Posted on 03/09/2023 6:59:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that the Constitution granted a fundamental right to abortion. That ruling effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states and ignited a 50-year culture war for the lives of unborn children.
In the decades following Roe, over 60 million children would be aborted. Pro-life advocates would challenge the merits of Roe in several subsequent cases, but each time the court upheld the fundamental right to abortion — until June 24, 2022. In an earth-shattering decision “heard around the world,” the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson, overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion back to the states.
The Dobbs decision was a day of great triumph and jubilation for those who fought for decades on behalf of unborn children. The constitutional battle for the unborn had finally been won, and the culture war had suddenly shifted. It was a Gettysburg moment. In spite of the incredible victory, however, it wasn’t long before the culture war shifted to state governments.
In the wake of Dobbs, Christians who had fought for decades to overturn Roe were now faced with new questions: Where do we go from here? What kind of pro-life policy should my state enact? Should there be exceptions for abortion? If so, which ones?
Christians need to consider these questions carefully in light of Scripture. Most evangelical Christians are pro-life, generally speaking. They know the Bible says something about abortion, but they may not know exactly what it says or how to articulate their pro-life position from a biblical worldview. In this article, we will consider a basic biblical case for the pro-life position and what it means for the battles ahead.
A biblical pro-life position
Before jumping into the biblical evidence, we should first consider a basic, logical argument (a syllogism) for the pro-life position. It goes like this:
Most Christians will not dispute 1., but they may doubt 2. and 3. if they are unsure what the Bible says about abortion. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate that 2. is true, and therefore, 3. is also true. In order to do so, we to prove that the Bible sees a continuity of identity between unborn and born states of being. In other words, we need to show that the Bible attributes equal dignity and characteristics to the born and unborn alike. If so, then the unborn are persons deserving of the same respect as other human beings, and therefore, abortion is immoral.
Now, let’s look at the biblical evidence.
God’s knowledge of the unborn implies a continuity of identity for each person between unborn and born states of being. For example, the unborn are known by God in the same way He knows the same person later in life (Jer. 1:5; Psalm 139:13; Job 31:15). Also, God has knowledge of the unborn even at the earliest stages of pre-natal development (Ps. 139:16). At times, the terms “birth” and “conception” are even used interchangeably for the same person (Job 3:3). Moreover, the Greek word brephos is used both for a child inside the womb and outside the womb (Lk. 1:41, 1:44-2:12, 16: 18:15; Acts 7:19; II Timothy 3:15).
In fact, the Bible consistently refers to the unborn as children (Gen. 25:22-23; Exod. 21:22; Judges 13:2-7; Isa. 49:1; Lk. 1:41, 44, 2:12, 16). For example, Jesus Christ is referred to as a child from the point of conception (Matt. 1:18; Lk. 1:35), and Mary and Elizabeth recognize Jesus as “Lord” at the earliest stages of development (Lk. 1:43). Did you catch that? The incarnation itself occurs before Jesus’ actual birth!
These instances, when considered together, indicate that the unborn are persons. They imply a continuity of identity between a person’s earliest moments as an unborn child and their later life as a living, breathing adult person.
Consider some additional evidence. The Hebrew word geber can refer to an unborn child, a small boy, or an adult (Ex. 10:10; Deut. 22:5; Judg. 5:30; Job 3:3), implying that the unborn are persons in the same sense that an adult man or a small boy are persons. The Bible also attributes sin nature to the unborn from the moment of conception (Ps. 51:5), and it attributes personal emotions to the unborn (Lk. 1:41, 44). In a negative sense, the punishment for injuring or killing an unborn child was the same as killing an adult human being under the Mosaic Law (Ex. 21:22-23). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Bible considers the unborn as persons deserving of equal dignity and treatment as other human beings.
Why the moment of conception? Three basic reasons
Someone might ask why the moment of conception, and not some other stage of development, is the point when Christians should consider the unborn as persons. Perhaps the Bible simply values the unborn as persons but doesn’t specify when (precisely) they become persons. Other articles answer this question in greater detail, but there are three basic reasons to consider the moment of conception as the biblical position.
First, conception is the only time a radical break occurs and a new, biologically distinct entity comes into existence — the sperm and egg fuse to become a zygote. Second, the SLED Test. There are no essential biological differences between an embryo and an adult. The only differences are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (SLED). Third, from the moment of conception, the zygote possesses a human nature. It does not become a human being; it already is a human being and is developing in accordance with its nature. With time, it grows and develops into and through the different stages of human personhood, from zygote to fetus to infant to toddler to teen to adult.
For these reasons, attributing personhood to the unborn from the moment of conception is the most biblical and logically consistent position. Certainly, many policy decisions still need to be made in many states with respect to the limits of abortion and any exceptions for extreme cases (i.e., ectopic pregnancies, life-threatening diseases, etc.), but Christians advocating for pro-life policies should certainly take this evidence into account.
The Bible does not answer every legal question on abortion, but it does give us the basic moral foundation for treating the unborn with the same dignity and respect as other persons. Armed with this basic moral foundation, Christians can advance the pro-life cause in the public square with confidence that their fight for the unborn is both virtuous and worthwhile. For if God cares about the unborn, so should we.
Originally published at the Standing for Freedom Center.
Dr. Tim Yonts is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Liberty University where he teaches courses in ethics, theology, apologetics, and worldview. He holds a Master of Divinity from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. in Theological Studies: Christian Ethics from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. His specialties include metaethics, political theology, economics, natural law, worldview, and cultural engagement. His interests include social justice, critical race theory, natural rights theory, and the intersection of Christianity with emerging technologies, particularly the role that blockchain, cryptocurrency, and decentralization can play in the preservation of political, religious, and economic freedom.
While earning his M.Div and Ph.D., he also served as a Chaplain Assistant for the U.S. Army National Guard. He is currently a writer and contributor for various outlets, including the Center for Apologetics & Cultural Engagement and the Standing for Freedom Center.
Pro-life bump!
The left, and even many conservatives, misunderstand the implications of Dobbs. Dobbs didn’t “take away” or “change” the right to abortion. It said that Roe was INCORRECTLY DECIDED, that abortion was NEVER A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH. If we were a sane society, all the instances of abortion since Roe would be dealt with as a criminal case according to individual state laws.
To pro-abortion folks, the Scriptures are gibberish.
You don’t need religion to inherently realize that the wholesale, willful killing of pre born human life is a barbaric, cruel, cultural disaster of the first order. It has weakened society and has created lifelong misery for many. BTW if you are a woman who has had an abortion and has other children, don’t be so quick to share this fact with your kids. Your children will never look at you quite the same and will view you as someone who killed a sibling.
Psalm 127
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
That settles the matter.
Fear wicked meddling involving
Jehovah’s inheritance.
How is it Jewish tradition assigns personhood at birth and is more tolerant of abortion? I have been perplexed by this ever since Michael Medved talked about it on his radio show years ago.
I’ve been saying that right along....The right to kill a baby in the womb...can never be a right. If the killing of a defenseless human being is murder...than the killing of a human being in the womb is murder. There is absolutely no other logical conclusion.
Especially when a person who harms a pregnant woman, who then loses her fetus, (at any stage i beleive?), is charged with murder.
If it is murder to harm a woman’s unborn (and well it should be called murder), then it is also under for the pregnant woman to take the life of her fetus.
Probably because some Jews don’t read Genesis, Jacob was a Child in the womb of his mother.
Their entire identity as a nation hinges on the truth that Children were acknowledged in the womb. (Gen 25:22) Jacob and his brother were called “Banim,” literally sons, or young Children.
Don’t know what so called scholars make of this.
Rabbinic Judaism and the Talmud vs looking at Torah or Tanakh alone. The same conflict Jesus of Nazareth pointed out to the Rabbis, which was a threat to their power.
The Commandment “Thou shalt not murder” also has a pro-life depth to it. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the man would not be guilty of murder for ignoring the robbed and badly injured man he encountered. He did not cause this. But he knew God wanted more than indifference, He wanted efforts to save life.
“If we were a sane society, all the instances of abortion since Roe would be dealt with as a criminal case according to individual state laws.”
So you think a “sane society” allows ex post facto laws?
If pro-life groups do not advocate, support, and demand Nuremburg-style trials and convictions for the tens of thousands of pro-abortion political, judicial, military, and business leaders in our nation who have supported, funded, and conducted the 60+ million abortions in the U.S., they contradict their own claim to being opposed to murder-by-abortion, and reduce their pro-life preference to the equivalent choice of which matching color of socks to put on.
If abortion is wrong, and it is, because it is genocidal murder, a crime against humanity and treason, rather than simply wearing the wrong color of socks, then a pro-life advocate's position must truly be a recognition, demand, and a decision for justice.
Sure, when the "law" was nothing more than a faulty court decision. Anyway, the left does this ALL the time, so fair's fair.
How often is white America demonized and effectively prosecuted for "crimes" committed by the universal LEGAL presence of slavery in the past? Even in the faulty marriage court decisions, the left acts as if faggots were ALWAYS married prior to Obergefell.
“Anyway, the left does this ALL the time, so fair’s fair. “
Ok, cite one example then.
“How often is white America demonized and effectively prosecuted for “crimes” committed by the universal LEGAL presence of slavery in the past?”
“White America” is not an individual and only individuals can be prosecuted for crimes, so the answer to that question is: never.
G-d gave the Jewish Nation the Torah, which has laws regulating everything, including abortion. In Judaism, if an unborn baby threatens the mother's life, then he may be killed to save the woman, just as a man pursuing another man to murder him may be killed.
Once there was a case where a woman carried twins, except one was disabled and could not have lived, and also endangered the other baby. A prominent rabbi asked if both babies were born would they both die? The doctors said yes. If one baby were removed would the other be born healthy? The doctors said yes. So the rabbi ruled that the baby that could not have possibly have lived on its on and also endangered his brother should be aborted, saving a life that would otherwise have been lost.
Still, legitimate reasons for abortion are very few and far between. Even hundreds of years ago a rabbi said that such a case was so rare as to be practically non-existent. But the whole point is that these cases are regulated and decided according to Divine Law, not logical syllogisms or Greek or humanistic philosophy. You can't be more moral than G-d. It's the liberals who think G-d is a "big meanie."
Incidentally, the laws for Noahides (non-Jews) are actually much stricter than for Jews. For Jews the baby may not be aborted no matter what at a certain point during the birthing process, even if it means the mother will die. For non-Jews, the cut off point is some time around the first trimester, meaning that from that point on the baby may not be aborted, even if it means the mother will die.
While the Catholic position on abortion is now the "official" position of all conservatives on the issue, this was not always the case. There was a time not too long ago when Protestants always warned one another to never let your wife have a baby at a Catholic hospital, because if it came down to a choice between the two lives the doctors there would save the baby and let the mother die.
Ectopic pregnancies have never been considered an abortion.
It is a life threatening medical emergency and by the time the woman is aware she has one, the fallopian tube ruptures, the baby is already dead.
And yes, I do know of one woman who was prone to them and on her third pregnancy recognized the symptoms and the couple headed off to the hospital. So in rare cases like that, the surgery may proceed the death of the baby, but maybe not even in that case. I have no idea how soon before the tube ruptures that the baby just may die anyways due to lack of room.
Very few medical conditions also justify the killing of a baby to save the mother’s life either. The later in the pregnancy it happens, the more viable the baby is and the baby can be safely treated for a preterm birth, delivered by c- Section, and be put in NICU. The baby does not need to be killed in order to save the mom’s life.
The pro-life movement sacrifices its own credibility when it fails to insist on legislation that protects preborn babies from conception forward.
Jewish folks are human. This is how I interpret the Old Testament. They show a good cross section of the human race and excel in arts, science and medicine. So whatever human faults and talents we see in society, we see in the Jews.
In their distant past, as it is stated in the Bible, the Jews continually went to Baal, etc., which required child sacrifice. It only stands to reason they would probably, in the same proportion as 3K years ago, opt for child sacrifice.
A lot of good folks, but alas, a lot of left voting Marxists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.