Why the Bible Does Not Support Abortion

Many take for granted that Abortion advocates are not Bible believing Church goers.  I mean the position almost lends itself to a humanistic bend. Several months ago, when I ran across an article defending abortion with Scriptures, I was intrigued, and a little shocked. Not because the verse did what the author claimed. But, that there was a level of respect for the interpretation of the text, which I had not expected.

So, as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade approached, I thought it would be helpful to address this thinking.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Thanks to Obama, California is Engulfed in Forest Fires

The article was found on reverbpress.com and was written by Curtis F.  It claims that he has found five verses in the Bible that prove the scriptures support abortion. But, do they?

Before getting into the texts themselves, Mr. F. decided that he would make an argument before beginning.

He writes,

“It’s strange, though, that the Bible wouldn’t directly outlaw abortion if it was wrong. After all, each of the books of the New Testament were written in the Common Era (CE) — often referred to as A.D. Yet the earliest evidence of an induced abortion dates to 1550 BCE. This, of course, is around 1,545 years before Christ was even born.

“Additionally, the Code of Assura provided for the death penalty if a woman got an abortion without her husband’s blessing. This was in 1075 BCE. It just seems weird, even with historical evidence that abortion was occurring over 1,500 years before Christ, that the Bible never specifically outlaws it.”

This appears to be problematic. Yes, to the one who has little understanding of the Law of God would wonder why such a law is not found. This as F points out, is covered under the Sixth Commandment, which is really an attempt to prove his point from silence. However, the simple answer is that God does condemn, as murder, the killing of the unborn.  Amos 1:13:

Thus says the Lord,

“For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four

I will not revoke its punishment,

Because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead

In order to enlarge their borders.”

God was going to punish Ammon for ending the pregnancies of their rivals for gain.  This act had brought irrevocable punishment upon the Ammonites.  We know that God is speaking of the murder of the unborn child, because He would not have needed to mention her pregnancy were this not a crucial point of the crime. Yes, murder of a woman is bad enough, but at least she was not defenseless.

However, consider the first of five verses that F uses to justify his claim that the Bible supports abortion: Exodus 21:22-25: Not valued as a human life.

He writes:

“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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

This Biblical verse lays out the penalties for accidentally causing a woman to miscarry. If the woman herself is injured during the incident, however, the “eye for an eye” rule comes into effect.

If the mother dies, the person who caused the death also dies. If only the unborn child dies, however, the at-fault party has to pay a fine. If an unborn fetus is a human life, why is it not treated as such in this verse?

We first have to recognize that there is no ill intent to the striking of the woman. This is not even close to the intent in the case of abortion.  The only way that this could be seen as in any way paralleling would be if the woman asked the men to strike her and they charged her for the blows.  But there is an even better answer.

Second, if we read this in a modern version, we find that the word translated “miscarried” in F’s version, I assume the KJV, is rather translated as “born prematurely.”  Sproul explains why the change was made in his Reformation Study Bible.  This changes the whole texts and puts in the dirt F’s interpretation.

If the blow to the mother causes the child to be born prematurely, then there is no further damage then a fine is paid for the stress on the parents this incurs. The further damage would apply to the child as well as the mother. Hence, the child’s life not only had value but the same value as the mother’s.

Lastly, this also points to the fact that an unborn child in America should have the same rights guaranteed to all in the Fifth Amendment.  As well as the declaration made in the Declaration of Independence, that we all have a right to “Life . . .”

F’s wrong understanding of the premature birth rather than miscarriage has led him to assume that the child is not included in the “no further harm” clause.

This has caused F to wrongly think that God through Moses did not consider the child a life.

And since we have shown from the text that it is a life, then we can show that the Constitution actually protects the child from murder by abortion.  Just the same as if they were outside the womb.

We will examine the remaining verse as the week progresses.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.