My first attempt to find a Biblical argument against abortion, whereby actual Scripture was used to support the pro-life argument, yielded poor results. Folks want to treat the controversy emotionally, statistically and scientifically, but not Biblically. For example, I listened to the argument of a Christian brother who survived an abortion attempt. He was certainly glad to be alive, but his argument wasn’t from Scripture. He argued from his joy to be alive. Nevertheless, had the abortion been successful, would this mean the life that God intended him to have was over, or would God have caused him, the man I listened to on You Tube, to be born of another woman? Thinking about this from a Scriptural, but also a logical, point of view, if God knew us before Adam’s rebellion (Ephesians 1:4), is it possible for anyone to prevent one of God’s children from being born, through abortion or otherwise? The Lord will have his way despite man’s rebellion (Isaiah 43:13; 46:10-11; 54:16-17; Ephesians 1:11).
Having said the above, I did more recently find one decent argument offered by a Christian leader, and he did present a Biblical foundation for his perspective. That Christian brother was Dr. Scott Rae, of Biola University. I really appreciated his manner and his desire to present his perspective of the person-hood of the child in the womb, using a Biblical foundation. His entire argument can be found at: What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?
Dr. Rae began his argument by asking two questions: “Does a woman have full autonomy over her body, even if another human is dependent on her body?” and “Is the fetus a person, and, therefore, entitled to basic human rights?”
Dr. Rae never addressed his first question, but he did address the second. So, I will address the first question, as much as I think possible. If a man intends to rob a bank, is God a party to that evil, simply because he has given the man his life and the power he enjoys to live out that life? Obviously, at least most people would agree, God is not a party to the man’s evil. Does man have the right to interfere in the bank robbery or later to bring the man to justice for his crime? Obviously, if the crime could be stopped, men have the right and the obligation to prevent the crime, and, if the crime is completed, men have the right and obligation to bring the man to justice and return whatever was stolen. What if, the man rapes a women, or if a close relative seduces a young woman and pregnancy follows? Does the woman have power over her body to end the pregnancy, or is God a party to the man’s evil and nothing can be done, because God is at work in the woman’s body creating a new child? If we are consistent in our argument, the woman has power over her body to stop an unwanted pregnancy, and God is not a party to the evil done by a rapist or a close relative who seduced the young women.
Dr. Rae began his argument by considering the birth of Jesus. Nevertheless, opinion ruled his argument, not facts. Dr. Rae considers the joy of Elizabeth and the joy of Zechariah after John’s birth a “huge celebration” of the coming of the Messiah in Mary’s womb, as though that fulfilled the prophecy. It didn’t. What is recorded in the Gospel narratives about the sayings and acts of Jesus is fulfillment of the prophecies. The announcement of the angels at the birth of Jesus was heaven’s declaration that the Messiah had come (cp. Luke 2:8-14). There was no such celebration at the time of Mary’s conception nor during her pregnancy.
Next, Job 3:3 and Jeremiah 1:5 were brought into the argument in an effort to show the terms baby and unborn child were used interchangeably, but Job is speaking poetically personifying both day and night. The night speaks, saying a male child is conceived. One could ask: “where does the poetic and symbolic leave off and the literal begin?” Job is simply saying he was sorry he was ever born. In Jeremiah the text speaks of God knowing Jeremiah **before** the babe was formed in the womb, but God knows all his children long before our birth or conception, from before Adam’s rebellion (cp. Ephesians 1:4). How, then, would Jeremiah 1:5 prove anything about the unborn child in the womb?
After this, Dr. Rae considered Psalm 139, saying “…through the various stages of his life there’s clear continuity of personal identity all the way through, and from conception forward he is considered a full person, someone with whom God is at work weaving and shaping and crafting, according to his intimate handiwork.” But, is God literally at work in the woman’s womb, or did he set certain laws in force that govern life, and it is those impersonal laws that are in play? For example, is God at work forming the rapist’s child and bringing it to birth? Is God truly at work bringing the adulterer’s child to full term, and, if so, why does he say the man and the woman who commit adultery should die childless, indicating the woman might be pregnant, when she and the adulterous male with her would be executed (Leviticus 20:20-21)?
Finally, Dr. Rae addresses Exodus 21:22 where a pregnant woman was hurt, while her husband and another man fought, and she miscarried. While he admits that, if this interpretation is accurate, the idea that the person-hood of the fetus is problematic, he then declares, without any evidence to support his case, that the NIV translates the Hebrew accurately. How does he know this? Is it because it supports his argument? The NIV shows that, if the babe dies, the judgment is “life for life” etc. Well, I guess the case is settled, then! Right? No problem here!
How often, do you suppose, without the benefit of modern medicine, would a child live, if it came forth prematurely from its mother’s womb, especially during ancient times? If an abortion, without the benefit of modern medical procedure, endangers the life of the woman even today, why would we expect a child would live through such a dangerous ordeal, whereby a pregnant woman brought forth her child prematurely, resulting from a violent act? For me the conclusion is obvious. Dr. Rae’s argument is contrived, and although I believe he is sincere and, no doubt, sought to present his argument fairly, I don’t believe he made his case.
Smoodock's Blog 