Is Abortion Murder? A Biblical View Says 'NO'

We just marked the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide as part of the constitutional right to privacy. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, in protest of the decision, told an anti-abortion crowd this week that "[w]hether the baby is in the mother's womb, or whether it's 8 years old ... that life has value, not because I said so, but because God made it to have value."

All the 2012 GOP candidates' oppose legalized abortion, echoing notions that a fetus is a full human life entitled to the same protections as any other human life.

There are various reasons people oppose abortion, including ethical, moral and scientific but the primary basis seems to come from a religious conviction, presumptively based on biblical principles, that life starts at conception and therefore terminating a pregnancy is murder.

Do those opposing abortion on religious grounds know that the Bible does not consider a fetus a full human life or the killing of a fetus murder?

It is quite ironic and hypocritical how the anti-abortion/pro-life politicians talk about a fetus being considered a full human life, when the Bible itself, based on a literal reading, does not recognize a fetus as a full human life subject to the same rights as a birthed person.

Of course the Bible should not be used as the barometer for social policy but many politicians and advocacy groups make it abundantly clear that their policies on abortion stem from the Bible. The irony is that the Bible does not support their position that a fetus is a full human life and that abortion is murder.

Several verses imply that a fetus has certain qualities of a human life. While Rebekah is pregnant with twins, for example, Genesis 25:22 states that "the children [Esau and Jacob] struggled within her." In Luke 1:41 while Elizabeth is pregnant with John the Baptist she meets the Virgin Mary wherein it states that the "child leaped in her womb."

We all colloquially ask pregnant women how the baby is doing not how the fetus is doing, which is something the pro-life movement likes to point out as indicative of the average person recognizing a fetus as a child. Similarly, in an effort to show that the Bible deems abortion murder one can point to various verses describing a fetus as a child, but by examining the punishment for the wrongful killing of a fetus the most insightful and accurate understanding of how the bible views a fetus can be ascertained. The verses most on point when it comes to abortion are Exodus 21:22-25 which state:

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. 25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

The woman is not killed in the passage. Only the fetus dies in the encounter. The resulting punishment for the miscarriage is a mere fine. The Bible continues with declaring that had the woman died the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a "life for a life." If the fetus was considered a life then the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a "life for a life" but since a fine is imposed it is understood that the fetus is not considered a life. From this it is clearly understood that a fetus is not considered a full human life, otherwise the punishment would be death under the subsequently enumerated literal biblical principle of lex talionis ('eye for an eye').

Do you think the Bible would proscribe a monetary punishment for the killing of a human being? The Bible does not even deem the act of wrongfully causing a miscarriage as criminal. It's obvious that based on a literal reading of this passage, the Bible does not view a fetus as a full human life or abortion as murder.

It is also noteworthy that as early as Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that life begins at birth, declaring that God "breathed into his [Adam's] nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul." The verse implies that until Adam took his first breath he was not considered a living being.

Furthermore, you can scour the Bible with a fine-toothed comb, yet you will not find any passage that describes a prohibition or penalty for a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Not a single verse yet the anti-abortion movement continues to declare, in the name of God, that abortion is murder. It seems that God left out the prohibition of abortion or perhaps does not consider a fetus a full human life. I'll let you decide.

Author's note: The above analysis is based on a strictly literal reading of original scripture, divorced from commentary and exegesis that may prohibit abortion. Further, just because abortion may not be deemed murder that does not mean that abortion on demand is permitted either. Potential life is still deemed sacred according to the Bible even if a fetus is not considered a full life and abortion is not considered murder.

 

Comments

[dbrett480]

09:33 PM on 01/26/2012

It is pretty simple whether abortion is murder or not. If you think a fetus is a human life, then abortion is murder. If you don't think it is, then abortion isn't murder.

[kaniggit2010]

01:00 PM on 01/26/2012

I would encourage you to think about the the original Hebrew language in which this was written. The Hebrew word used was 'yasa', which literally means "the child comes forth". Considering this translation, there is nothing that suggests the child is dead. It only suggests a premature birth with no harm. Just because our understanding of miscarriage implies death doesn't mean that it meant the same thing thousands of years ago when it was written. Other places in scripture the word 'nepel' is used, and translates to "miscarriage" or "abortion". Clearly a difference here.

The author's note even states that his article is based on a literal reading of scripture. It bothers me that he would title the article "The Bible is not 'Pro-Life' " when he even states in the note, "Potential life is still deemed sacred according to the Bible...". If he says that, then clearly the Bible is pro-life.

Also, Adam was never in a woman's womb. God formed him out of the dust of the earth. Therefore, his life DID, in fact, start with his first breath.

A lot of things are misrepresented in this article. I am sorry.

[Eliyahu Federman]

07:19 PM on 01/26/2012

Thanks for the comments! I changed the title to "Is Abortion Murder? A Biblical View Says 'NO'" since that more accurately conveys this particular interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 and the position that according to literal interpretation the bible does not deem abortion murder nor is it expressly prohibited. The previous title was too wide sweeping and sacrificed accuracy for sensationalism. I agree with you.

While there is certainly exegesis and commentary consistent with the view that abortion is murder, the view that a fetus is not a full-fledged life and therefore abortion is not murder (perhaps unethical, immoral but not murder) is consistent with Be'er Hetiv, Choshen Mishpat 425:2 (commentary on the code to Jewish law) and my literal analysis of the text.

Interesting how all the Hebrew sources (including Chabad.org cited in the article) translate "yatsa" in this context as "miscarriage" yet some insist that "children coming out" refers to something else .... Several points:

(1) The original Hebrew word is "yatsa" which in this context literally means to "lose her offspring"­­ ..... The ancient commentaries are clear on that even though some modern commentaries have tried to argue otherwise.

(2) Second, the premature birth argument that you are alluding to doesn't hold water because premature babies did not survive before the advent of modern medicine.

[Eliyahu Federman]

07:19 PM on 01/26/2012

(3) Other scholars have interpreted the passage in light of more ancient pagan laws, which clearly referred to miscarriag­­e in the same exact scenario. The Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) reads: "If a seignior struck a[notherl seignior's daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriag­­e [literally­­, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death." Hittite Laws (1.17) read: "If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally­­, drives out the embryo], if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver..." (Bowen Ward, 1987)

[jjmorgen]

08:18 PM on 01/26/2012

Comparing non-biblical sources, sources that often conflict with the very principles of the Bible, does not improve your argument, especially if you miss the point of kaniggit2010 response. kaniggit2010 (and myself) basically told you that you need to look up both other biblical translations as well as try to find out the word in the scripture rendered "miscarrage" actually means the modern day definition of "miscarrage" or if it has a different, possibly extended meaning derived from the original Hebrew text.

Hittites and Babylonians were different peoples, with different world views, cultures, and religions. It makes no sense trying to compare what they believed with what is written in the Bible merely because they were relatively close in proximity. It's akin to saying that you believe aspects of the Catholic or Islamic faith because you lived in New York, and they lived in Florida.

[kaniggit2010]

12:49 AM on 01/27/2012

(1) Thanks for the response! I think it is going to be hard to ever figure out the true translation behind this... but I think it does prove to be important to read other translations and try to get an overall feel for the passage. For example, the NIV translation of that same passage reads, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." The ESV translation (and I will consider only verse 22, as that is mainly where our discussion is happening) reads, "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is NO HARM, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine" (emphasis added). I do note that some versions will say 'miscarriage'. That is where I see the importance on reading other translations as well.

[danielcrawford]

12:44 PM on 01/26/2012

Spoken like a person with no clue about the Old Testament law.

[Eliyahu Federman]

12:57 PM on 01/26/2012

The Shemos passage (Exodus 21:22-25) is interpreted consistent with a literal meaning and in accordance with Ashkenazi, Rabbi Yehuda, Be’er Hetiv, Choshen Mishpat 425:2 in his commentary on the code to Jewish law. I guess he didn't have a clue either?

[Pastori Balele]

02:02 AM on 01/26/2012

That's interesting to know Bible does not regard abortion as killing. And therefore I wonder where these so called Republican born-again Christian male morons get that. I think it's to control and relegate women to the kitchen as Romney church says. After all it an’t males problems once a strange woman gets pregnant. Remember once a child is born Republicans are the first to abandon the mother and the child. These are a bunch of hypocrites.

[epigirl08]

11:25 PM on 01/25/2012

The idea to reading anything from the bible, this or an epistle in the New Testament is to try to understand when it was written and what the author meant by what he said. For example, take 1 Timothy 2:9 ,"likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,". When women wore their hair braided in public it meant they wanted to have sex. Of course Paul is going to write to these people to have their women not wear their hair braided. As to the women of the old testament, the thought of giving a baby up as a choice would never cross their minds. Exodus was written before women's rights. When men could have five wives and women didn't have a say and didn't know they could have a say. Exodus 21:22-25 does not support abortion and to say that it does is ridiculous. Also, just in case you doubt, in this translation and in almost any other this passage is referring to an accident, "And should...". This is not a choice by the woman but something that has happened out of her own hands. Abortion is a choice.

[taoistpunk]

11:52 AM on 01/26/2012

"Exodus 21:22-25 does not support abortion and to say that it does is ridiculous­."

if no one is saying that but you, then who is the ridiculous one?

the argument is that bible is not "pro-life."

it isn't.

[JewishPhysician]

06:38 PM on 01/25/2012

Here's the deal boys and girls. We have a G-d who is Totally and Encompassingly Powerful. He knows ahead of time who lives and who will not be born. There will be no loss of a McCartney or Ringo Star in an Abortion because our Creator knows who will be where and when. So if you are anti-abortion, you really do not trust in your G-d. G-d controls the universe and nothing will happen that is outside of his plans. Rest assured we will not be interested in mass abortions; but the fact is that health and wellness is a priority and if a woman chooses to abort the unborn, it is not going to destroy our futures. G-d is not a G-d of hatred and bigotry. G-d will repay us for our problems, but if you want to dispell your own sanity and stand on the corner protesting the freedom of rights of women, you are going to lose in a big way too. Our G-d does not like nay sayers and those who exploit their own personal greivances to make the way a future of shame and impropriety at the level that humanity can not decide its own fate.

[Vincent Govan]

12:35 PM on 01/26/2012

I understand and agree with you completely. I use the same position of G-d and politics.... when you feel your religion must be legislated into existence, it demonstrates a lack of faith in G-d. Also, G-d does not prioritize sin and say "lying is worse than cheating, which is better than murder, etc etc". Many murder the souls of others, the spirit of others, with their condemnation and words, yet see themselves exempt from sin.

[Helen111]

07:06 PM on 01/30/2012

I am a Christian woman and agree with what you say. I always wonder why so many Christians make abortion their pet sin that they are against. It is rather puzzling to me when we all sin, and all such sin is against God, not just abortion.

Thank you for your comments Jewish Physician and Vincent Govan.

[Noble9]

04:23 PM on 01/25/2012

The Bible is very clear about tattoos and hair cutting, but I've never seen anyone picketing tattoo parlors or barber shops.

[taoistpunk]

11:56 AM on 01/26/2012

odd too is how many christians can have a second, third or more - clearly proscribed - marriage in a church that would never consider a same sex marriage..

[Alan Lunn]

02:18 PM on 01/25/2012

As a former Christian fundamentalist right-winger, I should point out that "pro-choice" does not mean "pro-abortion." Pro-choice is a reference to a civil right, just as, for instance, gay marriage is a civil right. The person, under law, has the right to make their own choice. The moral arguments are more complex and the Bible just doesn't give any clear directive. But that's beside the point. The pro-choice argument is based on civil rights for women, not religious and moral interpretations. Obviously, no one has a clear argument for when life "begins." For some, it begins when you have that gleam in your eye. For evidence of life, take a look at preemies. Just don't get the notion that liberals like abortion. And notice, too, how well it works to make abortion illegal. The nations with illegal abortions also have the highest rates of abortion. In nations where it's legal, the numbers go down. Prohibition never works anywhere.

[jjmorgen]

02:10 PM on 01/25/2012

One suggestion for the author: It might be a good idea to compare your Common English translation of the scripture found in Exodus 21:22, with other biblical translations You'll find that other translations (KJV, ASV, just to name a couple) render that scripture differently enough that your whole point may be invalid and that the term used in the CE Bible, may not mean the offical "medical" connatation that is in use today. But, do your own research.

[Dragosurfer]

02:06 PM on 01/25/2012

An excellent article, however, Pro-lifers can not be reasoned with. many have tried, but in the end, they discover that pro-lifers are some of the most un-reasonable people you will ever encounter.

[zmberg]

12:40 PM on 01/25/2012

luberman: The Gospel story was based on birth.

And Xianity is based on human sacrifice.

[synergie]

09:34 PM on 01/26/2012

And in some cases ritualistic cannibalism.

[lumberman]

11:04 AM on 01/25/2012

And yes,most preachers arr right in the famous slogan you don't work you don't eat as mentioned by the Apostle Paul.But I Do not think for one minute that he thought or the very first apostles thought that one should pay higher interest,sell his children,kill his children,pay a higher tax rate to a select group of individuals.Jesus and the apostles read the texts of what we call the old testament and every warning to them when they read was a warning to us.

[lumberman]

10:52 AM on 01/25/2012

And yes there were preferences for male over female in the text (lineage).That is as bad as saying because one priest or one preacher exposes themselves or robs the offering that the rest of christianity should be blamed with it another crazy notion.Merit and good works are where it's at.

[taoistpunk]

11:59 AM on 01/26/2012

unless you are saying that god tells those priests to expose themsleves you really do not have a point here. [and if you are it's not a very good one]

[lumberman]

10:42 AM on 01/25/2012

In this country and throughout the world I really think people need to read the bible than look at history and just think were the 7 deadly sins wrong?

[lumberman]

10:29 AM on 01/25/2012

As for the bible read it for yourself.The biggest churches ask you to read it because you should know it not because you need to be a christian one way or other but to take a hard look at what warnings are there for society.Then and only then can you decide to be a believer or not.