"The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion!"
On Abortion
Some will try to claim that the Bible is silent on abortion and therefore it is permissible for Christians to take any stance on the matter. Let it first be said that the Bible specifically prohibits murder (Ex20, De5) – especially the murder of innocent and vulnerable parties (Ex23, Pr6). We have already established that there is good reason to think of the embryo as a body apart from the mother and as a being worthy of personhood (see "It's my body!" and The Personhood Debate).
This concept of personhood can be tied into the concept of man being in God’s image (imago dei; Gn1:27) – and by virtue of being made in His image, you cannot kill him for no good reason (Gn9:6). Surely then, killing a fetus is a violation of the command against murder. Scripture also speaks of God knowing us before He formed us in the womb (Je1:5, Ps22:10) and of His active role in our formation in the womb (Ps139, Jb31:15). A child is spoken of as sinful, a characteristic of the human condition, even at the moment of conception (Ps51). Indeed, the incarnation took place at Jesus’ conception (e.g., Lk1:26-45) – it is at that moment that He became "the word made flesh."
Exodus 21:22-25 explains that permanent injury to the fetus or mother evokes the principle of “eye for an eye.” If you kill the fetus, that is a capital crime. However, there is debate regarding how this verse should be translated. In many translations, the verse 22 refers to miscarriage:
When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, (NABRE, v22-23)
This verse seems to imply that the unborn child is of lesser value than the woman. If the child dies, the offender is simply fined. But if the mother dies, the penalty is “life for life.” Rabbinic tradition sides with such an interpretation. This is not to say that the preborn child has no worth (there is still a fine), but that it is not of the same moral consideration. The key issue here is the translation “miscarriage,” which implies death. But does the Hebrew carry the same meaning?
The phrase translated “she suffers a miscarriage” is יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְיָצְא֣וּ. The first term, “yatsa,” is a verb meaning “to go or come out, depart, come forth.” The second term, “yeled,” is a noun meaning “child, young, fruit, son” – the fetus is named. By all accounts, this is better translated as “the child comes forth.” In fact, in Hebrew, there is a different word referring to miscarriage that is not used here (i.e., sakol). If anything, yatsa refers to birth or deliverance – it is frequently used to refer to live birth and is the same word used of Esau and Jacob’s birth (Gn25). Yatsa never refers to miscarriage, so why should this verse be an exception?
In the verse, it isn’t specified whether the mother or child is the one sustaining injury. The application is general, and so it is better for us to say that it refers to both. If there is no permanent injury to the woman or child, the offender must be fined whatever the husband demands. If there is permanent injury to either the woman or child (including death), eye or an eye applies.
Gleason Archer concludes: There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages... (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1985).
Abortion-supporters have also referred to Numbers 5:13-29 to support their case. This passage describes the law of jealousy. If a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, he can bring her to the temple. The priest will create a mixture of water and dust and she will drink it. The text reads, "if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her belly will swell up and her thigh will shrivel, and the woman will become a curse among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be immune and conceive children" (NASB).
Again, the confusion lies in mistranslation. The NIV states that "her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry," which is a very poor translation. Most translations do not make this error - it is unfortunate that such a popular translation does.
Some will instead quote Genesis 2:7 to defend their pro-abortion argument. The verse reads: Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person. (NASB)
The argument is that life begins at first breath, and because a fetus does not yet breathe air while in the womb, it is not life. Ignoring the glaring extrabiblical problems with this take, it is a blatant instance of Scripture being used out of context. The verse is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive statement. Adam came to life at first breath. Adam was never technically conceived - he was formed of dust and God's breath of life. Tim Barnett writes that, "The Bible doesn’t teach that every man comes to life at first breath any more than it teaches that every woman comes from the rib of a man."
The pro-abortion Christian might take a different route, saying, “God values choice! You can’t truly love or do good without freedom!” Free will is a good, but only so far as it enables the moral value of goodness. Take one look at the pattern of Scripture and you’ll see that its outcomes are not always good. By itself, freedom is simply a means to an end. While it is necessary for moral value, it is a morally neutral tool - it can be used for good or bad. Freedom only "attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God" (CCC 1744). God does not prioritise human freedom over righteousness, but rather allows freedom so that righteousness might have some weight. The Bible continuously calls us to righteousness and good living, not to the unruly exercise of ones own freedom for its own sake. Life is a gift, a good, a state of being; while freedom is a responsibility, a test, a tool. Life is something you have; freedom is something you use. Unlike freedom, life is not morally neutral, but is a good.
For your sake, and the sake of others, your freedom is limited in many ways - you physically cannot fly, and you morally cannot commit triple homicide. Being good, God will tolerate much evil born from our will – but, being good, God sets and supports limits. If we were left purely to our own devices, our lives today would be unrecognisable, and the Old Testament would be a lot grimmer. God drew a line - He hindered our will - for the good, and He often used people to do it. It's not compassionate to pass the Samaritan by, thinking, "Ah, well, somebody willed that he be robbed and left for dead. I shouldn't get in the way of that." [You might notice that this paragraph resembles "It's my choice!"] Abortion is the surface manifestation of a deeper problem to do with the human condition, the will, and sexuality.
According to biblical theology, human persons are embodied from the moment of conception. The official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion. Their Catechism states, “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception” (2270), holding that “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (2271). Pope Francis states, "The right to life is the first human right. Abortion means killing someone who cannot defend himself." He also goes down as having said that "abortion is like hiring a hitman to solve the problem." Similarly, the Christian Orthodox Church is resolutely opposed to all attempts to permit induced abortion and has been since its earliest history. Among Protestant churches, opinions vary – however most find themselves against abortion. Christian tradition is largely on the anti-abortion side.
• Only God has the right to take life? Deut 32:39; John 5:21-23