Bad Interpretations: Abortion
A foundation of sand...
(If you missed it, you can find my latest political discourse here: (Dis)Information.(?))
Few ideas within the Church have lead to as much unnecessary controversy and suffering as that surrounding the subject of abortion. Before we dig into it, I want to ask a question of those who think abortion is a problem; are draconian abortion bans that cause women to bleed out in waiting rooms really a good solution? Clearly, there are better ways we could handle the issue. For example, caring for the poor—you know, like Jesus talked about—since the main reason for abortions that are not medically necessary is the inability to provide a safe and financially secure environment for the child. Yet, the very ones instituting abortion bans are cutting benefits for women and children…
Regardless of the social and political issues, we’re here to see what Scripture has to say about the subject. Numbers 5 seems to be the most explicit, but turns out to be rather inconclusive either way. The action of putting the woman under a curse from the “bitter water” if she lied about adultery was not actually an abortion performed by the priest. The word “bitter” refers to an emotional quality; there is no evidence that any toxin was added to the water. Nor would it make sense if there were, since it was up to God to discern the truth and carry out the just decision. The water was drunk in either case. Just as in the case of King David’s adultery, it was God who is the giver and taker of life. The priest here was just carrying out a ritual, little different than cleansing rituals.
As a side note, this was not simply to subjugate women to a husband’s jealousy, but to protect them from it. Otherwise, a jealous husband might force his wife to do something dangerous if he suspected a child conceived from adultery. This relates to the next section, which is the punishment for beating a pregnant woman to miscarry in Exodus 21. Here, the punishment is only a fine for causing a miscarriage, but death for causing death of the woman. This clearly shows that the Law of Moses did not recognize the unborn as having the full status of a person. Some have argued that the premature delivery may not result in death of the child, but that’s mere bias in search of an interpretation. There is no distinction between the two scenarios within the passage. It details only a fine in either case.
Truly, there is nowhere in the Bible that explicitly refers to an early stage fetus as a person. Verse such as Psalm 139:13, “you formed me in my mother’s womb,” is often quoted in an attempt to do so, but this is speculative at best. A baker makes bread in the oven; would they take out an uncooked lump of dough after five minutes and call it bread? I would also note that these are the words of the psalmist—one writing poetry and not at all a Prophet speaking the word of God directly.
Likewise, Jeremiah 1:5 is a comment on God’s omniscience, not fetal personhood. It refers to a particular person in a particular instance (choosing a Prophet). It should not in any way be taken as a general statement referring to all pregnancies. In fact, even if it were, that would be evidence that those not born were destined that way by God. Again, this is nonsense personal bias in search of an interpretation. The justification for it simply isn’t there. Other verse are stretched so thin as to be transparent, such as Paul being chosen since he was born. This is obviously a personal life statement and doesn’t even include pregnancy.
Taking such verse and deriving speculation from them is not a reasonable stance for an issue of law. Before the scientific point of viability at around 20 weeks, a fetus may not even have a head or a heart. Can such be called a person? An individual may consider life to begin at conception, with a clump of highly unstable cells, but that idea has no basis in either scientific fact or in Scriptural truth. It would therefore be a travesty to force such a personal philosophy onto society as a whole, when it is in fact causing widespread suffering and personal rights violations. Though I will yet again remind readers that Paul was of the opinion that Christians shouldn’t be doing that in any case (1 Cor 5:12). Since this is not a “Christian nation” under religious law, such an act would violate those whose beliefs directly conflict. Such as the Jewish tenets around abortion.
As I said in the beginning, there are much better ways—Christian ways—of handling this issue than a draconian abortion ban. Ways that offer help, not force. Forcing others through law requires foundational principles, but the anti-abortion stance truly has nothing more than personal bias. We can seek reasonable regulation around abortion, but the truth is that we already had it. The vast majority of abortions were before 20 weeks and after that only medically necessary. There is really no reason other than self-righteous judgment and condemnation for Christians to be pushing this issue via law. If you think that is even remotely acceptable, then you need to go back and read the words of Jesus again. I would begin with Matthew 7;
“Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”