Is the Bible Pro-Life?

There was a pretty big election here in the United States recently (you've probably heard) and it's caused a lot of mixed feelings. Now, I am not here to tell you that you should have or should not have voted for said candidate. Personally, I felt like no matter what, the average American was going to lose, and I stand by that statement.

But there is one topic I feel needs further exploration and discussion because you are either for or against it. There is no middle ground.

Abortion.

People lose their minds in the U.S. over this topic no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on. I'll be upfront with you, I am in the minority and say that I am a little bit of both. I am pro-woman and pro-child, but I do not believe in black and white when it comes to politics. I believe in grey.

But this isn't meant to be an expose on my personal belief system or how I navigate politics. This is meant to be an answer to the question: Is the Bible Pro-life?

Right off the bat, I hear people on the right saying, "Absolutely! God knit me together in my mother's womb!" and I hear the left saying, "It doesn't matter! I don't believe the Bible!"

I hear y'all and respect you. But, again, this isn't about your opinions/feelings/beliefs. It is about what is actually in the text of the Bible.

*And to those who say this doesn't matter I don't believe the Bible I would remind you that some very powerful people are using this same book to change the laws of the land.*

Moving on. So, looking right at the text of the Bible, can we determine if it is pro-life? The short answer is no. In fact, below we will explore some passages that I and many others believe contradict the claim that it is against abortion.

The first, which is referenced in the article's subheading, is Exodus 21:22-Let's look at that text:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Why would I and others say that this passage supports abortion? It doesn't. However, it does challenge the idea that life begins at the moment of conception (which is the bedrock of the pro-life argument). In other words, pro-life people often argue that the moment egg meets sperm, there is a fully formed human life that is equally entitled to all the rights and privileges of a fully formed human infant.

In other words, if you were to kill your 2-year-old, you'd be charged with some form of murder or manslaughter (depending upon intention). Therefore, if you kill the zygote, or the blend of egg and sperm that forms when the two meet, then you've killed a human, equal to killing a baby.

However, as you can see in this passage, God commands that if a woman is hit and she loses her baby, then the person who hit her and caused her to lose her child should simply pay a fine as determined by the husband. If "further mischief follows" (so the fetus has already passed away, therefore this must be referring to harm to the mother) then you shall take life for life.

Why not take life for life at the murder of the fetus? Why is there only a monetary fine if the mother loses her baby? But, if harm comes to the mother (i.e. she dies or is infertile) then you can take the assailant's life. This means the woman's life is valued at the level of a human, and the fetus is seen only as a lost investment.

If the fetus was deemed human the assailant would receive the standard Biblical punishment for killing a person, which is death. But, death isn't deemed appropriate unless further damage befalls the mother.

Moving on to Numbers chapter 5 verses 11-31. I won't share the whole text here because it is very long, but as a quick summary: if a man suspects his wife of infidelity, he can take her to the priest, make an offering, and the woman would be given a bitter drink. This bitter drink, according to the passage, would reveal her guilt or innocence depending upon the physical effects on her body.

Here's the relevant portion of that text, verses 26-28:

The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

This one's a little trickier because in this version (the NIV version of the Bible) it uses the more accurate translation of the Hebrew word Ye-re-kah, or ra-cha-mim which means "womb" but can also mean base or in some instances mercy. For example, in the KJV version, it translates this as her thigh, but it really isn't a good translation since this word really never means thigh, and it also would not make sense to drink something that makes your "belly bitter" and then suddenly your thighs melt.

So, most scholars agree, this passage is talking about a woman drinking a potion that causes her to miscarry the illegitimate child. If she wasn't guilty (and therefore, not pregnant) she would not miscarry.

Is the Bible really saying abortion is fine if there's infidelity (if the man says so, of course)? There really isn't any other way to read this passage. If you sin and conceive a baby illegitimately, then your husband can decide to abort it.

Which is interesting because many conservative states do not even want abortion in cases of rape.

These are the two major verses which to me, make the pro-life argument very weak. But there are some others as well.

For example, what about the utter annihilation of the Canaanites in Exodus and Judges? In these passages, the Israelites, under the orders and commandments of God, killed every single Canaanite, including the babies.

Or, the slaughter of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3 which states:

Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’

Why the children what did they do?

Ironically, it is very similar to how the pro-life people justify the slaughter of Palestinian children today. Yes, you must save every single baby that is conceived, but Palestinian children are tainted because they are likely to become terrorists.

Interesting. So, you're pragmatic about children who are already born (albeit, I do not agree with the argument) but not at all pragmatic about an unborn child?

I don't know the full reason for this leap of logic, but, I think I have an idea. Forcing someone in the US to have a baby has no effect on your life whatsoever. No matter if this baby is growing up homeless to a crack-addicted mother, it has no effect on you. You will never see this child, you will never pay for this child, and you will never care for this child. But you can feel good because you "saved" them.

But Palestinians make you feel unsafe. You don't like the idea that there are children who will grow up to become men and women (if they're lucky) who do not want you to exist. That affects you and that makes you feel unsafe. Therefore, bombing and killing thousands of them in mass killings is perfectly fine.

Because it affects you.

In closing, I want to just add a few notes. I am a Christian and have immense respect and faith in the scriptures. But I also know that, as Harper Lee put it, "the Bible in one man's hands is as dangerous as a gun in the hand of another."

The Bible does not tell us when life begins nor does it tell us when life ends. Think about it. If you were ever in the unfortunate position to have to pull the plug on a loved one, you would be deciding when they die. True, they are clinically brain dead, and most medical science says they are not able to bring them back at this point, but that is also true of a six-week-old embryo.

I also want to say that I think many pro-life people are thinking in terms of idealism. Idealism, although nice and necessary, can also be very dangerous. Idealists often say that they take a certain side of an argument because they think it is the best option. In an ideal world, this would be the case.

True, but here's the issue.

In an ideal world, we'd have an open border and people could just come and go however they wished. But, being pragmatic, we know this wouldn't work. We know we can't have everyone come through because there are concerns over national security, employment, etcetera, and so on. But, ideally, yes, all children would have a shot at life, people could move freely, have their meds on time, and so much more.

But, by doing so, we are hindering the creation of a better world in exchange for our belief in a perfect one.

Reach for heaven, but always keep your feet planted on the ground.