The Bible on Abortion

I'm posting this here in response to a request in the intercession/prayer forum, because it's not really an item for prayer.The question is essentially: Does the Bible say Abortion should be outlawed?The (or, at least, my) two premises for saying "yes" are:1. The Bible teaches murder should be outlawed.2. It can be shown from the Bible that abortion is murder.The conclusion, if those two premises are accepted, is obvious. The first premise probably does not need support, but here's a few:Exodus 20:13 (NASB)You shall not murder.Numbers 35:17 (NASB)If he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he will die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death. Matthew 5:21 (NASB)"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' Good enough?Now, the point where some disagree is, "Does the Bible teach that abortion is murder?" I believe this breaks down to two points as well:1. Murder is the unjust (i.e. apart from capital punishment) taking of a man or woman's life.2. A fetus is a human.Again, the first part isn't a matter of much debate (that I know of, except perhaps for the capital punishment clause, which is nonessential to this issue), nonetheless:Genesis 9:6 (NASB)"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. The phrase I'm locked in on here is "in the image of God." Now, is the fetus human?Job 31:15 (KJ21)Did not He that made me in the womb make him? And did not One fashion us in the womb?Psalm 229 But Thou art He that took Me out of the womb; Thou didst make Me hope when I was upon My mother's breasts.10 I was cast upon Thee from the womb; Thou art My God from My mother's belly.Psalm 13913 For Thou hast possessed my reins. Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.14 I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well.15 My substance was not hid from Thee when I was made in secret, and intricately wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuity were fashioned, when as yet there were none of them.Isaiah 442 Thus saith the LORD that made thee and formed thee from the womb, who will help thee: Fear not, O Jacob, My servant, and thou, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.Isaiah 463 "Hearken unto Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, who are borne by Me from the belly, who are carried from the womb:4 And even to your old age I am He, and even to hoary hairs will I carry you. I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.Isaiah 495 "And now saith the LORD that formed Me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob again to Him, though Israel be not gathered--yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and My God shall be My strength"Jeremiah 14 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."Luke 141 And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.42 And she spoke out with a loud voice and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.43 And why is it granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?44 For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.That last one, in particular (in my thinking), establishes the humanity of the fetus: John actually felt joy in his mother's womb, and reacted.Also, if the fetus isn't a human, when does one become human? Is the baby that's been outside the womb 5 minutes really fundamentally different than 10 minutes earlier? an hour earlier? a day earlier? a month earlier? Or is it not murder to kill a newborn or infant? When does this "personhood" thing come down upon the organism? What basis do we have for determining the timing of that? Is that basis strong enough to base this kind of decision, binding upon the whole society, on?Anyway, I'm about done, just a couple passages we might benefit from reading again:Psalm 823 Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy.4 Deliver the poor and needy; rescue them out of the hand of the wicked.Proverbs 2411 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain--12 if thou sayest, "Behold, we knew it not"--doth not He that pondereth the heart consider it? And He that keepeth thy soul, doth He not know it? And shall not He render to every man according to his works?

Hi Keith,The New Testament goes to great lengths to demonstrate the position of Christ concerning children. He said to "suffer them to come unto Him for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Moreover He said it would be better that a millstone were hanged about the neck of one who would offend the 'least of these' His brethren. The word that comes into the limelight is the greek ASTORGOS- that is, a lack of natural familial love. We get our word or concept of the stork bringing the baby hanging from its bill from storgos and it is one of the Greek words used in the New Testament for love (agape, phileo, etc.). It is only used in the negative sense; A,-storgos. A-STORGOS is "To be without natural affection." It is to lack the love that a parent would have for their siblings. Storgos is the love which the animal has for its offspring naturally or instinctively. It is a natural love, God imparted, and programmed as a feeling of natural obligation, that must be seared like the conscience to be ignored. It is not learned or cultivated, you are born with it. It is natural to man and animal alike. This is why scripture tells us that if anyone does not provide for their own they have denied the faith and are WORSE than an infidel. Why? Because even animals have enough sense to provide as much as in them is for protection and the preservation of their offspring. This is why you don't attack a mothers cubs.ASTORGOS:without natural affection, unsociable (Rom 1:31 marg.), inhuman (2Ti. 3:3 RSV), unloving (2Ti. 3:3 NKJV)It is only used in the negative and the passages are:Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful (Romans 1:31)Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good (II Tomothy 3:3) ABORTION is the apex of the truth of this passage. No greater absence of familial love can be imagined than this. It is essentially sacrifical worship to the god of Molech and is a grevious sin as was that of the people who would pass their children through the fire. In reality it is the worship of Baal, Asteroth, and Molech. Baal (bacause the children are an expense to raise), asteroth (because they sought forbidden experience and now want to cover it up), and Molech (because having too many children is frowned upon in our day and hinders a persons social ascendancy). Could it be that Christians at large could be given over to their lusts until they are without natural effection? Have they been given over to do those things which are not convenient? The better question would be will not God hold us accountable for not doing everything we possibly could within a biblical framework to put an end to to this bloodshed? I was in prison Christ said and you visited me not- I was hungry and you gave me no food! Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the widows. Does God not hate hands that shed innocent blood? To miss the wickedness of abortion is to read the bible utterly blinded by the devil. There is no excuse in Heaven or Earth that can justify defending these atrocites. Does not the blood of these babies cry unto God from the ground! Is not God calling AMERICA WHAT HAST THOU DONE!?God Bless,-Robert

Brother Keith,i was just thinking about the subject of abortion the other day when i heard that in America we've killed an estimated 45,000,000 unborn human beings ... i don't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot possibly see that a fetus, no let me take it even further that that, that that first phase microscopic union of sperm and egg, is in fact human life ... If any one of us now alive today, had of had that initial union aborted at anytime prior to our actual birth, we would not be here ... To me that's something to really think about ... Had anything death dealing happened to me at any time in my dear mothers womb, there would be no me, as i've come to know me ... Same thing with any one of us ...Exod.21[22] 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. [23] And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, [24] Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This to me is the closest, if not the only scripture, that i can cleary base my belief that it is "wrong" to cause the death of a child, even while he/she is being formed in his/her mothers womb ... God's Word required recompense if fighting men caused the "accidental" premature birth of a child that lived, and actual death to the fighting offenders, even tho accidental, if that fetus/child died ... It seems to me that in the instance of causing a fetuses death, by men embroiled in the anger of battling one another, the one, or ones, that actually struck the pregnant woman, was in forfeit of their own lives ... But i do believe, tho i'm not sure, that such a person, or persons, if the causing of the abortion of a fetus was in the same accidental modes of manslaughter prescribed in the book of Numbers, which i've listed below, then the the culprits may have been candidates for fleeing to the cities of refuge, and waiting on the death of the high priest before coming out again, because that dead fetuses/childs father/relatives could by right kill such a person or persons, even tho the fetuses/childs death was accidental ... Num.35[11] Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares.[12] And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment.[13] And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge.[14] Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.[15] These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither.[16] And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.[17] And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.[18] Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.[19] The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.[20] But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;[21] Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.[22] But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,[23] Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:[24] Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:[25] And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.[26] But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled;[27] And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:[28] Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.[29] So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.All this to say, that whether i'm wrong or not about the eligibilty of refuge in the cities of refuge for one accidentally causing death in the aborting of a fetus, there is clearly (to me) no refuge at all for anyone who would willingly cause the death of an unborn innocent, as God Himself seems to equate it with the same importance as actual murder.If my understanding on this subject of abortion, via these scriptures is wrong, then i look forward to anyones input to my correction.

'... i don't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot possibly see that a fetus, no let me take it even further that that, that that first phase microscopic union of sperm and egg, is in fact human life ...'If you do not understand how anyone cannot see this truth you hold, then how will you explain that truth to them?

i don't for the life of me understand how anyone cannot possibly see that a fetus, no let me take it even further that that, that that first phase microscopic union of sperm and egg, is in fact human lifeHi Rahman,To prove your point we can assure ourselves that if modern science were able to artifically duplicate this reality they would quickly proclaim that they had in fact created 'life.' It would make headlines. This type of hypocrisy, which so dominates modern science, is regularly exposed. For example, the SETI program listens for structured or patterned signals from outer space; yet when they turn the telescope backwards and see the structured messages withing the DNA of cells and the ultra complex patterns of information and communications between components they refuse to admit that that information and communication is the result of intelligent design. Romans tells us that these things they are willingly ignorant of. They may not call a baby life if God created it- but I guarantee you they would had Science created it. God Bless,-Robert

mloaks you posted;Quote;"If you do not understand how anyone cannot see this truth you hold, then how will you explain that truth to them"?Sighhhhh ....Are you serious? ...Is this a trick question? ...i apologize if you're actually serious, because what i stated was just one of those phrases that one says out of exasperation, when the truth of what is trying to be explained is just so obvious ... Of course i know that they're either blinded by satan, or self delusional for their own selfish reasons ... Next time i'll try to be more careful, and keep my humanness out of it ... Ok? ... God bless ... Hey brother Robert! ... God bless!

Yeah, I'm serious...We who cherish life as only God could create it do not have an answer for many seekers we are expected to witness to, who want serious scriptural explanation of the reality that life begins at the very point that fertization happens, much less 1st trimester, one month, one week, or whatever. We beleivers know we were knitted in our mother's womb per Psalms, etc. And a seeker might discern that the 'knitting' process itself is of God.But with the abortion rates we site and mourn over, evidence exists that we are not pointing the way to the answers so many want lead to! And to say they are not hearing, or only hearing and not acting, is a cop out.Is this a trick question? Why can we not use scripture to evangelize and/or minister to those who have legitimate questions regarding when life starts? Paul used athletics, armament, medicine, and science to strengthen his epistles through the Holy Spirit. Why don't we use scripture to tell the world that the sex that leads to unwanted babies just is not as fun and glamorous as the world tells them? We need to be more like Paul when he revived the young man who fell out of the window during a long sermon. God wants all to come to repentance, and our job is to proclaim that commission proactively, as Paul did to the Corinthians.I do not have the answers, but my questions are legitimate. If we are the bride of Christ, lets be lovely like a bride for the unwashed world to behold.

mloaks you posted;Quote;"I do not have the answers, but my questions are legitimate".Oh, ok, because i sure was about to ask you to lay some more answers on me that i could add to my arsenal when talking on the subject of abortion ... But as it stands, what i've previously posted to brother Keith is the basis of my argument about the sanctity of human life, even in the womb ...God bless

Yeah, I'm serious...You have to scale the language barrier and realize that scientific terms for things works in the unbelievers favor. A child is called ‘fetus’ when it is not wanted. I have 6 children and I never heard an OB doctor ever ask my wife has she felt the ‘fetus’ move. Pregnant is an easy term to describe ‘to be with child.’ The language used by pro-aborts dumbs down the conscience by the use of dead, technical, terms (words). This is true with all sin. "Behold, a virgin shall be with childWith Child of the Holy GhostI am with child… (Bathsheeba)II Samuel 11:5And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, "I am with child.Hebrew word HRH (harah or haw-raw)To be pregnant; to be with child. Over and over you have the statement, “And she conceived and bare (a child).” She conceived a child and she bore a child, and it was a child all along.Debate with Atheists and AgnosticsTo argue from the vantage point of a Christian to an unbeliever is a different matter all together. For one, if a person does not believe in God and takes a secular scientific approach to life, they believe that people do NOT have a soul or spirit. So you cannot argue that the soul enters at birth, etc. from the Bible. Many people will also say they ‘believe’ the Bible, but they are not even familiar with the Bible. They are naturalists and will only acknowledge scientifically verifiable facts that fit their own personal paradigm. They know life begins at conception because the secular definition of life is one that recognizes growth, response to stimuli, metabolism, etc. and an unborn child fits that definition all day long. Moreover, the child is either ‘alive’ in the womb or ‘dead’ in the womb. We cannot say it is ‘alive’ and then say that the life wherein it possesses vitality is somehow some other type of life than we generally acknowledge as life. If it is alive it has life- if the child is dead it has not life. TERMINATION is a term that is used to define death in the English language. To terminate something is to remove the vitality or the LIFE. How can you remove life if there is no life? How can you terminate a pregnancy if there is no life to terminate?To shed light on these issues with a person bent on walking in darkness is to open yourself up to a violent reaction. People know when they are wrong and they want you to play along with them. They love the darkness because their deeds are evil. NO ONE will ever convince a sinner that abortion is wrong because that is the job of the Holy Spirit (John 15). To admit that abortion is murder is to come into agreement with God. The person’s conscience knows it is wrong, but the impenitent heart is in opposition to God and will not agree. Therefor that sinner is already at WAR with them self- i.e. what their consciences knows as true the heart hates and what the heart loves the conscience condemns. They cannot reconcile themselves. They are split between conflicting opinions within themselves and the sinful heart will side with the worlds view. If you were to tell a pro-abort that abortion was NOT a sin you would not do them a favor because their conscience would then not only condemn the act of abortion- it would also condemn you for legitimizing it. Speak the truth and their conscience will always be on your side. The great evidence of this is in the reaction.

Brother Robert you wrote;Quote;" A child is called ‘fetus’ when it is not wanted. I have 6 children and I never heard an OB doctor ever ask my wife has she felt the ‘fetus’ move. Pregnant is an easy term to describe ‘to be with child.’ The language used by pro-aborts dumbs down the conscience by the use of dead, technical, terms (words). This is true with all sin"Man, this is good stuff!!! ... That's why i try never to call an unborn child "it" ... It's the same feeling i get when i hear a saint refer to the Holy Spirit as "it" ... That term "it" depersonalizes ...i've cut and pasted your post into my gleanings from SI ...Bless you brother, in Jesus name ... Amen

Hi Rahman & mloaks,I can't take credit for those remarks (though Rahman I appreciate your encouragement). They are borrowed from who knows who. I recall hearing a minister say once, "Thank God for the person who got it from someone else." :-)I feel a bit better about this conversation than I did. Abortion is a topic that runs deep into my soul. Sometimes it takes getting to know where someone is coming from and whether they are sincere. It just takes some time.God Bless,-Robert

Thank you three for your contributions.Re: language barrier : You're absolutely right, Brother Robert, even using the "sanitized" terms seemed odd to me at the time, thank you for the reminder.Re: how do we convince unbelievers that abortion is wrong? : If they'll accept the premise that the Bible is true, we've already been through a few arguments that will work (or are they inadequate?). If they won't accept a Biblical argument, then on what basis can they be convinced of any moral truth at all? By what standard do they condemn murder (if they do)? If they have such a standard, can they justify obligating others to obey it? This is more or less what I was getting at when I asked about how one might establish when, if not at conception, the baby is truly a "person" in the sense that killing him/her is "murder" (which is almost certainly condemned under their standard, even if they have no basis for that standard or cannot even articulate it). This "personhood," or lack thereof, is not observable or provable in any "scientific" way (the standard to which many appeal), so if they choose to believe that such "personhood" descends upon the baby at some time during the process, they can live by that belief if they wish, but what evidence do they have with which to convince everyone else, whom they would also have live consistently with that belief?If that argument sounds familiar, it might be from pro-aborts saying something to the effect of "if you want to believe that abortion is murder because of some non-observable/provable theological/moral proposition, then you are entitled to your own beliefs, but don't force them on us."Both we and they (the vast majority of them, anyhow) have these kinds of "religious" convictions, but they have a much harder time showing why they might be binding on others or even being honest enough to admit that their "religion" exists (even to themselves). To paraphrase what Bro. Robert said the other guy said, thank God for pointing out these logical flaws in almost all non-Biblical positions, and spreading the word through servants of His like Cornelius Van Til and Dr. Greg Bahnsen. That's my way of saying that I didn't come up with any of this, it's just presuppositional apologetics.To recap my answer (or attempted answer) :If they don't accept the Bible (or other very similar system, pretty much only Judaism will do, as Islam holds that Allah can abrogate or change any truth, even to the point of making 2+2=14, a square circle, or making murder no longer a sin), they have no logical grounds for believing abortion is wrong. In fact, they have no logical grounds for believing murder is wrong, or any other moral proposition. Many of them do believe murder is wrong, but they cannot justify that belief, they're simply being inconsistent. Don't be surprised if they resort (not necessarily intentionally, but all the same) to all other kinds of logical and hermeneutical gymnastics to justify abortion, including the very same modes of argument that they condemn elsewhere.