Abortion

What Does The Bible Teach Concerning Abortion
By Rev. Paul M. Reiner

Probably the divisive issue in the United States, as well as around the world today, is the issue of abortion. Anyone who wants to begin an argument need only to bring up this issue and guaranteed, a raging battle will soon take place. Even within a group of people who may agree on most ethical issues, when this subject is approached, there is almost a certainty of differences of opinion. The purpose of this paper is not to put forth my "personal opinion" concerning this subject, but put forth the authoritative position of God, as He has revealed it in His Word. Some statistics on this subject give us an idea of the seriousness of the issue.

Since abortion's legalization by the Roe vs. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, twenty million babies have been aborted in the United States, alone.

In 1991, in Westmoreland County, PA, there were 9 pregnancies with girls ages 15 or younger. Of those 9 pregnancies, 3 resulted in live births, the other 6 resulted in induced abortions. Of girls 15-17 years old, there were 206 pregnancies. Of these, 128 resulted in live births, 1 was still-born, and 77 ended in induced abortions. With girls 18-19 years old, 326 children were conceived, 221 were born, 2 were still-born, and 103 induced abortions. In the 20 to 29 year age bracket, there were 2,917 conceptions. 2,452 were born alive, 25 were still-born, and 498 never saw the light of day because of an induced abortion. Finally, in the 30 and over category, 1,822 babies were conceived, resulting in 1,614 live births, 26 babies were still-born, and 192 suffered an induced abortion.

About 80% of those who abort their babies are unwed mothers.
Of all the abortions performed, only 1% are due to rape or incest.

In the U.S., there are 1,600,000 abortions performed a year. This translates into 4,383 per day, 183 abortion per hour, or 3 every minute. If you are an average reader, from the time you began reading this paper, approximately 8 babies were aborted.

Abortions have claimed over 20 times the number of lives that were sacrificed in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and the war in Vietnam put together.

PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENTS REFUTED

There are 5 basic arguments put forth by those who advocate the "right" to abort the unborn. Each of these arguments fails both logically and experientially. The first argument is an argument of qualification. It usually is worded like this, "If everyone who argues against abortion would adopt an unwanted baby, then and only then, might they have a right to object to abortion. Unless they are willing to adopt, they have no right to object." The "logic" of this argument, if extended into a different circumstance could be used to argue for the legalization of stealing, for unless those who object to a person who steals are willing to give their money to a thief, then they should not complain about them taking money from someone else. What you or I do in response to an "unwanted" child, can in no way determine the morality of the act of abortion. It is either moral or immoral on its own merits. But the argument also fails from a statistical standpoint. In the U.S. today, there are about 2,000,000 people looking to adopt a child. If everyone of the 1,600,00 aborted babies were given the opportunity to be adopted, there would yet be 400,000 people still looking to adopt a child.

The second argument of the pro-choice camp is that if abortions were not legalized, it would force mothers into "back-alley" abortions, and therefore would put at risk their lives with unsafe medical procedures. The question might be asked here if there are any safe medical procedures when it comes to abortions. Even those who advocate legal abortions are often times appalled at the conditions of some clinics that perform legal abortions. While there are no statistics to verify this, it is believed that more women have lost their lives to legalized abortions, than who did before abortions became legal. This argument also fails from a philosophical standpoint. In our country today, there are those who are determined to murder another living person, even though the law declares it to be illegal, and then commit suicide because of the consequences of their actions. If we use the reasoning of this abortion argument, then we should legalize murder so that when a murder takes place, the person who commits it will not need to suffer the consequences. This is absurd! And so is this argument.

The third argument of the pro-choice group is that children might come into the world with no quality of life. At this point it is necessary that we define "quality of life". For many, "quality of life" means having a Nintendo set, a car as soon as he or she turns 16, and a college fund so that the child will not have to work to put themself through higher education. And since those to whom this argument pertains are more than likely on welfare and barely scraping to get by, it is therefore not humane to inflict that punishment upon the children they would be forced to bring into the world. Now I don't mean to brag, but I struck out on all three of these and yet I have no complaints. Whether you agree or not with this definition, how can anyone say that by filling the womb with a saline solution that literally burns the baby to death, causing it to writhe in agony, is more humane than denying it a Nintendo? Is no quality of life better than only a "little" quality of life? But another factor must be added to this argument. Since we are dealing with quality of life, the question must be asked and answered, when does life begin. Later, in this paper, I will prove from a theological, medical, and philosophical standpoint that life begins at conception. If we can determine this to be true, then the moment that child is conceived, if it possesses life, then there must be some quality to its life. Abortions never improve the quality of the life of the child, only throw it away.

The fourth argument deals with the issue of the relationship of the government and the determination of morality. The morality of abortion is a private matter according to the pro-choice group and therefore the government should not interfere with those who determine it to be moral to kill the unborn. Usually with this argument is heard the terms, "constitutional rights", and "separation of church and state". Taken to its logical conclusion, government should be powerless to legislate any laws into existence, for every law has behind it an idea of morality or immorality of the action legislated. For example, our government has determined that it is unlawful for me to enter your house and freely help myself to your belongings. We call this stealing and we have declared it to be illegal. The legality of it is based on the morality of it and God, long before we declared it to be illegal, declared it immoral. It is absolutely impossible for any of our laws to be divorced form a moral position.

The fifth, and probably the most important of the arguments, is that a woman has the right to do whatever she wishes to her own body. This argument fails on two points. First, it is not her own body that is being done whatever to. Physiologically, at the moment of conception a unique individual is created. The baby is not a part of mom. It is the child who generates the amniotic sac which will encase it for nine months, it is the child who sends out the umbilical cord to attach to mom, not the other way around. It is the child who determines when they will be born. It is not mom's body that is being affected, but someone else's. But some may yet argue that as long as what is done does only directly affect the body of the mother, and what happens to the child is an indirect result, then there should be nothing to prevent the mom from legally doing whatever she pleases. Once again, the argumentation fails. Suppose I decide, possessing the right to do whatever I want to my own body, to go to the local bar and become drunk. I have the legal right to do so (not before God, but in this land). Now having used my legal rights, I decide to get into my car and drive myself home. Of course you know the dangers, I may wreck and injure or even kill myself as a indirect consequence of my drinking. But very possibly, I may do the same to someone else, and because of that our government has declared that the legal right to do whatever I wish to my own body ends when it brings into jeopardy your legal right to live. Yes, a mom should have the right to do whatever she desires to her own body, but the consistent practice of our legal code is that right should end when it endangers the life of the unborn.

These are the five most important arguments of the pro-choice group, and as we have seen, these arguments fail both philosophically and experientially.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MORALITY OF ABORTION

There are three arguments that I believe demand that abortion be declared immoral and unconstitutional. The first of these is the argument of responsible logic. This is a philosophical argument. The following is a statement by Supreme Court Justice Blackman who sat on the bench that determined the Roe vs. Wade decision. Justice Blackman states, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." It is little known, but nonetheless true, if someone in 1973 could have conclusively proven to the Supreme Court that life begins at conception, the Court would have decided in the opposite direction. However, since no one was able to do so (at least to the Court's content), the court was unwilling to protect the life of the unborn. The question we should ask is, "Is this a responsible decision?". May I say that this is one of the most irresponsible decisions the Court has ever made. Allow me to illustrate it this way. Suppose you and I were to decide to go hunting for deer today. After some time of walking together in the woods and being unsuccessful, we decide to separate and hopefully we will come upon a deer. Now we are walking about fifty yards apart. At fifty yards in the woods, vision is not always the clearest but we are doing reasonably well. Now however, we come to a section of the woods where the brush is thick and we have lost visual contact with each other. As I look in your direction, I notice something moving in the bushes. I reason within myself that it must be a deer because it didn't seem reasonable that you would be making those types of movements. My only problem is that I do not see you, but I think I see antlers. Now I have a decision to make. On one hand I know I need to be careful, but on the other, I don't want that deer to get away. Since there is no consensus of opinion, I pick up my rifle and shoot. Is this responsible logic? Let me ask the question another way. Would you like to go hunting with me? Obviously, when life is involved, it is more responsible to take the cautious route. The most reasonable response of our judicial branch of government in 1973 would have been to say that if there was no consensus of opinion, then we should take all precaution not to destroy something that just might be a living person.

The second argument is the argument from physiology. While we will yet look at the theological argument against abortion, we need to note what the Bible says concerning our physiology. Psalm 139 is a favorite psalm of many for in it, David deals with his humanity in a way we can all relate to. Beginning with verse 13, we read,

"For thou hast possessed my reigns, thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them."
As we define some of the words that appear in these verses, we find that the text speaks of the intimacy of God's knowledge of and relationship to the child in the womb. The first word that captures our attention is the word that is translated "substance", in, my substance was not hid from thee... This Hebrew word literally means "bones", and speaks of the unborn's physical makeup. The second word that is translated as "substance" is a different Hebrew word. This is the word golem which means an embryo or fetus. It is derived from the word galam which means to fold up. In other words, David is saying that God knew him when he was all folded up in his mother's womb, at a time before his bones and the rest of his physical makeup had not yet matured to a point that it would survive outside the womb. Not only was God able to see his physical makeup, but also his psychological makeup as well (all my members) and the totality of his person was recorded by God. In the evaluation of God, there was a quality of life existent in the womb. With this as a background, let us look at what happens physiologically at the moment of conception and in the nine months before birth.

At the very moment of conception, the entire DNA structure is present that will determine everything about the physical and psychological makeup of the child. There is 50 times more information contained in the DNA than in all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica combined. No wonder David said I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

At three weeks the heart is beating, the eyes are beginning to form, the spinal cord, the nervous system, the lungs, the stomach and the digestive organs are all present. At three weeks, mom is just beginning to wonder if she might be pregnant. Before an abortion is even being contemplated, all these physical organs are already functioning in the womb.

By the end of the second month, hearing is developed and the head has already reached half of its size. Facial features are now clearly distinguishable. The baby is now able to swim and move about in the womb. Cartilage is now changing into bone and the jaw has now taken its form, complete with milk teeth buds in the gums. The forty muscle groups that our bodies have are beginning to be exercised in the baby although the mother will yet be unable to feel it. At this point in its development, the baby is able to feel pain and react to it. Everything physically necessary for life is now formed only awaiting time for its maturing in size and refinement in its working. From the end of two months until birth, nothing will change in the child apart from maturity.

During the third month, the arms and legs grow longer and fingerprints form, providing the baby with a separate legal identity. In the eyes of the law, at least criminally speaking, there is an identifiable person within the womb of the mother. The baby now eats, sleeps, and breathes amniotic fluids, is able to excrete that which is ingested, will drink more fluids if they are sweetened and less if they are bitter or sour. Vocal chords are complete and if the baby was in another environment the baby could cry. It is at this point where most abortions are performed.

By the end of the second trimester the baby is able to hear and to recognize its mother's voice. It is at this point in development that it is possible for some babies to survive outside the womb. In fact, as medical technology continues to expand, we are finding that the unborn are able to survive at earlier and earlier stages.

An interesting dilemma is crested by these facts for the pro-choice group. Once the baby is born, the is nothing that anyone can do except criminally, to take the life of the child. But the question that must be asked is, when did something transpire that caused that unborn child, who legally was not a person and could be aborted, to become a person in the eyes of the law, and be protected by it. What transpires in the birthing process that gives this child life? The answer to the question is nothing. And as we keep moving towards the day of conception, we find that nothing significantly transpired apart from what was already set in motion and only needed time for maturity from the moment of conception. Physiologically speaking, we are forced to conclude that life begins at conception.

THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR LIFE

While the philosophical and medical arguments are good arguments, we turn now to the most important argument concerning the issue, that being, what does God say about it. I would like to suggest to you that there are at least specific arguments, given in Scripture, that support the idea of life existing in the womb. The first of these three are simply statements to the fact. A number of passages can be cited, but we will look briefly at four, of which we first look at Psalm 22:9-10. It reads,

"Thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly."
This is a psalm written by David, and in context, he is speaking of a time when wicked men are persecuting him and he is looking for the deliverance of God. The first thing that we can note is the use of personal pronouns. When David looks back to the time before his birth, he does not see an impersonal thing, but a real, living being, for he uses the words "me" and "my". But the real key is that there existed a relationship of trust between David and God before David was even born. The relationship may have been a one-sided relationship on God's part, but nonetheless there was a genuine relationship between two persons. How could a person, who was not living trust God?

The second passage is found in Psalm 139:13-16. It reads,

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lower parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
Once again we notice the use of personal pronouns which indicate a living being was in the womb of David's mother. The detail that this Psalm adds though is that these personal pronouns take us to an earlier stage of development than the last Psalm did. Here David says that God had intimate knowledge of David at the early stages of development in the womb, before the bones and organs had developed. This takes us back to the first six weeks after conception, and again, at this time many mothers are just realizing that they are pregnant, long before an abortion is ever enacted. The declaration of Scripture is though, that life, not a mass, already is existing in the womb.

The third passage is found in the book of Job. In the third chapter we find Job lamenting the day he was born because of the tribulation he was enduring. He makes a significant statement in verse 11 concerning life in the womb. Job says,

"Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?"
Of most concern to this argument is the last question for here Job reveals that in the womb, he possessed a spirit or an immaterial part of his being. While it is true that the phrase, "giving up the ghost" is a euphemism to describe death, it is nonetheless a true euphemism. In creation, when God made Adam, He first of all created his material body. But is was not until God breathed into Adam the breath of life that Adam became a living soul. Theologically, we speak of death as the departure of the soul/spirit (the immaterial part of man) from the body (the material part of man). For example, in 2 Corinthians 5:8, Paul writes that we are "willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord". The thing that is absent is the soul/spirit of man, it goes to be with the Lord while the body returns to the ground. In other words, in order for a person to be living, he or she must possess a soul/spirit. Notice, according to this Psalm, when Job possessed this soul/spirit- it was in the womb for he asks why he did not give it up when he came out of the womb. In order for him to to that, he first had to possess it in the womb. Job conclusively proves that life exists in the womb.

One last declarative statement needs to be examined. It is found in Luke 1:41-45. There we read of Mary's visit to her cousin Elizabeth while both were with child in the womb. From this one passage there are two evidences of life in the womb. First we see the reaction of John in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary approached with Jesus in her womb. Verse 41 states,

"And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost."
Some have suggested that it was only a coincidence that John moved when Mary came. After all, Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy, and it would be a natural thing for the baby to kick at this point. However, that argument does not stand. We find in verse 44 the reason for the "leaping" of John at this time. Elizabeth states,

" For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
The last two words of this verse are quite instructive. John leaped, not involuntarily, but for joy. In order for that to take place, three things were necessary. First John had to have had the intellectual capacity to recognize the presence of Jesus. Secondly, John had to have had the emotional capacity to express joy. Thirdly, John had to have had the volitional capacity to determine to leap. These three elements, intellect, emotion, and will, constitute personality which John possessed at 6 months into Elizabeth's pregnancy. Three months prior to his birth, John was not a thing, but a person.

The second evidence is found in Elizabeth's eulogy of Mary and Jesus found in verse 42. Elizabeth, under the control of the Holy Spirit, pronounced both Mary and Jesus to be blessed. A study of the usage of this word through the New Testament shows that it is only used of individuals or groups of people (such as the church), never is it used of an impersonal object. In order for Jesus to be called blessed at this time, He had to be a person in the womb of Mary. What really makes this important, is the age of Jesus at this time. Having been spoken to by the angel Gabriel, Mary immediately proceeds to Elizabeth's house. When Mary was visited by Gabriel, she was in the town of Nazareth. Elizabeth lived in the hill country of Judea. According to verse 39, Mary traveled with haste. The trip should not have taken more than a couple of days, at the most. In other words, when Mary greeted Elizabeth, the baby she was carrying was only a few days old, and yet we see that Scripture conclusively states that a person was present in the womb of Mary. I think we may safely conclude that life begins at conception!

The second theological argument deals with the imputation of sin. For this argument, we turn to David's statement found in Psalm 51:5. In this great Psalm of repentance, David confesses,

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Again we might note the use of personal pronouns concerning David as we did in the other passages, but our main concern is what did David mean when he states that his mother conceived him in sin. First, we must note that the act of sexual intercourse is not sinful within the bounds of marriage (Hebrews 13:4) so David is not saying that his conception was sinful. What David is dealing with is the transference of a sin nature. Turning to the New Testament, we read in Romans 5:12,

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
Why is it that all men die? Because all men sin. Why is it that all men sin? It is because all men possess a sin nature. Adam and Eve were created perfect, in the image and likeness of God. It is interesting to note that after sin had entered the world, that children were born to Adam who were made in his image (the image of a sinful man) and not the image of God. Parents with a sin nature beget children with a sin nature for all things reproduce, "after their own kind". In the same manner that the "blessed" are those who are people and not things, so too those who possess sin natures are also people and not things. Now David states in this Psalm that this sin nature was present at conception, therefore David is saying that at the very moment of conception a person existed, not a thing.

The third and final theological argument is the argument concerning the penalty for a malicious miscarriage. Turning to the book of Exodus, we read of the Mosaic regulations concerning the life of the unborn. In Exodus 21:22-23 we find these regulations,

"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, then thou shalt give life for life..."
The New American Standard Version of the Bible makes an unfortunate translation which has caused some to mistakenly conclude that the Bible does not consider the life of the unborn as valuable. The NASV translates this same verse in this manner,

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there be any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life ..."
This Bible translation seems to indicate that if in the course of an altercation, a woman is struck so that the baby she is carrying dies, but without any injury to the mother, there shall only be a fine imposed upon the man, however, if the mother of the child should be injured, than an equivalent penalty would be charged to the man up to, and including the death penalty. If this be a correct translation, then the life of the unborn is of lesser value than the life of the mother, or even of no value at all. At issue is the meaning of the Hebrew word which is translated as "miscarriage" in the NASV and "depart" in the King James.

To settle the argument, we call in a third party, the New International Version of the Bible. While I personally like the NIV the least of the three translations, it nonetheless does the best job of translating this Hebrew word. The NIV rendering of these verses reads,

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there be no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life..."
The NIV translation of the Hebrew word in question is, "gives birth prematurely" which is the way the Hebrew word is consistently used throughout the Old Testament. The teaching of this regulation then, concerns injury done to the child, not the mother. Life must be given in exchange for life that is brought into this world prematurely because of the maliciousness of men, and dies. Do you realize, that if we were living under the Mosaic law of the Old Testament, every doctor who performs abortions would be liable to the death penalty. But in order for life to be given in exchange for another life, the child in the womb, of necessity, had to possess life or else the requirement of "life for life" would be meaningless. Exodus 21:22-23 conclusively argues that life is present in the womb.

We have seen that the Bible definitely states beyond any shadow of a doubt, that life begins at conception. The medical evidence is overwhelming and the philosophical arguments, convincing. As Christians, we have the responsibility to do all that is within our power (which means all that is within the law) to stop this modern-day holocaust of the unborn.