a child from conception to (hopefully) birth & beyond prior to an unforeseen involuntary forcibly-induced miscarriage, & that's a loss which should rightly be recompensed, just as one would be required to pay somebody they've injured & put out of work as a result, with the economics of the situation hitherto justifying monetary recompense (unless, of course, the mother's injury which induced a nevertheless ultimately successful premature birth still brings more non-lethal harm upon her, in which case, the penalty serves its clearly utilitarian function by compensating for the fact that the nonlethal injury to the mother had kept her from ably undertaking her maternal duties & responsibilities).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Well, people ignore parts of the bible to fit their needs all the time. For instance, people like ER support all the stone age social provisions but don't give a sh**t about the economic parts (like interpreting Proverbs 19:17 to be 'let's eliminate Medicaid and Food Stamps' for some reason).

[°Leprechaun]

This is going to be a big issue for years to come and there appears to be no common ground.

I know there are quite a few anti abortion atlasians who think that they have the right to stop women from getting abortions.

There are also quite a few pro choice on abortion atlasians here.

I was watching fox news during my lunch break and their responses to this were quite predictable.

[jojoju1998]

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

[jojoju1998]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

I think historically, it was more of an extension of ancient Roman tradition that Abortion was morally wrong.

Then the christians came along; and created a philosphical ( aristotle and plato ) argument against it.

[°Leprechaun]

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

tl dr

[Benjamin Frank]

From what I remember discussion of abortion in the Bible is pretty vague and ambiguous. What's more interesting is that there was a strong and almost universal moral prohibition against abortion early in the Christian tradition, from at least the Didache (so likely 1st century).

I think historically, it was more of an extension of ancient Roman tradition that Abortion was morally wrong.

Then the christians came along; and created a philosphical ( aristotle and plato ) argument against it.

It seems for part of the time in ancient Rome that there was government oppositon to abortion, but not public opposition.

Abortion was practiced on a regular basis among the poor, slave, merchant and royal classes. To ancient peoples and the Romans an abortion was amoral. There was nothing in Roman law or in the Roman heart that said, “It is wrong to kill your baby in the womb.” Tertullian, the early Christian apologist, describes how doctors of the time performed abortions:

“Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open. It is further furnished with an annular blade by means of which the limbs of the child within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by violent delivery.

https://earlychurchhistory.org/medicine/ancient-roman-abortions-christians/

According to that article, the government was concerned about the low birth rate.

[Benjamin Frank]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

It is presumably possible that God 'knows' everybody in the womb, but only especially knows of David and Jeremiah. This, in more formal language, is what the anti abortion non evangelicals argue (except for those few small other denominations also that believe in predestination) the problem is there is zero textual evidence to support that in the Bible.

[°Leprechaun]

Orthodox Christians think homosexuality is wrong.
The more gay people, the fewer abortions there will be.
So, if they were consistent they would be in favor of gay marriage.

I think calling yourself "pro life" (as to abortion) is disingenuous if you don't oppose the death penalty,  are not a pacifist, and are not anti-gun etc.

[RI]

First, the author says that personhood begins at first breath as support for a pro-choice position and deals with how the text is used in support for his position, but completely ignores passages pro-lifers would cite against that position, namely John the Baptist leaping in the womb, and David and Jeremiah referring to God knowing them in utero. These are relevant issues to address (particularly for a piece that has time to snark about originalism and the King James Version!), but they are ommitted entirely.

That is a fair argument for Evangelicals but not for most other Christians.

The problem is that most Christian denominations use these passages inconsistently. While Evangelicals believe in predestination, most other denominations do not. So, inconsistently most denominations argue these passages on God 'knowing David and Jeremiah' in utero is Biblical evidence that all humans are fully formed in the womb from conception, but when it comes to predestination, they turn around and argue 'we can only know for certain that God 'knew' David and Jeremiah, this is not evidence that God 'knew' any other human.'

This inconsistency is obviously especially damning of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church does teach predestination, just not double predestination.