"Going"

ABORTION AND THE SCRIPTURES

No matter what evil practice comes along, sooner or later someone will try to justify it with the Bible. In a way, that may seem like a compliment—that the Scriptures are so important that everyone seeks to get them on their side. But in reality, these people are foes of God's Holy Book, and they seek to pervert the truth.

Those familiar with the Bible know Psalm 139:13-16, where it talks about being fearfully and wonderfully made, referring to the child in the mother's womb. We also know that the same word used for a baby in the womb is the same word used for one outside the womb (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). Therefore, for anyone to claim that the Bible supports abortion is ludicrous to us.

But such theories may not seem so farfetched to those who do not know the Bible; so, let's examine what arguments those who are enemies of God and innocent human life have. The first one is based on Exodus 21:22-25. The translation one uses is important. Let's begin with the New King James.

"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex. 21:22-25).

A legitimate question would be, "Who is the lasting harm coming upon or not coming upon—the woman or the child?" Before answering that, how does another translation render Exodus 21:22? The Revised Standard Version's translation is given below.

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Most translations agree with the New King James—that the injured woman gives birth prematurely, but the Revised Standard Version claims that she had a miscarriage. Remember that this is the same translation that did not use the word virgin in connection with the prophecy of Mary giving birth to Jesus (Isa. 7:14) and also originally lopped off the ending of Mark (16:9-20). The ability to translate a verse correctly is not the strong suit of these "scholars."

If abortion proponents can get the woman to have a miscarriage instead of giving birth, and the husband only imposes a fine for the loss of the child, then the absence of a death penalty on behalf of the child would "prove" there was no loss of human life. The man only suffered a potential economic loss, for which he is compensated. Losing an actual human life would require the death penalty. Since none exists, then the fetus is not a human being. So goes their "logic."

The problem is that the RSV translated the text incorrectly. According to John Piper, a Baptist scholar and author of more than 50 books, the word in question in Exodus 21:22 is correctly translated "go forth (cf. Gen. 25:25). It is never used of miscarriage or abortion. In fact, a different Hebrew word is used for "miscarry" just verses away—Exodus 23:26, where God promised Israel that if they would remain faithful to them, no woman would ever suffer miscarriage or be barren in their land. [See the article, "The Misuse of Exodus 21:22–25 by Pro-Choice Advocates," which has been available since February 8, 1989.] Piper also cites from the well-known works of Keil and Delitzsch:

If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by (by an appeal to) arbitrators. … "But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . . wound for wound" (1:2:134-35).

What are the legitimate results of this inquiry into the text?

"Miscarriage" is an incorrect translation. The text teaches that the injury caused her to give birth prematurely.

If the mother or the child did not suffer further, a fine would be sufficient.

If either did suffer bodily harm, it was to be paid back precisely as the injury received.

The damage caused was an accident—not intentional, as abortion is.

Exodus 21:22-25 does not help the case for abortion. The pro-abortion advocates need to find a better argument because this one has too many problems. A bad translation will not help them out because there are too many good ones available. In addition, Hebrew scholars know how to translate the words correctly. Who knows why the RSV and the NRSV chose to use inappropriately the concept of a miscarriage? They were wrong in making that selection. Neither of those versions is recommended for that and other reasons.

The Second Argument

The second of the two arguments is noted by Michael Brown in his Townhall column of June 11, 2019. He says that abortion enthusiasts also like to cite the passage in Numbers 5:11-31, commonly referred to as "the jealousy test." If a husband suspects that his wife has been unfaithful to him, God devised a test to find out the truth. However, the husband had to follow certain guidelines.

When the husband brought his wife to the priest, he had to bring a grain offering.

The priest would take holy water in an earthen vessel and add to it some of the dust on the floor of the tabernacle. Yuck! This bitter water would bring on the woman a curse—if she were guilty.

The priest would put the grain offering in her hands and put her under oath.

If she was innocent, she was to be free from the curse.

But if she was guilty of infidelity, she would be made a curse, her thigh would rot, and her belly would swell.

She had to say, "Amen," to all these things.

The priest wrote all these things in a book and then scraped them off into the bitter water.

The priest would wave the grain offering before the Lord and then burn it on the altar.

The woman would drink the bitter water.

Then everyone would await the result. If nothing happened, the woman was innocent. Otherwise, all the curses pronounced upon her would come to pass. So, how does this test promote abortion? It obviously does not, but the claim is that the bitter drink caused her to lose her child. Umm, there are only a few things wrong with this allegation.

First, nothing in the text indicates she was pregnant. In fact, in the case described, the husband only suspects that his wife has been unfaithful. If she were pregnant, he would be suspicious that another man was the father, yet that is not even hinted at.

Second, nothing is said about her losing a child. Her belly would swell if she was guilty, and her thigh would rot, but nothing is said about a miscarriage. Brown also points out something that the pro-abortionists failed to consider—that

even if the drink allegedly caused miscarriages (which, again, the text does not reference or speak of at all), if the woman had not committed adultery, it would have no effect on her. This would mean that the drink was not some kind of abortifacient.

Whoops! Yes, if the text were discussing a pregnant woman, then the bitter water could not, through natural means, cause a miscarriage for one woman and not another.

And these are the two best arguments that pro-abortionists can come up with. Well, we didn't expect much, and not much is what we received. The Bible does not contradict itself, and one has only to read as far as Genesis 25:23 to discover that Rebekah had two nations in her womb, whose descendants would be the Israelites and the Edomites. Yes, Jacob and Esau were struggling with each other even before they were born. They were alive; abortion would have killed them. Pro-life enemies have no arguments of any substance in the Bible.

Attacking Terminology

Actress Alyssa Milano weighed in on an aspect of abortion. (This writer has never seen her in anything where she was a major character.) She recently "demanded that journalists refer to 'fetal pole cardiac activity' instead of 'fetal heartbeats' when talking about pregnancy…." What that means is anybody's guess, but it seems she does not want anyone to consider that babies in the womb develop a heartbeat—usually before a woman knows for certain she is expecting. Apparently, Milano thinks that if journalists use a different phrase than "fetal heartbeat," people won't catch on to the fact that we're discussing a human being.

But then she went even further to try to make whatever case she thought she was making. She adamantly proclaimed, "Asylum seekers have heartbeats." Oh, really? Then we're not faced with zombies crossing the border? Wherein lies the relevance between the two groups of people?

First, babies are innocent; they have committed no crimes. Asylum seekers may or may not have committed crimes, but the adults among them do stand guilty of sin. We know that many illegals have broken laws and even committed murder. No baby in his mother's womb has even contemplated such a thing.

Second, those seeking asylum are given due consideration, are they not? But they must be investigated since any spy can say he has fled for his life. Babies have not been spies; but if handled by feminists like Milano, they will not be given due consideration—or due process of law, either. They will be killed before they can ever learn to speak for themselves or make a defense in their own behalf.

It is a reversal of values (putting light for darkness and darkness for light—Isaiah 5:20) to take the life of a totally innocent human being (with his or her own characteristics, gender, and personhood) and then speak of such an action as noble and compassionate. On top of that, they mock those who defend their humanity and make illogical comparisons! Furthermore, they try to use the Scriptures to support their erroneous view! They should fear condemning innocent blood (Ps. 94:21).

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: