Part 2 - Abortion and the Sanctity of Life
In Part 1 of this two part series I discussed the conditions when the Bible expressly allows a human to take the life of another. We found that by Biblical standards the only time it is permissible to take another human life is in the case of self-defense. In part 2 we will discuss the issue of abortion and what the Bible says about this divisive issue.Does the Bible condone abortion?
Many have tried to use the text of Numbers 5:11-31 to say that God condones abortion. In the ritual described in this passage, the woman who is accused of infidelity is made to take and oath and drink "the water of bitterness".
Some translations (NIV 2011 edition and New Revised Standard Version) say that if she is guilty the woman will miscarry (effectively the drink causes an abortion). The vast majority of translations, however, do not use this language and looking at the interlinear text, it is difficult to see how it could be translated as "miscarry" (another of the many mistranslations in the NIV)1.
In fact, what this passage is taking about is a curse whereby the woman would become barren if she was guilty and would remain fertile if she was not. The interpretation of "miscarriage" would also presuppose that the illicit extra-marital affair resulted in a pregnancy, which is not a given.
Similarly, some have also used Exodus 21:22-25 to say the value of the fetus is less than that of a born child. The passage says this:
The text does not specifically state that the injury in question should be to the mother or to the prematurely born child, however, in the absence of such delineation, it is reasonable to assume it applies to both.22 “Now if people struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, but there is no injury, the guilty person shall certainly be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.(NASB)
Some try to interpret this verse as saying that if the baby is aborted and dies then it is only a fine, but if the woman dies then it is an "eye for an eye", etc. There is no justification for this interpretation.
Once again, the NIV has a footnote equating "gives birth prematurely" to "miscarries". And once gain, a look at the interlinear text shows no justification for interpreting this as a miscarriage or abortion, both of which imply the death of the child.
In fact, the only case in which a fine is levied is in the case that "there is no injury". It is easy to interpret this text to mean that if the child is born prematurely, but there is no injury to the child or the mother then a fine can be levied as agreed by the husband and the court, but if there is harm to the child or the mother, then the "eye for an eye" principle is applied. This interpretation puts the value of the child equal to the value of the mother and is the more reasonable one.
Since there are no other verses in the Bible which (even in poor translations) allude to intentionally causing a miscarriage or abortion, we can safely say that the Bible in no way condones abortion.
But does the Bible forbid abortion?
Some have said that since the Bible does not forbid abortion then it must be okay. This is a ridiculous argument. If this were true then the Bible would have to list all possible actions a human may take and specify if they are allowed or not. Such a volume would be impossible to pen. What does the Bible say about cyber crime? If it is not explicitly forbidden does that make it permissible? Of course not.
Therefore, just because the Bible does not say "Thou shalt not have an abortion" does not mean that it is a moral or acceptable practice. So absent a specific ban on the practice, how can we know where the Bible stands on the issue? We look to the more overarching issue of the sanctity of life.
What does the Bible say about the sanctity of life?
According to the Bible, individual humans (like all living creatures ) are created by and are a gift from God. He knows each of them individually and causes each individual to grow in their mothers' womb.
In Jeremiah 1:5, God says he knew the prophet before He formed him in the womb. His intimate knowledge of each individual begins before that person is even conceived.
David in Psalm 139:13-16 says that God knows every day of his life before he even has one.
This is a deeply personal God who cares deeply for his creation. According to 2 Peter 3:9, God wants every single person to become a believer and partake of his goodness.
Psalm 127:3-4 says that children are a gift of the Lord.
Is is not reasonable to infer from an honest reading of the Bible that God does not care about those whom he creates or is indifferent to the ending of a life which He created and is actively forming in the womb.
When is a fetus a life?
The verses above talk about God's love for each individual before they are even formed in the womb (conceived), which makes the discussion of when a fetus is "alive" moot. God knows about and loves each person before they are even conceived.
But since an abortion cannot be performed before conception, the earliest time at which the fetus exists is when the egg is fertilized, has implanted in the uterine wall, and begins to replicate. It is at this time that fetus is living human being. At this time the fetus has DNA which is separate from that of the mother and father making it a separate individual human (not just a part of the mother or a parasite) and thus subject to God's love as is evidenced throughout the Bible.
Some have argued that God does not imbue a person with a soul until the baby is born. It has been said that without a soul the fetus is no different than any other animal or plant which is considered "alive". This argument depends upon the doctrine that the soul is added to a human at some point at or after conception, but this is mere supposition and is not supported by any biblical text that I was able to find.
The doctrine of traducianism says that the soul of a newly conceived child comes from its parents just like their physical body. If this is the case, then the soul becomes a part of the child at conception.
Others have argued that the Old Testament says that "life is in the blood" and thus the fetus cannot be called "alive" until there is blood flow (about 21 days post-conception). Once again the NIV version is deceiving. Notice the difference in the NIV and the NASB below.
14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” (NIV)
14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ (NASB)
The text itself (in the NASB) explains that "its blood is identified with its life". This text gives additional detail on the previous statement that it's blood is it's life. This text eliminates the possibility that a fetus is not a human beloved by God until its blood is flowing because before it's blood flows it is not alive. This text clearly states (in reliable translations) that a life is "identified" with blood and is not synonymous with it.
Looking at the interlinear text, the verse literally says "for the life of all flesh the blood sustains its life" and not that the blood is its life. The word "nephesh" translated as "life" here implies "soulish" creatures.
The blood of a creature is not synonymous with its life, it merely sustains its life and therefore, any reasoning which says the fetus is not alive prior to blood flow is flawed.
As an aside, in most US states (if not all), if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with two murders, one for the mother and one for the unborn child. In those same states, however, that same unborn child can be legally killed by an abortionist at the will of the mother. The only difference is whether or not the mother wanted the child to be killed. There does not seem to be any debate as to whether the unborn child is alive and a separate human being unless the issue is abortion. This is an egregious double standard.
Can abortion be justified for any reason?
There are a few conditions which can occur during pregnancy where the growing fetus, if allowed to continue to develop, will invariably result in the death of the mother. A good example of this would be an ectopic pregnancy.
In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg implants somewhere outside the main uterus, often in the wall of a fallopian tube. The fallopian tube will not stretch with the growing fetus like the uterus does and once the fetus becomes a certain size the tube will rupture and the mother will bleed to death (if surgery cannot be provided soon enough). This is a true emergency which can cause the death of the mother in a matter of minutes and also results in the death of the fetus.
In this case, the previously discussed self-defense principle can be applied. If the baby is not aborted before it gets too large it will most certainly kill the mother and then the baby will also die. Removing the baby from the tube (which will result in its death) in defense of the life of the mother is preferable to both the baby and mother dying.
This makes protecting the life mother the only morally and biblically justifiable reason for intentionally aborting a baby.
-
The NIV version is a less literal translation directly from the original texts created to make the Bible easier to understand. In the course of trying to make it easier to understand, however, some passages are more or less paraphrased using verbiage which cannot be easily justified by the original text and makes those passages subject to the biases of the interpreter.
When the NIV was updated in 2011 many of the texts were made gender neutral which is in no way justified by the original texts and significantly alters the meaning of many verses.
For these reasons the NIV is an unreliable translation and should only be used in conjunction with other more literal versions where the authors did not take so many licenses with unjustified interpretations (such as the NASB or ESV).
No comments:
Post a Comment