Why Abortion is not Biblical - By Shandon L. Guthrie
Recently, the moral and political issue of abortion erupted onto the American scene. Never before have we, the individuals who retain certain unalienable rights, ever faced such a dilemma in moral decision-making. Now, the Christian community has sought answers to this dilemma in an attempt to put the debate to rest. For sometime now mainstream Christians have gravitated to the "right" side of the issue by quoting passages alleged to protest the abortion procedure; Such passages as Psalm 139 and Exodus 20. Indeed, predominant Christian activists Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition leader, and Gary Bauer, President of the Family Research Council, have tackled the issue head-on by addressing legislation in the political tendrils. Although the Christian position eventually selected its preferred stance (pro-life or anti-abortion), other Christians have since rivaled what was thought to be the "Christian position." In this article, I wish to address the arguments brought out by the previous article, "Why Abortion is Biblical" by Brian McKinley. In it, I will be defending the traditional view and suggesting once again that the Bible does indeed implicitly and explicitly condemn abortion as a medical practice.
Psalm 139:13-16. Although McKinley discusses profusely the error of mistranslating and misunderstanding Scriptural texts through examples, his first point (a brief tag after this exhaustive red herring) deals with the Psalm 139 passage on pre-born infants (see pp. 1-3 of McKinley's article). Without belaboring the obvious errors of believing McKinley's sarcastic conclusions about the texts that appear to declare something false, I find his ultimate assessment of Psalm 139 dissatisfactory. First, there is no real argument here except that there is negative evidence in McKinley's favor.(1) This evidence really suggests that there is no reason to accept what "Christian leaders" have to say on the subject. But this simply does not address whether or not what they say is actually true or false even if such leaders are guilty of some hermeneutical eisogeses. Indeed, it may be true that they are wrong about not "reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire context"(2) without harming others who do adhere to correct hermeneutical principles and possess an anti-abortionist interpretation of Psalm 139. However, perhaps some other understanding of the text is more accurate. At this point McKinley leaves us hanging and assures us that there are other texts ready to affirm abortion. It seems that McKinley is ready to overlook this passage without due consideration. This passage certainly, if "we agreed to interpret these verses the same way that anti-abortion Christians do," deserves attention as it would conflict vehemently with other passages of Scripture alleged to affirm abortion. Secondly, it seems that Psalm 139 (and the whole book of Psalms for that matter) actually does grant the anti-abortion position. Particular attention needs to be given to the passage stating, "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place" (emphasis mine; NIV, v. 15). Such language is peculiar if the fetus is not a human person. First-person terms such as "I was . . . " only apply if the individual using this grammatical rule possessed the role of the person speaking. It makes no sense to suggest that I was a teenager unless I existed as a teenager. Further, additional puzzles for pro-abortionists such as "your eyes saw my unformed body" (v. 16) indicate that the "I" has an unformed body. The attitude of possessing that something thought only to be existential in the womb bespeaks an object of that which is had. This, of course, lends credence to dualism (the notion that there is an immaterial side of Man that inhabits the body; see Zechariah 12:1). Finally, the same book of Psalms adds context to what is said here. For example, Psalm 51:5 declares that "I was sinful . . . from the time my mother conceived me." Again, "I" was sinful since conception, not birth! There is clearly an agent who is guilty of sin from the moment the individual begins to exist which occurs unequivocally at the moment of conception. Therefore, the passage can only make sense if the Psalmist existed as the one with an "unformed body" who is an "I" that is "made in the secret place" and guilty of sin ever since existence from the time of being "conceived." Clumps of tissue mass possessing DNA cannot say "I was made" or have an "unformed body." The metaphysical conclusion is inescapable: The entity in the womb is a human person able to possess stature.
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5. On page four, McKinley quotes this passage and mistakenly concludes that according to this citation "it is sometimes better to end a pregnancy prematurely than to allow it to continue into a miserable life." But such an assessment disregards the thrust of the Ecclesiastical message, namely that human beings in the absence of God and His presence possess little or no meaning in their lives. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 makes a dichotomy between existence and quality. That is, it is better to never have been born than to live a life of uselessness or meaninglessness. It is not clear that the text favor's McKinley's suggestion. One may even argue that as long as someone has "a proper burial" (v. 3), he or she cannot be aborted. What an odd option to abortion. Secondly, the purpose behind the passage is not to declare value to the fetus as a candidate for death, but rather to the adult who may or may not possess meaning by doing (or being) good (cf. v.3). In other words, the focus is on the individual throughout his life, not only during pregnancy. Finally, Solomon chooses his words carefully by using miscarriage and not killing. The notion is death-by-accident not premeditated death, something abortion entails.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. For McKinley, such a passage entails the permission of not only abortion but euthanasia as well. Again, this passage falls prey to true biblical exegesis, something that McKinley is not too familiar with. The key passage is, "better off than both of them is the one who has never existed" (v. 3). But clearly the context deals with the seeming priority of non-existence over poor existence, not the killing of an unborn fetus. Secondly, the preference of being dead after a "painful existence" (p. 4) does not entail the premeditated killing of someone in pain. McKinley distorts the passage to suggest that the end (the relief of pain) justifies the means (death), a noble attempt at making Solomon a utilitarian. However, Solomon's concern is the state of death, not the act of killing. This is a serious difference McKinley apparently has not considered.
Job 3:2-4, 11-19. Here McKinley's utilitarian interpretations become clearer. He wants Job to justify death during fetal development due to his life of misery allowed by divine providence. But this passage along with Job 10:18-19 are far from "Job [reiterating] the greater grace he would have known if his life had been terminated as a fetus" (p. 4). On the contrary, 3:2 includes "the day . . . on which I was born." Should we justify infanticide as well? The day someone is born is not likely to be the day of conception. Secondly, and paralleled to Solomon, life possesses a better personal, selfish quality if pain and suffering are suppressed via death or non-existence. Job's contention is that due to the intolerable lifestyle bestowed upon him through Satan's intercession, life is too difficult to bare. But McKinley ignores what happens after Job's discourse where God rebukes Job for his cursing of his existence and his attempt at instructing God on what he considers a better method of handling creation (see Job 38:1-2). Even if we grant McKinley's interpretation, God still corrects the mistakes that Job makes in his dialogues. Again, the distress experienced by God's prophets is expressed experientially in their writings; the cries of death are clearly and contextually defined as passive and wishful, not premeditated and justified. Thus, McKinley's interpretation is easily dismissed.
The next portion of McKinley's paper is deeply disturbing:
And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in
fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve
our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim
that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.(3)
Now before one gets the wrong idea about McKinley, he stipulates:
I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making
the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all.(4)
However, I think McKinley is correct that the passages do favor abortion and appear to make it a "sacrament," granted of course that McKinley's initial interpretation is correct. But he tries to draw away from this conclusion when he realizes the implication: total and unequivocal support of abortion for frivolous reasons. I think that McKinley discovers the problem and attempts to anticipate those who would use it against him. Besides, what does this do for McKinley's position if "I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all"?(5) As a final note here, I believe, contrary to McKinley's claim that "the condemning and supporting comes not from the words of the Bible but from leaders within our Culture of Christianity" (p. 4), that the Bible definitely places proper value on pre-born humans.
Exodus 21:22-25. There has never been a passage more widely used to support abortion than the
Exodus 21 text. For a feel of the pro-abortionist predisposition, here it is in the New American
Standard Version:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so
that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely
be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay
as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall ap-
point as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
McKinley, as do many, suggest that the passage places a lesser value on the unborn fetus. After all, if we are to "appoint as a penalty life for life," then why is the murder of the fetus only worth a fine if the fetus is as much a person as an adult?(6) Is there really a different value placed on unborn fetuses than on adult human beings? Does the Bible really support abortion? I think there are three things that can be said against McKinley's view. First, my friend and advisor Dr. Francis Beckwith has pointed out that "the severity of an Old Testament penalty is not always indicative of the full humanness of a victim."(7) He goes on to quote Bruce K. Waltke who states that the case in Exodus 21 is not a standard murder indictment. Rather, the passage arranges a penalty for the peculiar circumstance of the struggling man that does not necessarily demand execution.(8) The passage bespeaks a death-by-accident, not a premeditated killing. Secondly, even if McKinley is correct in his interpretation here, it does nothing to impinge on the other texts that promote human value to unborn fetuses. The fact remains that Psalm 51:5 and 139 both demonstrate life at conception (see above). Finally, the word miscarriage (Hebrew: wysû yldêyh) does not mean "death of the fetus" in this passage. Other translations (such as the New International Version) imply a different meaning, namely that the child-to-be is born prematurely.(9) Dr. F. Michael Womack notes that Exodus 21 uses yasa, a word not indicative of miscarriage.(10) One need only compare Exodus 23:26 which uses miscarriage properly rendered from shakal. Since there are too many Christians divided on this passage, then relying on such a text is problematic at best. However, there is some evidence to suggest that Exodus 21:22-25 does not promote abortion.
Some final considerations. As I close out this essay, there is positive evidence suggesting the pro-life position, namely that the Bible indeed condemns abortion. First, the personhood of the unborn conceptus is well-established in Psalms 51:5 and 139 (discussed above). The text undeniably defends this notion. Secondly, the language used to describe pre-born fetuses (even sometimes at conception!) is personal and indicative of personhood. For example, Job 3:3 (mentioned above) states that "a boy (geber) is conceived" and appears to connect the individual with the person conceived. Thirdly, the unborn are given the stature of child. That is, the word baby (Greek: brephos) is used of the pre-born conceptus in Luke 1:41, 44. Now, the word brephos is applied to babies all ready born (Luke 2:12, 16). Finally, Beckwith cites several individuals from Church history who have committed to the anti-abortion position; individuals such as Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Athenagoras.(11) Therefore, it appears that the Bible does support the classic, Christian position that life begins at conception and that abortion is biblically forbidden.
Conclusion. Brian McKinley believes that abortion is justified according to several biblical
passages. He also believes that the Church has mistakenly quoted other passages in support of
the pro-life position. In his essay, he attempts to explain why Christians have been wrong by
putting the blame on eisogesis and influence from Christian peers. I have demonstrated that
McKinley is wrong on all counts. The Bible supports the pro-life position and unequivocally
grants unborn fetuses personhood worthy of equal value with adults. Although McKinley's work
tends to be somewhat slanderous against orthodox Christians, his essay represents typically those
Christians who have the pro-choice persuasion. I invite both Christians and non-Christians to
examine the evidence and to see whether or not the Bible supports abortion. For me, the answer
is a resounding "No!" Thus, McKinley has failed to convince me of the pro-abortionist
interpretation of the Bible.
-Shandon L. Guthrie
Other Writings
Atheism on Trial: An Atheism vs. Christianity Debate (transcribed from a radio broadcast)
No Laughing Matter: Christianity in Light of the "Toronto Blessing"
Theistic Existentialism and the Human Predicament
Bertrand Russell and the Tristram Shandy Paradox
The Philosophy of the New Testament and the Question of Greek Influence
A Discussion on Mormonism
A Discussion on Jehovah's Witnesses
Is God a Corporeal Being?: A Mormonism vs. Christianity Debate
The Stratospheric Ozone Debate
Email:
Berean7@aol.com
____________________________________________________________________________
End Notes
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.