Nonsense #7: Abortion and the Bible (Part 1)

Okay, it’s a cheap shot. The title is actually Nontract #7, but nonsense actually describes the material more appropriately. We will explain the reason for offering such an assessment, beginning with who wrote the nontract, which is the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. Well, sure, anyone who wants information on the Bible immediately thinks of a group whose main goal is to “promote nontheism,” which is more nonsense, according to Romans 1:18-32 (cf. Ps. 53:1). It is the rough equivalent of consulting the KKK as to the way to practice brotherly kindness. Their handling of the Scriptures is about like binding up a wound with sandpaper instead of gauze and tape.

They argue atrociously by assuming what they actually need to prove and ignoring arguments to the contrary which have been made for decades—without any kind of response. This is the way that moral liberals argue. They ignore everything that devastates their position and fail to make a legitimate case. Moral conservatives present both sides and offer proof for the reason their view is the correct one.

The title of nontract #7 is: What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? The reader will not need to expect a reasoned, well-thought-out reply. They begin at the outset by claiming: “Absolutely nothing! The word ‘abortion’ does not appear in any translation of the bible!” First of all, their lack of respect for the Scriptures is seen in their refusal to capitalize Bible. They do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. As those who promote “freethought,” they reject anything that claims to be a revelation from God, which again begs the question, “Why should anyone listen to Biblical interpretations from those who do not believe the Bible?”

Second, the word abortion being absent from the Scriptures means absolutely nothing, which they surely realize, but apparently they think it makes for good “spin.” The absence of the word would only be significant if the concept was also missing or no other principles could be found relating to the issue. The four most literal and best translations of the Bible are the King James, the New King James, the American Standard, and the New American Standard. The word rape is not found in any of them. However, does that mean the Bible is silent on the subject?

Suppose some unscrupulous person said, “There is no penalty for rape in the Bible.” How could there be if the word is not mentioned? But this sin is described, and penalties are attached to it. If neither the word nor the description of such a violation upon a woman were found in the Bible, it would not leave us clueless concerning God’s attitude toward it. A man who commits this sin is stealing what does not belong to him. If she is married, he has no right to her, and if she is single, he is robbing her future husband of what belongs to him only. The thief is also guilty of covetousness.

Projection

One of the fallacies that people commit in arguing is that they often project back onto previous cultures what we experience in our own. We have (unfortunately) today developed methods that are used in procuring abortions that were not available 2,000 years ago. Does that mean they had no ways of having an abortion? No. Part of the Hippocratic Oath included not giving abortifacients or pessaries to women. (Hippocrates lived from 460 to 370 B.C.). However, many women just opted for infanticide (it’s less invasive).

But did whoever authored the nontract delve into the history of the practice of abortion? Did they list any cultures where it was widely practiced? Did any civilization experience anywhere near the percentage of abortions that women in America do today? No, any historical precedents are lacking (along with a good deal of common sense).

Innuendo and Assumption

So, what arguments are actually offered to prove their position that the Bible teaches that abortion is all right? [By the way, would any of these theorists like to debate this issue?] First, they claim that Moses gave over 600 laws and never mentioned abortion. Well, why is that? Could it be because the culture then was entirely different from ours and that the Israelites would not have thought of such a thing? Following are some reasons why.

Pharaoh had commanded the midwives to kill any sons born to the Hebrews, but they refused (Ex. 1:16-17). Therefore, Pharaoh commanded God’s people to cast their sons into the river (where he expected them to drown) (v. 22). It is not, therefore, likely that after being delivered out of Egypt, they would resume killing their children. Notice that Pharaoh did not command the Israelites to go to their local Planned Parenthood Center, who would have been happy to remove a male or female from the womb.

In most ancient cultures, women who could not bear children considered themselves forlorn. When Sarah passed the age of childbearing, she gave her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham to bear a son. This surrogate means of having a son was not God’s plan, however (Gen. 16). Rachel demanded of Jacob: “Give me children, or else I die!” (Gen. 30:1). Even several hundred years later, Hannah had borne no children and prayed to the Lord to do something about her “affliction” (of barrenness), which He did (2 Sam. 1). In 21st-century America, this is not the prevailing view. Women have been told they are being “kept down” by being barefoot and pregnant. Thus, many opt out of motherhood.

But what about all of those pesky teen pregnancies? Those did not occur in the Israelite culture. A woman had to have proof that she was a virgin on her wedding night, or she could be stoned (Deut. 22:13-21). Needless to say, this practice does not represent the thinking of our current society.

The Israelites were a theocracy and unlike us in many ways. They did not kill their young (in or out of the womb); they considered it an affliction not to have children; and the young ladies were virgins when they married. They did not need laws, therefore, regarding abortion. Furthermore, they had a general law that covers everything in the way of depriving an innocent person of his life: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13).

Respect for Human Life

The people comprising the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., say that Moses gave no law concerning abortion. Do they respect Moses, therefore, when they think he upholds their position? Do they acknowledge him as the Great Lawgiver? Or are they just using him, as if he were on their side? Hah! Every reader knows the answer to that question. But let’s play along. Since Moses is cited (even though in an erroneous way, as has been shown), let’s dig a little deeper to see what he says on other matters that might relate to abortion.

How about considering what he says in the first few words of the Bible? “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Whoops! A group that supports nontheism cannot be expected to go along with the very first verse that Moses wrote, can they? So, they don’t believe, necessarily, anything that Moses wrote. Yet we are to believe that they are experts regarding what he wrote. Such a position really is nonsense.

“Oh, come off it,” one might imagine one of the proponents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (FFRFI), saying. “You don’t have to agree with someone in order to understand what he is saying.” Of course, that is true, or we would never be able to debate anyone. But understanding the Bible varies considerably from comprehending Karl Marx. The Scriptures, however, do not deal with one main subject; they deal with every issue that relates to life. What is to be our relationship with God; what is His will? How does He expect us to relate to each other? What is morality? One needs to comprehend the whole to see how the parts fit together. Does the FFRFI understand that the Law of Moses was a covenant between God and Israel and is no longer in effect? If not, they will misapply a great many passages of Scripture.

Moses also wrote, in the beginning of Genesis, that God created man in His own image (1:26-27). Animals are not like God in their ability to think, reason, and evaluate things. God gave them no moral commandments to practice, but He did human beings. God did not prohibit animals from killing each other, but in Genesis 9:5-6, He forbade man from killing man, because man is made in the image of God. And, in fact, the one who kills a human being becomes himself worthy of death. Moses did not need to specifically mention abortion because a child is a human being.

“Oh, no; it’s just a fetus!” the FFRFI would respond. Has anyone ever seen a human “fetus” that became a muskrat when born? Or a giraffe? Or an oak tree? All human “fetuses” become human beings. Whereas various cultures were condemned for offering child sacrifices (including Israel), the Old Testament does not record a single abortion attempt. Neither does the New. Among God’s people there was respect for human life.

Exodus 21:22-25

A favorite passage of pro-abortionists is Exodus 21:22-25, and FFRFI is no exception. They call this passage a law concerning miscarriage, which is not a fact but an interpretation. And it is not a good interpretation at that. They do not mention the fact that the majority do not agree that the verses describe a miscarriage. They claim that it is, and that settles the matter. (No one is supposed to question liberals.)

Spiritual Perspectives just dealt with this passage eight weeks ago; see “Abortion and the Scriptures” from July 14, 2019. The entire article is recommended, but below are two pertinent paragraphs from it.

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).

This information has been available for 30 years, but FFRFI just blithely misinterprets the text as if there were no other alternative. They did not examine the verses carefully, which is the reason they cannot be trusted.