145 Sermon Illustrations on Abortion

Does abortion reduce the crime rate?

That’s the question Americans have been asking this week as we’ve read news reports of a new study linking the drop in youth crime to the legalization of abortion a generation ago.

Pro-life groups immediately attacked the study as badly flawed. But the real question is not whether the study is true. The question is, do we attack the roots of crime — or do we attack unborn babies?

The study is called “Legalized Abortion and Crime,” and it was authored by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and Stanford law professor John Donohue. The study notes, for example, that in the five states that legalized abortion ahead of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, crime started falling slightly earlier than in other parts of the country. And the study found that states that had especially high rates of abortion in the first years after Roe tended to experience especially large recent declines in crime, even when other factors were considered.

The authors attribute this drop in crime to the fact that in the years after abortion was legalized, the majority of women seeking abortions were poor, young, unmarried, and minority.

Well, Christians shouldn’t be surprised that a drop in the number of children born to single and underclass women might reduce crime. We know that a high proportion of the young men who commit the most serious crimes are born to the kind of mothers Donohue and Levitt said were having abortions in the 1970s.

The question is, what do we do with this information?

Well, first, we ought to be aware of how studies like these can lead to unspeakable evil.

For example, in the 1920’s, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger called for the elimination through sterilization of what she called “inferior races” and “morons, misfits, and the maladjusted.” Sanger blamed them for most of the crime in society.

Hitler’s death camps for “inferior races” revealed where eugenics leads. Yet today eugenics is returning in new forms. For example, when testing reveals a Down’s syndrome baby, doctors often pressure parents to abort. Not surprisingly, 8 out of 10 do. In one study, a third of the mothers said they felt “more or less forced” to abort.

And now, subtly and quietly, this study tries to plant in the public mind the idea that abortion is a social good — that it stops future crime. It’s the Third Reich all over again.

Well, we ought to be reminding folks of the great forgotten story of Planned Parenthood: that it was started for the horrendous purpose of getting rid of the “unfit” and producing a better class of people. The abortion lobby does not want to admit this — and that’s why it’s been so quiet about this study. But you and I should press the point home.

As Christians, we need to demonstrate that there’s a much better way to combat social ills than imitating Adolf Hitler. Instead of building abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods, as Planned Parenthood does, we ought to intervene in the lives of desperate women and their children. We should support programs like Angel Tree, which brings the love of Christ to the crime-prone children of prisoners. We ought to support Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and imitate people like the Reverend Eugene Rivers in Boston and criminologist John DiIulio in Philadelphia, who are leading efforts to help at-risk kids finish high school and find jobs.

In the process, we’ll demonstrate that the answer to crime is not killing more babies, but bringing the love of Christ to those in need.

“I think abortion is killing a life. [But] the person who is pregnant should decide whether to do it or not.”

Those are the words of Estrella Flores, an immigrant from Ecuador, who attended the so-called “March for Women's Lives,” held here in Washington, D.C., this past Sunday. Ms. Flores and thirty-four other immigrants from her Brooklyn neighborhood were bused to the march by the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, one of the march organizers. They were among the reported 500,000 who marched in the pro-choice rally. I've been in Washington since the civil-rights marches of the sixties, and from my office in the White House, I have watched the anti-Vietnam protestors. There's one thing I have learned that's true of almost all of these demonstrations: People don't come. They are brought.

Last weekend's group understood this very well. They brought many protestors by downplaying the issue that the march was supposed to be about. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, “A selling point for Latinos was the idea that they would march, not just for abortion rights, but for a range of issues that affect immigrant women, including the need for better prenatal health care, medical insurance, and access to birth control. ... 'They're not going to come to an abortion rally, but they are going to come to a rally that's about taking control of your life,' said Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez, president of the Hispanic Federation.” And T-shirts read in Spanish: “Health. Dignity. Justice.”

Now, with this kind of advertising, it sounds like the ranks of the marchers were more heavily padded than the organizers would like to admit. But let's think about what “taking control of your life” actually means in this context. It brings us back to Estrella Flores's ideas about abortion: that it's wrong — in fact, that it's “killing” — but that people should be able to do it anyway, because it's their life to control.

Ms. Flores's attitude is deeply troubling, especially when you realize how widespread it is. Over and over again, people at the march made similar comments — the kind of comments that make your hair stand on end. The political debate is changing among activists on the ground. They're now willing to admit that abortion is killing. But they're arguing that their right to do what they want, without restraint, justifies that killing.

What we are seeing, of course, is the logical consequences of the desire for personal autonomy in an era of moral relativism. People can say with a perfectly straight face and without a twinge of conscience, “Yeah, it is wrong. It is murder. But nobody is going to tell me I can't do it.”

If this is really the position that the pro-abortion movement is taking, then we're in a heap of trouble. If my neighbor thinks to himself, “I know stealing is wrong, but I don't want anybody to tell me I can't do it,” I'm going to start putting extra padlocks on my house and bars on my windows. If somebody says, “I know pedophilia is a bad thing, but I have the right to do what I want with my own body,” I am going to start keeping my grandkids locked in the house when they come to visit.

The “don't tell me what to do” mentality will unravel the very fabric of our society. If people actually believe that their autonomy is so important that it gives them the right to kill the innocent, then none of us is safe. I wonder how many of those folks getting bused to Washington ever thought of that.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• “'Keep Your Laws Off My Body!’ Screamed Left-Wing Celebrities,” CyberAlert, Media Research Center, 27 April 2004.

• Andrea Elliott, “Against Abortion but in Favor of Choice,” New York Times, 26 April 2004. (Free registration required.)

• Pia de Solenni, “Sounds of Silence,” National Review Online, 29 April 2004.

• Erin Montgomery, “'Abort Bush',” Weekly Standard, 27 April 2004.

• Kathryn Jean Lopez, “We're F*****' Feminists!“ National Review Online, 26 April 2004. See also this article.

• Kathleen Parker, “Abortion march is ugly spectacle,” Townhall.com, 28 April 2004.

• Suzanne Fields, “Where women can't march,” Townhall.com, 29 April 2004.

• Lynn Vincent, “The end is near,” World, 1 May 2004.

• See also the “Worldview for Parents” pages “Big Business“ and “What's the Big Deal about Abortion?“

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040419, “Building Better Babies.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040420, “Spin Control.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 040421, “Irreplaceable.”

• William Saletan, “Face the Fetus,” Slate, 29 March 2004.

• Peter Kreeft, Three Approaches to Abortion (Ignatius, 2002).

__________

Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of KeruxID #13630]

The picture could not have been more poignant. The surgeon was poised over the woman on the operating table as he performed in utero surgery. His patient, the 21-week-old baby in her womb, however, was not visible on camera. Well, not until the baby reached out his perfect little hand and grasped the finger of the doctor standing over him. For a brief moment, captured on film for the world to see, that unborn baby, little Samuel Armas, asserted his humanity in a way no one could deny.

Pictures like this, and the medical advances they herald, shatter the very foundation established to legalize the horror of abortion. That’s why, as we mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade today, I am increasingly confident that Roe’s days are numbered.

Dr. Joseph Bruner and his colleagues at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center are pioneers of a surgical technique to treat spina bifida. “Pioneers” because their patients, like little Samuel, have not yet been born — many are even too young to live outside their mothers’ wombs.

Samuel, the baby in the photograph, was born healthy and active five weeks after his operation. Today, instead of looking forward to life as a paraplegic, he enjoys the prospect of running and playing like other kids.

These medical advances are not only miraculous, they may be the most powerful tool in the fight against abortion. You see, fetal surgery draws inescapable attention to the patients — unborn children. And that’s precisely what abortion advocates have long dreaded.

In 1983, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed that Roe was “on a collision course with itself.” Roe v. Wade, you see, grounded the right to abortion in the fact that the Court could not answer the question: When does life begin? But thanks to new scientific developments, that issue is no longer in doubt.

Technology has shown viability in increasingly younger unborn children. And not only can we detect brain waves at 5 weeks, before almost all abortions occur, we can detect and even repair birth defects.

And our laws are starting to reflect the emerging consensus that the unborn child is most certainly alive and human: convictions for child abuse of unborn babies have been upheld; new labor standards require working conditions that protect unborn children; and criminal penalties for those who injure an unborn child are becoming more frequent.

Now the pro-abortionists may attempt to find refuge in the doctrine of stare decisis, an expression of the common law tradition binding the Court to existing case law. They used this in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision in which the Court said that it could not upset 20 years of settled case law. After all, people depend upon it, they said.

Well, that was the rationale used to perpetuate slavery. Stare decisis is important, but it isn’t sacred. New evidence and circumstances can clearly justify overturning prior decisions.

And that’s why we have great cause for hope on this 27th anniversary of that abominable decision. Abortions are in decline because people are seeing abortion for what it really is. If the justices on the Court confront this evidence honestly, they too will have to recognize the life in the womb and admit that Roe must be overturned.

And if the justices are just willing to open their eyes, we have a wonderful picture to show them.

A Nebraska law banning the murder of partially delivered infants was struck down yesterday by the Supreme Court.

It’s a classic example of judicial overreach. The Court refused to allow any impediment to the taking of innocent human life when a woman’s right to abortion is at stake. This means that the gruesome procedure of partial-birth abortion, at least under the Nebraska circumstances, cannot at this time be stopped.

By overruling the position taken by the legislature — that is, the people of the State of Nebraska — the court has once again said it knows better than the people, that it alone will say what the law is.

This horrendous procedure, also known as “dilation and extraction,” allows the abortionist to reach into a mother’s womb, grasp her baby’s feet, and deliver him — except his head. He then punctures a hole in the baby’s head, vacuums out his brains, crushing the skull, and delivers the dead child.

This procedure is so repugnant that some nurses, like Brenda Pratt Shafer, who assisted with the procedure, have left the medical profession altogether. Sickened by what they saw, they vowed never again to take part in such an act — and mind you, nurses are often among the strongest pro-choice advocates.

But even without witnessing the act itself, more than sixty percent of the American people believe partial-birth abortions ought to be outlawed. Thirty states have passed bans to do so. Partial-birth abortion is the kind of horror it shouldn’t take a law to stop; but the fact that this court would overturn Nebraska’s ban is chilling.

But even so, there’s still hope, and Christians must not give up the fight to defend the most defenseless members of our society.

In the first place, abortion advocates picked one of the weakest and most ambiguous cases to appeal to the Court. This decision was based on a law that was badly written. Nebraska’s lawmakers DID open themselves up to the charge of trying to stop all abortions. This gave our opponents their best opening.

And the fact that the Court decided that killing nearly born infants is constitutional may yet move some who have been ambivalent about abortion to see this horrific practice for what it is. It is an educational opportunity. Every time this issue is publicized, more and more people realize that partial-birth abortion kills an innocent child at the moment of delivery.

And the further good news within yesterday’s bad news is that the Court was narrowly divided over this issue, as indicated by its 5 to 4 ruling. I had, I confess, expected it to be 6 to 3. So, we are just one vote away from changing the balance of the Court — and this in turn will affect the outcome of future abortion rulings.

But the Nebraska case wasn’t the only close call handed down by the Court yesterday. There was another close vote, in the Dale case, in which the Boy Scouts were resisting a New Jersey court ruling forcing them to accept homosexual scoutmasters. By 5 to 4 the Court sided with the Boy Scouts.

As the election rhetoric heats up this fall, remember we’re just one vote away from restoring sanity to the courts. And the next president will appoint as many as four new members. So listen carefully to what the candidates say and don’t be discouraged.

This is just one round that we have lost yesterday. The battle will continue.

Parents who have lost a child often are haunted with disturbing questions. Why my child? Where is my baby now? Will I ever see my child again? And it’s perfectly normal. “The death of a child is the most devastating experience a parent can ever face,” explains pastor and author John MacArthur.

In his book, Safe in the Arms of God, MacArthur tackles the question of infant death (in the womb or following birth) with compassion and honesty. No death occurs apart from the purposes of God, MacArthur assures readers, just as no life occurs apart from the purposes of God.

“This book is a great tool at those times when emotions run high and losses are felt deeply,” MacArthur told Crosswalk.com in a recent interview. “When you are struggling with the feelings, when you come to grips with things in a more stark way, you need the anchor that comes from the absolute truth of the word of God.”

Those who are grieving deserve an answer rooted in the truth of Scripture, MacArthur notes. The parents need them, other family members need them, friends need them, and pastors and counselors need them.

• Where Are They Now?

“Is my baby in heaven?” It is natural for grieving parents to ask this question. They are not alone in wondering. Many people wrestle with what happens to children in third world nations — those who may die of starvation without ever knowing God. What happens to aborted babies? Where do the innocent babies of Hindus and Muslims go?

The Bible teaches that all children who die are in the special care of God, MacArthur explains. “I think one of the really great passages along those lines is in Mark 10, where Jesus said, ‘Permit the little children to come to me and forbid them not, for such is the Kingdom of God.’ That, as well as in the Old Testament, where God talks about the babies who were offered to pagan gods — they were burned in the fire as human sacrifices — He called them ‘the innocents.’ If God says that little one is innocent, even though it’s a child of a pagan, offered in a pagan sacrifice — you are not talking about a baptized baby; you’re not talking about a baby who has parents in the covenant; you’re not even talking about a Jewish baby — you’re talking about a Gentile, pagan child, and it is determined by God to be an innocent.” [Jeremiah 19:4–5 and note that the righteous and the innocent are equated, as Job 22:19]

MacArthur shares another illustration, that of King David in the Old Testament. When David and Bathsheba’s infant son became ill, the Bible says David pleaded, fasted and mourned. But when the baby died, he washed himself and no longer mourned in any sense. Then he said, “I shall go to him, but he cannot return to me.”

According to MacArthur, “David was comforted in thinking of that reunion, but the opposite was true with Absalom. When his adult son Absalom died, he wept and wept, and mourned and mourned, and could not be comforted, because he knew he would never see that child again. The difference there is pretty significant.

“I think when we understand that these little ones — and the Bible makes this very clear — belong to Him until they reach the age where they choose, then we understand why He takes them to heaven,” MacArthur adds.

• The Anguish of Abortion

Women who have aborted their babies are particularly prone to despair, loss, guilt and unresolved grief. They, too, may wonder where their babies are now.

Ezekiel 18:20 clearly states that “the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son,” MacArthur points out. “Scripture says that babies do not have culpability for the sins of their parents.”

Sadly, women who abort do not realize that long-term, emotional devastation will follow. “When a woman is considering an abortion, she is usually told abortion is a simple medical procedure with no lasting side effects,” says Mary Comm, founder of SafeHaven , a website created to help women understand and deal with post-abortion syndrome. “What a woman is not told is that abortion, like a miscarriage, can cause tremendous feelings of loss and grief. But because abortion is a ‘choice,’ those feelings are multiplied.”

Comm started SafeHaven in 1996 after seeing how post-abortion syndrome devastated the lives of two friends. The site is staffed entirely by women, all who are intimately familiar with abortion and its after-effects. Visitors to SafeHaven find a variety of links to help guide them in their efforts to deal with post-abortion syndrome. Some information is designed to help a post-abortive father begin to understand his own feelings of loss, grief and regret.

“The hardest thing for these women to do is reach out for help,” says Comm. “They don’t know what they are feeling is common and they are ashamed to admit they have had an abortion. At our site, they can remain anonymous for as long as they like. They are welcome to read messages and follow chats, and are invited to participate only when they are comfortable doing so. Even when they do begin participating, no one has to know who they are. “But when a woman finally decides to participate, we accept her, we love her, and we let her know her feelings are normal,” Comm adds.

A dedication on the SafeHaven home page reads: “For all the mothers and fathers whose arms ache for children they will never hug; for all the bandaged knees they will never kiss; for the college graduations and weddings they will never celebrate, and for the grandchildren that will never be born: this site is dedicated to them.”

Quotes by early Christians on abortion:

Tertullian, born around AD 160 in Carthage (what is now Tunisia):

“Indeed for us murder is forbidden once and for all, so it is not permitted even to destroy what is conceived in the womb. To prohibit the birth of a child is only a faster way to murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or prevents it from coming to birth. It is a human being, who is to be a human being, for the whole fruit is already present in the seed.”

-- Apologeticum [ ch. 9, p. 8]

Athenagoras, dean of the school of Alexandria, converted around AD 176:

“How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin.”

-- A Plea Regarding Christians, 32-35. [from illustration #19507]

______________

Infanticide (particularly of baby girls, whether by drowning or exposure 'to cold, starvation and the dogs') and abortion were both legal and usual in antiquity. Glover quotes (p.49) the papyrus letter of Hilarion to Alis (AD 1); "If it was a girl, put it out."

Source: Roger Pearse's Website http://www.tertullian.org/quotes.htm

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #27090]

Recently a woman wrote a back-page commentary in the New York Times Magazine about her decision to abort two of her triplets, a choice she tells readers wasn't all that difficult and she's glad she made. After all, she doesn't want to have to live in Staten Island and shop at Costco for the really big tubs of mayonnaise. And her Manhattan apartment has several flights of stairs.

This ghoulish commentary was far less revealing, though, than the letters to the editor The Times received in response.

Some readers praised The Times for the “courage” and “bravery” of the piece, but several other “pro-choice” writers expressed shock, discomfort and even moral revulsion at the calculating indifference of the writer's point of view. Particularly noteworthy was a letter from a “pro-choice” reader in Montreal who noted that the column caused her to “wrestle” with why it so disturbed her. She asks, “If the freedom to choose removes a sense of awe from the realm of human possibilities, is it freedom or a cruel burden?”

Now why does a writer committed to legal abortion think there should there be a “sense of awe” at the decision to end her pregnancy? No one thinks that most women get abortions for the vain, self-indulgent reasons offered in this column. But why does it strike such a nerve? After all, the abortion rights movement leaders ridicule the pro-life “love affair with the fetus,” arguing that the fetus is no more personal than sperm or a discarded fingernail clipping.

So why would this writer feel “comfortable” with legal abortion -- until she reads a story like this? If the fetus is not a “person,” then one might find the story of this woman's “selective reduction” for reasons of personal convenience perhaps self-absorbed and tacky, but why would one find it so morally repugnant?

This column was provocative not only because of the unblinking sassiness with which the writer asserts her right to discard two of her three “pregnancies.” It was distinctive because of its unusual directness, a directness that is so unexpected even seared consciences flinch in response.

The “pro-choice” leadership has implemented successfully in our national discourse language about abortion that cloaks abortion itself. Our politicians will say that they stand for “a woman's right to choose,” without ever telling us precisely what a woman should have a right to choose. Pro-choice speech discusses the decision to “end a pregnancy” or, in moments of unusual directness, of “the decision to abort.” But even then they do not say to abort what -- a computer program, a space mission? Marches for legal abortion rarely highlight the abortions themselves. Instead the activists march for “women's lives” -- thereby testifying that even they know that life should be something worth protecting.

In the column in question, there is no question what this woman does not want to lug up the stairs to her apartments -- babies. Moreover, there is one “fetus” born among the triplets, as a couple of letter writers mentioned. The very thought of this little child walking about forces even “pro-choice” ideologues to note that he “survived” something.

The Apostle Paul tells us why some readers of The New York Times found this story so rattling. The gentiles who do not have the Mosaic law, Paul tells the church at Rome, nonetheless show that they have a law “written on their hearts” by the witness of their consciences (Romans 2:14-16). This testimony of conscience is seen particularly, he says, in their “conflicting thoughts” (2:15, ESV). The conscience for the unbeliever is not Jiminy Cricket, offering a welcomed guide from within. Instead, it is a universal gnawing within the heart that points to a coming judgment, which men and women desperately want to deny exists at all (2:16). It is found everywhere, in all people in all places at all times -- and it is always smothered by people who don't want to hear its voice.

This is the Achilles' heel of so much of our evangelical preaching. Some of us try to reach the culture by offering “life principles,” 12 steps to personal peace and so forth. Some of us try to offer rigidly organized doctrinal explanations of Christianity. Far fewer of us try to scare unbelievers into thinking about how miserable hell will be. But this is not the way the apostles preached.

Instead, Jesus said that through the Gospel the Spirit “convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8, ESV). Paul said that his preaching explicitly appealed to the consciences of his hearers (2 Corinthians 4:2). These consciences are “seared” by years of self-justification (1 Timothy 4:2), but it is the forthright proclamation of the Gospel that pierces through this satanic deception.

People don't come to Christ because they fear eschatological heat or because they follow an historical argument. They come to Christ because the honest truth about judgment and sin resonates with something they already know -- and the honest truth about the grace of the Father resonates with longings they already have. If we are going to be faithful in ministry, we must figure out how to stop addressing merely minds and sentiments and self-interest in our pulpits and start addressing consciences.

Somewhere in Manhattan a woman finds herself, inexplicably, in tears when she read in her New York Times about a triplet who will grow up an only child. She composed herself, and wrote out her monthly check for Planned Parenthood. But, even so, the tears are there -- and she just can't figure out why. Who will tell her?

________

Russell D. Moore is dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

[An atheist's perspective on the Bible and abortion]

What does the bible say about abortion? Absolutely nothing! The word “abortion” does not appear in any translation of the Bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

“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 . . .” -- Exod. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?

According to the bible, life begins at birth -- when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as “breath” in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5 This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.

The Commandments, Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion was an important concern, why didn't the bible say so?

THOU SHALT NOT KILL?

Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. “Thou shalt not kill” did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders “Thou shalt kill” people for committing such “crimes” as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a “stubborn son” (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: “Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun.” Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of (already born) Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies.

DOES GOD KILL BABIES?

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -- Psalm 137:9

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a “pro-life” attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

• Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.

• Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

• Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

• 1 Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

• 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

• 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

• Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.

• Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

• Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

• Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

• Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

• Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:

“For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” -- Luke 23:29

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a “scriptural base” for their claim that their deity is “pro-life.” Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!

ARE BIBLE TEACHINGS KIND TO WOMEN?

The bible is neither antiabortion nor pro-life, but does provide a biblical basis for the real motivation behind the antiabortion religious crusade: hatred of women. The bible is anti-woman, blaming women for sin, demanding subservience, mandating a slave/master relationship to men, and demonstrating contempt and lack of compassion:

“I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” -- Genesis 3:16

What self-respecting woman today would submit willingly to such tyranny?

The antiabortion position does not demonstrate love for humanity, or compassion for real human beings. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that 50% of abortions worldwide are illegal, and that at least 200,000 women die every year -- and thousands more are hurt and maimed -- from illegal or self-induced abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and complications from multiple pregnancies are a leading killer of women. Why do antiabortionists want North American women to join these ghastly mortality statistics? Every day around the world more than 40,000 people, mostly children, die from starvation or malnutrition. We must protect and cherish the right to life of the already-born.

DO CHURCHES SUPPORT ABORTION RIGHTS?

Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal.

Belief that “a human being exists at conception” is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!

The bible does not condemn abortion; but even if it did, we live under a secular constitution, not in a theocracy. The separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and women's rights all demand freedom of choice.

________

Nontract No. 7.

Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., PO Box 750, Madison WI 53701.

*

In the aftermath of the November 2004 election, at least some pro-abortion crusaders are beginning to toy with the idea of softening their abortion-on-demand policies. Even Hillary Clinton has suggested as much.

In a recent article, syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman concedes that abortions should be “rare.” That concession tacitly admits that abortion is not a good to be celebrated but, at best, a regrettable option. She calls on pro-life citizens to meet pro-abortion proponents on “common ground.”

I welcome that overture and the opportunity. Here are some proposals for meeting on common ground.

1) Let's agree on the separation of abortion and state. Our taxes should not fund any abortions — period. Eliminate all government funding for Planned Parenthood, which performs a third of all U.S. abortions.

2) Support parental notification and consent requirements for minors. A minor can't get an aspirin without parental approval. It's abominable that teens can be spirited away by strangers and subjected to major invasive surgery.

3) End the savage practice of partial-birth abortion — pulling a child from the womb, stabbing its skull, and sucking out its brains to collapse the skull. I recognize this is nauseating language, but it accurately describes this barbaric procedure. By evasive and euphemistic deception, the media have tried to withhold the raw truth from the public. Let's tell the unpalatable truth in plain words so that the actual horror of the practice will forever be banned without court challenge.

4) Equip women and men to be sexually responsible. Every pregnancy is “chosen” if a couple has chosen to have sex. And that decision entails responsibility. Having chosen sex, adults have a moral duty to protect and nurture those they conceive.

5) Cherish children in the womb. Many of us started life as “unintended.” Yet we always had value and the right to life. Let's guard each unborn child as if it were our own life.

6) Communicate honestly about abortion. For too long, pro-abortion warriors have misrepresented and distorted the issue. For example, many of them liken an unborn child to a parasite, a tick or a worm infestation. Such images picture the unborn child as a predator, attacking one's body.

No responsible communications medium should abet and enable that kind of debased rhetoric. A newly conceived child belongs in the womb and nowhere else. Pregnancy by rape or incest is thankfully very rare. The vast majority of children come into being as a result of the union of two consenting partners. Their willing act causes a child to spring to life and take up residence in a natural organic home. The attempt to project blame on the innocent child as some sort of predator deserves the editorial delete key — and contempt by all civilized persons.

By promptly adopting these policies, pro-abortion forces will begin to journey back toward some moral sanity and decency. And as Supreme Court vacancies loom, pro-abortion senators and groups can demonstrate their good faith by stopping the savaging of judicial appointments.

Sounds good, doesn't it? But, of course, it assumes the pro-abortion politicians mean what they say. I'm not holding my breath, but I am praying.

FOR FURTHER READING

• Ellen Goodman, “The Politics of Abortion,” Washington Post writers group.

• David Rogers, “Goodman still fuels debate,” Palm Beach Daily News, 9 March 2005.

• “How Serious Are Democrats?: Making abortion rare will take more than words,” Christianity Today, 16 March 2005.

• William Saletan, “Safe, Legal, and Never: Hillary Clinton's anti-abortion strategy,” Slate, 26 January 2005.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

When “BreakPoint” first went on the air, crime ranked at the top of Americans' concerns. A record 2,250 homicides had been committed in New York City alone. Today, New York is on pace to record 450 or one-fifth as many homicides, and crime no longer ranks among Americans' top ten concerns.

This precipitous drop has prompted many explanations. Some of them, like better policing and the end of the “crack wars,” make logical and moral sense. But there's one persistent explanation that makes no sense at all, and that is this: America is safer because of legalized abortion.

In his new book, Freakonomics, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues that legalized abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in crime rates. His argument, which he has been making since 1999, proceeds from what Steve Sailer of the American Conservative calls two “plausible-sounding premises.”

The first is that legalized abortion “lowers the number of ‘unwanted' babies, who would be more likely to commit crimes someday.” The second premise is that crime rates began to fall just as the “first cohort of children born after Roe V. Wade was hitting its [crime-prone] late teen years.” Thus, at least part of the fall was due to the absence of “the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.”

What Sailer calls “pre-emptive executions” sounds plausible, albeit in a disquieting way. But is it true? Only if you ignore the evidence. Much of the explosion in homicide rates during the 1980s was driven by the battles over turf that followed the introduction of crack cocaine into American cities. As the market settled, the winners no longer had to resort to murder to protect their turf.

What's more, as Sailer and others have pointed out, the numbers not only don't support Levitt's hypothesis, they prove the opposite. Crime rates during the period cited by Levitt dropped most quickly among those born before Roe. The homicide rates for 25-year-olds began falling in 1981!

It was people born after Roe who accounted for much of the increase in murder rates. During the last few years of the crack wars, the murder rates for 14- to 17-year-olds was three-and-a-half-times what it had been a decade earlier. Even in the prosperous late 1990s, the murder rate among presumably “wanted” 14-to 17-year-olds was nearly twice as high as it had been for their often “unwanted” 1980s counterparts.

Obviously something was going on that had nothing to with abortion or “wanted” children. What was it? Sailer hits the nail on the head when he points to Roe's effects on marriage and family formation. Prior to Roe, the response to unplanned pregnancy was what used to be called a “shotgun wedding.” The availability of legal abortion helped convince young men that they no longer had a responsibility to the women they had impregnated. The result was a rise in out-of-wedlock births which, unlike abortion, are clearly linked to the crime rate.

As you've probably noticed, I haven't even mentioned the eugenic elements of Levitt's argument — which are horrifying — weed out the unwanted. We don't even need to go there, because the numbers tell us what we already know: No one, either inside or outside the womb, is safer because of abortion — in fact, exactly the reverse.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Former president Jimmy Carter has written yet another book -- his twentieth -- and he has hit the media circuit in order to promote his latest project. OUR ENDANGERED VALUES: AMERICA'S MORAL CRISIS represents the former president's return to familiar themes, even as it will add new layers of confusion concerning his actual beliefs and values.

Jimmy Carter makes one central argument in this new book, and that is that America (indeed civilization itself) is under attack by a sinister force. In effect, he argues that a new specter now haunts civilization -- the specter of Christian fundamentalism.

After tracing a series of crises faced by the United States and the larger world, Mr. Carter places the blame squarely upon conservative Christians: “The most important factor is that fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. At the same time, these religious and political conservatives have melded their efforts, bridging the formerly respected separation of church and state.” That's quite an argument, but those familiar with Jimmy Carter's mode of public engagement will understand that this is merely the expansion (and repetition) of what the former president has been saying ever since the American people denied him a second term in the Oval Office.

Those who would wish to take Jimmy Carter and his ideas seriously will find little assistance in this book. More than anything else, it represents a superficial complaint against conservative Christianity. He offers a caricature of conservative evangelicals, even as he redefines basic Christian doctrines in order to conform to his own worldview. He criticizes fundamentalists for simplistic and superficial convictions, while he offers superficial and simplistic assessments of urgent moral questions.

What exactly is Jimmy Carter against? The “fundamentalism” he so vehemently attacks is, according to his own definition, represented by movements that “almost invariably” are “led by authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others and, within religious groups, have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women and to dominate their fellow believers.” Furthermore, Mr. Carter argues that “fundamentalists usually believe that the past is better than the present,” even as they wish to retain “certain self-beneficial aspects of both their historic religious beliefs and of the modern world.”

Beyond all this, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists “are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs.” Accordingly, fundamentalists are likely to be angry and abusive against those who oppose their goals.

Most interestingly, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists err when they “draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.” The most amazing aspect of that assertion is Mr. Carter's own moralism, both as president and as America's globe-trotting ex-president. Even in OUR ENDANGERED VALUES, Mr. Carter continues the pattern of arguing that others are wrong when they assert that he is wrong. But, according to his own emphatic assertion and self-analysis, he is right and others are simply wrong. One gains the quick impression that they are mostly wrong because they consider Mr. Carter to be wrong.

As to his own worldview, Mr. Carter reveals: “In the religious realm, I shall depend on the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by the words and actions of Jesus Christ. On political issues, I shall rely as much as possible on my own personal experiences and observations.”

What exactly are the “values” that Mr. Carter believes to be so endangered? For one thing, Mr. Carter argues that fundamentalists are primarily responsible for the raging controversies that now mark America's public life. As he sees it, America is being ripped apart by the fundamentalists who push their concerns about abortion, marriage, homosexuality, and other issues in the public square. Since these conservative Christians are driven by their own Christian convictions, Mr. Carter argues that their favored positions represent a violation of one of his most cherished values -- the separation of church and state.

Once again, readers of OUR ENDANGERED VALUES will be frustrated if they are looking for Mr. Carter's own understanding of how church and state should be related. He offers no serious or coherent theory, but merely affirms “what Thomas Jefferson espoused as 'a wall of separation between church and state.'“ As he would surely remind those he criticizes in his newest book, an assertion does not amount to an argument.

In actuality, Mr. Carter offers few examples of exactly what he finds to be an unacceptable mixing of church and state. He offers a glancing blow at President Bush's “faith-based initiatives,” (an issue that truly requires serious evaluation), but he centers his most direct criticism on the fact that “right-wing Christians” have been criticizing the federal court system.

How, exactly, should an individual's Christian convictions affect public service and public policy? Mr. Carter does not offer any substantial approach to deciding this matter. Furthermore, he admits: “Despite what I consider to be a constitutional and biblical requirement for the separation of church and state, I must acknowledge that my own religious beliefs have been inextricably entwined with the political principles I have adopted.” Readers of Mr. Carter's new book must be forgiven for thinking that religious beliefs are fairly applied to public policy when the beliefs and policies are those favored by Mr. Carter, but not when the beliefs and policies are those favored by conservatives.

Tracing a series of moral controversies, Mr. Carter asserts that a majority of Americans believe that abortions should be legal “in all or most cases.” Of course, this is a serious misrepresentation of the data. One could just as easily argue that the vast majority of Americans reject abortion on demand. The polls are complicated and confusing, and the conclusions reached generally have everything to do with how the questions are asked. The former president also argues that Americans have grown increasingly accepting of same-sex behavior, but he offers few hints as to how he would settle the divisive issue of homosexuality. His one positive proposal is to deny homosexuals access to “marriage” while adopting civil unions as a matter of civil rights.

Mr. Carter also comes out swinging when it comes to the death penalty, noting that his years as governor of Georgia fell in the period between 1972 and 1976 when the Supreme Court had temporarily halted executions. “Some devout Christians are among the most fervent advocates of the death penalty, contradicting Jesus Christ and justifying their belief on an erroneous interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures,” he argues.

This is a fallacious argument. In the first place, Jesus Christ never condemned the death penalty. In forgiving the woman caught in adultery, Jesus offered no blanket prohibition against capital punishment. Furthermore, the biblical support for capital punishment is based on a multitude of passages in both the Old and New Testaments. The biblical interpretations Mr. Carter offers are facile, simplistic, and intellectually dishonest.

The former president raises one serious and legitimate concern about the death penalty -- the “extreme inequity in its employment” -- and he could have called for a responsible evangelical reevaluation of capital punishment in light of the biblical teaching and contemporary application. Nevertheless, his recklessness with the biblical text undermines his point.

This is all the more problematic when it comes to Mr. Carter's treatment of abortion. He describes this issue as “the most divisive” facing the nation. But, once again, Mr. Carter offers more confusion than clarity when it comes to his own understanding of abortion.

Just last week, THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported that President Carter had condemned America's abortion culture. “I have never felt that any abortion should be committed -- I think that each abortion is the result of a series of errors,” Mr. Carter told reporters in Washington. “I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”

Mr. Carter has made this argument before. In his book LIVING FAITH, published in 1996, Mr. Carter stated: “I have never been able to believe that Jesus would have approved the taking of a human life, but the difficult question then remained: When does a fetus become a human being? My duty was to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court, but I did everything possible to minimize the need for and attractiveness of abortions.”

In this new book, Mr. Carter offers a similar argument: “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought on by a combination of human errors, and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I've had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the ROE V. WADE Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions-through legal restrictions, prevention of unwanted pregnancies, the encouragement of expectant women to give birth, and the promotion of foster parenthood.”

This position would be sufficiently problematic in itself, but it doesn't even represent an accurate analysis of Mr. Carter's own public positions on the issue.

As Peter G. Bourne, a former White House Special Assistant to President Carter, explains in his book JIMMY CARTER: “Early in his term as governor, Carter had strongly supported family planning programs including abortion. He had written the foreword to a book, WOMEN IN NEED, that favored a woman's right to abortion. He had given private encouragement to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, DOE V. BOLTON, filed against the state of Georgia to overturn its archaic abortion laws.” Beyond this, he hired Sarah Weddington, the lead attorney who argued for abortion in ROE V. WADE, as a White House staffer. Clearly, this calls into question Mr. Carter's assertion that he has ALWAYS opposed abortion. Further, if he opposes abortion now, what is he willing to do about it? His new book certainly offers no hope that he would now call for a reversal of ROE V. WADE.

Some of the most vitriolic language in OUR ENDANGERED VALUES concerns Mr. Carter's criticism of the Southern Baptist Convention and its leadership. Understandably, Mr. Carter blames conservative evangelicals in general -- and the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention in particular -- for his devastating loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. Indeed, the very evangelicals who had celebrated Mr. Carter's election in 1976 abandoned him in 1980 -- and for what they saw as compelling reasons.

Over the last several years, Mr. Carter has repeatedly declared his departure from the Southern Baptist Convention (a departure made all the more eccentric by the fact that individuals are not members of the Southern Baptist Convention in the first place) and he continues his criticism of the convention's leadership even now.

Most specifically, he condemns the Southern Baptist Convention for adopting a revised version of its confession of faith, arguing that the new version has substituted the authority of convention leaders for the authority of Christ. Clearly, here is a real debate that could have emerged out of his criticism. Nevertheless, Mr. Carter just misrepresents the convention's action.

I was a member of the committee that proposed the revision, and I would be glad to clarify for Mr. Carter what exactly the revisions represent. Nevertheless, Mr. Carter's chief complaint is that the confession of faith was “imposed as a mandatory creed on all convention officers, employees, deans and professors of colleges and seminaries, and even missionaries who were serving in foreign countries.” He insists that this was “unprecedented” as the convention sought to fulfill its responsibility to assure the churches of the doctrinal integrity of convention employees.

Of course, this action was anything but “unprecedented.” As a matter of fact, the convention had advised its agencies to establish personnel policies in accordance with the confession of faith as far back as 1969. If the moderate convention leaders Mr. Carter prefers had fulfilled the explicit directives of the convention, the conservative resurgence that Mr. Carter so laments would never have happened in the first place.

On the issue of women in the church, Mr. Carter has been a strong proponent of women as pastors. He dismisses the biblical concerns about this by admitting that, while the Apostle Paul clearly precluded this practice, this just indicates “his departure from Jesus' example and a strong bias against women.” He insists that he does not mean to claim that biblical texts are in error or contradictory, but that some texts can be understood as dealing only with “local circumstances within a troubled early church congregation.” Nevertheless, Paul's clearest instructions were not addressed to a specific congregation in conflict, but to Timothy on behalf of the whole church. “There is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women,” he asserts: “he treated them as equal to men.” This may sound like a self-evident truth, for Jesus did treat women with equal respect, equal concern, and equal standing before the gospel. Nevertheless, Jesus did not call a woman to serve as an apostle, nor as one of the Twelve. Equality is not contradicted by complementarity.

In an interesting comment, Mr. Carter recently offered a bit of self-analysis, observing: “I can't deny that I'm a better ex-president than I was a president.” Without doubt, President Carter and his wife Rosalynn have done much good. The work of The Carter Center in leading the fight against diseases such as Guinea Worm and Trachoma has been exemplary. I will let others debate the former president's post-term adventures in foreign policy, but I have no doubt that he means to do good and to do well. I also have no doubt that he is a thoughtful and intelligent man, and that he means to be a serious Christian.

Nevertheless, in this new book, Mr. Carter delivers a broadside attack on conservative Christians, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, and those who believe that abortion, homosexuality, secularism, and a host of other issues represent clear and present challenges to the witness of the church. He is surely right to argue that the Bible would broaden our range of concerns beyond these most controversial issues; but he is surely wrong to dismiss our responsibility to maintain a faithful biblical witness where controversy is inevitable.

Mr. Carter's moderately liberal theology (more liberal than moderate or more moderate than liberal, depending on his various statements) puts him at odds with the conservative direction of the Southern Baptist Convention and with the biblical convictions held by millions of American evangelicals. Mr. Carter has chosen to make this a public issue by writing and releasing this book. This was his decision.

OUR ENDANGERED VALUES is not a call for discussion or dialogue. It is not an exercise in seeking understanding. Instead, this book is a political and theological call to arms. Nevertheless, it does serve to illustrate the chasm that now grows ever larger between conservative Christians and those who would offer a more “moderate” understanding of the Christian faith. President Carter and those he opposes in this book agree on one thing -- our values ARE endangered. We just disagree about what those values are and how they are endangered. That's no small disagreement.

*

Pro-abortion activists have long maintained that abortion in America is about a woman’s “right to choose.” They are correct. Abortion in the United States is about the right of a woman –- or teenage girl in too many cases –- to choose to have sex without any regard for the “negative” repercussion of pregnancy.

In a recent Village Voice column, Rachel Kramer Bussel highlighted the pro-sex aspect of the abortion debate. She wrote, “I’m pro-choice because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I’m consumed with worry about the potential consequences.”

Bussel’s sentiment is consistent with statistics on abortion motives. According to several surveys on why women choose abortion in the U.S., around 90 percent of respondents indicate their reason for aborting their unborn child was based on some aspect of convenience.

If, and when, you hear pro-abortionists squawk about abortion being about the health of a woman, ignore them. Abortion in America is not about women’s health, it is about a woman’s sexual independence.

Bussel, a senior editor at Penthouse Variations and a columnist for Penthouse magazine, also writes the Village Voice's regular “Lusty Lady” column and reviews books for The New York Post. She links the pro-abortion movement with other activist groups.

“We need to safeguard all forms of consensual sexual expression, including sodomy and kink, for 'choice' to truly matter,” Bussel wrote in the Village Voice piece. “The pro-choice movement and the GLBT movement should work together to ensure our right to sexual autonomy.”

I do not know how much official cooperation takes place between homosexual activists and proponents of abortion. However, I do know that I have never witnessed a pro-abortion rally that did not have a strong presence of homosexual activists participating.

What do homosexual activists have in common with pro-abortion activists? “Gay” activists seek to legitimize homosexual behavior by promoting a view of sexuality that is completely severed from procreation.

Homosexual activists have a vested interest in convincing society that reproduction and sexual intercourse are somehow mutually exclusive. Bussel not only understands the link, but is one of the few willing to admit it.

Bussel wrote in the Village Voice, “People have sex for many reasons -- pleasure, boredom, curiosity, peer pressure, and, yes, baby-making.” What Bussel and activists -- both homosexual and pro-abortion –- miss is that procreation is the main purpose of sex and not just one of many reasons.

No doubt sex is pleasurable; however, pregnancy is the natural outcome of sex. It is not just something to engage in when bored, curious or seeking pleasure. If the primary purpose of sex was anything other than procreation, pregnancy would not be the result.

Sadly, the success of activists in divorcing sex from procreation has resulted in the death of more than 47 million pre-born babies. It has also laid the foundation for a sexual ethic that has managed to compartmentalize intercourse from reproduction and made both seem mutually exclusive of one another. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sexual intimacy is the consummation of a life-long promise to be faithful to one’s marital spouse, as well as a commitment to the probable consequence of intercourse -– a child. Thanks to abortion supporters, far too many in America now view sexual intercourse as nothing more than a no-strings-attached recreational pursuit.

*

There's nothing parents dread more than their doctor telling them that there's something wrong with their child. In an instant, all of their hopes and dreams vanish, for themselves and their child, and are replaced with a numb, empty feeling.

It's a feeling that some here at “BreakPoint” are personally acquainted with, which is why we empathize with any parent in this situation. But the price of our consolation can never be the sanctity of life itself.

And that's what is happening in places like Orangeburg, New York. The NEW YORK TIMES recently told the story of a couple and their 6-year-old son, A.J. When the wife was thirty-one weeks pregnant and on vacation, she began to bleed. Doctors at the New Jersey hospital noticed the small size of the fetus and suspected there was something wrong.

This came as a surprise to the prospective parents, since their doctor had told them everything was fine. However, subsequent tests, including amniocentesis, confirmed that the child had a chromosomal abnormality.

Since the wife was more than twenty-four weeks pregnant, she could not, under New York law, have an abortion at this stage of the pregnancy. Her only choice was to give birth and hope for the best.

The “best” wasn't very good. After A.J. was born, he was diagnosed with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. Its long list of symptoms includes “mental retardation, physical disfigurement, inability to speak, seizures, and respiratory and digestive problems.”

Eventually, the parents did what an increasing number of Americans are doing in similar circumstances: They sued their doctor for “wrongful birth.” They claimed that the doctor's negligence deprived the mother of the right to abort her unborn child. In other words, A.J. shouldn't have been born, and his being alive is an injury to his parents. This is clearly contrary to a biblical worldview, which tells us children are a gift from the Lord and that all children are fearfully and wonderfully made by God.

Unfortunately, “wrongful birth” lawsuits aren't limited to New York. Half of the states recognize such a “right.” This reflects what the author of the piece, Elizabeth Weil, calls “contemporary expectations about childbearing.” Technology has led parents to believe that they can exercise a kind of “quality control” over their unborn children.

These expectations wouldn't matter without abortion-on-demand. Prior to ROE, courts rejected the idea of “wrongful birth.” As the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1966, “the sanctity of the single human life is the decisive factor in this suit . . .”

ROE changed all of that. Abortion-on-demand combined with the expectations Weil described to create a “right” not to have a disabled child. And, as Weil acknowledges, “disabled” isn't limited to severe birth defects just like A.J.'s — it could include deafness, blindness, and mild mental retardation. Any “defect” that can be identified through prenatal genetic testing is potentially the subject of a “wrongful birth” lawsuit.

All of this is an incentive for doctors to err on the side of prenatal testing and abortion. Or as Weil puts it, these suits “may bias the medical establishment toward termination” of human life.

A.J.'s parents deserve all the help they can get, but not at the price of calling life “wrong” or an “injury” to the parents. That kind of compensation leaves us all poorer.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not “curing” autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people.

There is no IN UTERO test for autism as there is for Down syndrome. As I have previously told “BreakPoint” listeners, that testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population. By some estimates, 90 percent of these people — who, if allowed to live, can live happy and healthy lives — are aborted.

In the absence of such a test for autism, researchers at University College Hospital London are settling for what they call a “close enough” solution. They have applied for permission to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, to screen out male embryos in families with a history of autism.

Their “logic” is that since 90 percent of all autistic people are males, their testing would allow families with autistic children “to have a daughter free from the condition.” Of course, they would have also killed males who were not autistic. Talk about wholesale gender cleansing.

The critics are not convinced. Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People drew the what-should-be obvious inference: “Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued.” In the brave new world of the researchers, it is reasonable to fear “that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted.”

Here in the states, bioethicist Ben Mitchell said that “if unborn children are being eliminated for a genetic disposition to autism, no one is safe ... Today autism, tomorrow intelligence below 70 I.Q., the next day male pattern baldness. When will this madness stop?”

The only way to avoid this is to understand that we have no business deciding “who should live and who should die.” And that's exactly where proposals like this are leading us.

Once a disability is “diagnosed” IN UTERO, women are subject to enormous pressures to have an abortion. According to a recent BUSINESS WEEK article, there's even a name for women who refuse to have an abortion in these circumstances: “genetic outlaws.”

Despite all the rhetoric about “alleviating suffering,” the bottom line in targeting the disabled IN UTERO is the bottom line. As BUSINESS WEEK puts it, “the social cost of accommodating [their] birth is increasingly being seen as exceeding [their] worth.”

Oh my! This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can't we see it?

My heart goes out to parents who are raising autistic children. I know what they face because my daughter is raising a 15-year-old autistic son. But I also know firsthand the joy and blessing these children can bring into our lives. The answer is not to play God and keep them from being born — rather we need to help them and their parents. That's what “alleviating suffering” really means.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

In 1973 the Supreme Court made a series of abortion rulings. In the Doe V. Bolton case, the high court provided an exception from state regulations of abortion for “maternal health,” which it defined as “all factors –- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age –- relevant to the well-being of the patient.” The result was to legalize abortion “on demand,” as pro-lifers have described it.

Sandra Cano, who was Mary Doe in that 1973 case, urged the justices to overturn the decision made in her favor. She told participants in the 1998 March for Life she never wanted an abortion and never had one.

“I was poor, pregnant, uneducated, seeking assistance and getting a divorce from a man who was a convicted child molester,” Cano told tens of thousands of pro-lifers, according to The Washington Times. “Instead of the help I sought, a feminist attorney turned my circumstances into a tool to achieve her agenda -- legalizing abortion. ... [M]y name has been synonymous with abortion. I was against abortion then. I am against abortion now. I never sought an abortion. I have never had an abortion. Abortion is murder.”

Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the other 1973 decision, made a public profession to Christ in 1995 and became a pro-lifer. McCorvey, who also never had an abortion, sought unsuccessfully to have the Supreme Court overturn its ruling in her behalf. The Doe ruling was unsuccessfully challenged in 2006.

When you hear the word “pagan,” what springs to mind? Do you think of ancient tree worshippers dancing by moonlight? Well, an authority on the subject says that notion is out of date. These days, says Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, the term “pagan” ought to conjure up images of affluent, well- educated Americans — including many who go to church.

George’s definition of paganism was presented at a recent meeting of Toward Tradition, a group that brings together Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians. He said paganism is not confined to the past, with primitive peoples offering sacrifices to the sun or praying to golden calves. Instead, the temptation to worship false gods is “a permanent threat” and “a constant temptation.”

You see, the essence of paganism is idolatry — the worship of false gods in place of the one true God. But, sadly, many modern Christians fall into pagan practices and don’t even know it, and some attend churches that actually promote it.

So, how do you know if you’re among them? There’s a fool-proof test, George says. “False gods demand the blood of innocents. Where the innocent and just are slain … the god being worshipped is not the God of Israel.” When Christians of the past burned heretics, persecuted Jews, and enslaved Africans, they were serving, not the biblical God, but false gods.

The false gods of modern pagans are even more bloodthirsty. “Today,” George says, “the unborn, the partially born, and the handicapped newly-born are … sacrificed to the false gods of choice, autonomy, and liberation. They’re sacrificed on stainless steel altars, by priests robed in surgical whites.” And advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia are their fellow believers.

By contrast, George notes, faithful Christians and observant Jews worship the Lord of life — a God who “endows every human being — however humble, however poor, however afflicted — with a sublime dignity.” It is for this reason “that the life of every innocent person is … equally inviolable under the moral law.”

Modern pagans — including most secularized Christians and Jews — wrap their pagan ideology in a cloak of virtue. They speak of compassion, even as they rationalize their “choice” to kill the innocent. In reality, they’re worshipping, not the God of compassion, but false gods of depravity and death.

It is a fact of history that every civilization that has sacrificed children to the gods has been destroyed. The God of the Bible has brought judgment on even the most powerful empires. That’s why, when friends of mine visited Mother Teresa a few years ago and asked what they could do to help her, she responded, “Go back to America and stop the slaughter of the innocent babies. Hurry, while there’s time, or God will judge you.”

She was right.

Today’s false gods masquerade under the name of “choice” and “compromise.” But as Professor George says, “A pagan culture is … a culture of death.”

It’s important that you and I learn to recognize these beliefs and practices, which can infiltrate our churches and are pervasive in our culture. Not only for the sake of the innocents who are being killed, but for the sake of our nation’s soul and our survival.

Only 6 percent of American adults believe abortion is permissible “for any reason the woman chooses at any time during the pregnancy” with no legal restrictions and with the government picking up the tab for women who can’t afford it, according to a poll commissioned by Focus on the Family Research Council.

The nationwide poll was conducted by the Roper organization. Results were published in the November [1996?] issue of “Focus on the Family” magazine.

National polls in the past repeatedly have shown that Americans express conflicting views on abortion depending on how the question is phrased. Generally, a majority of Americans has been found to oppose abortion on demand, but a majority also opposes government restrictions on such delicate matters.

The Focus on the Family poll asked this question: “Which of the following statements best reflects you view on abortion?”

The results:

* 19 percent said abortion is wrong under any circumstances.

* 7 percent said abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.

* 18 percent said abortion is wrong, except to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest.

* 11 percent said abortion is wrong, except to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest and in cases of infant deformity, disease or retardation.

* 11 percent said abortion is wrong, except to save the life of the mother, in instances of rape or incest, in cases of infant deformity, disease or retardation, and when the child is unwanted and will not have a good quality of life.

* 9 percent said abortion is permissible for any reason the woman chooses untol the fetus can survive outside the womb.

* 4 percent said abortion is permissible for any reason, except as a way to select the sex of the child.

* 7 percent said abortion is permissible for any reason the woman chooses, at any time during pregnancy, and no legal restrictions such as parental notification or informed consent should be imposed.

* 6 percent said abortion is permissible for any reason the woman chooses, at any time during pregnancy, that no legal restrictions should be imposed and that government should pay for the procedure for women who cannot afford the expense.

* 8 percent were undecided.

________

Western Recorder

On March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office for the second time as president of the only partially United States of America. On that late winter’s day, Honest Abe spoke hard truths to his audience, words that continue to speak to us today. That this speech and the Gettysburg Address, given just 15 months before, often both end up on lists of the “Greatest American Speeches” testifies to the rhetorical power of this semi-secular prophet.

Lincoln’s faith remains a matter of ongoing debate, but his words were unquestionably drawn from biblical imagery and principle. Though this speech was over double in length as the Gettysburg speech, it wasn’t long, clocking in at fewer than 800 words. Despite its Spartan simplicity, it still speaks volumes:

Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

It is nearly impossible to imagine the reaction to a contemporary American politician presuming to know, much less invoke, God’s judgment. It is safe to say it would not elicit the same response as in Lincoln’s day. Yet, somehow that speech, which alternated between sorrowful self-examination and hopeful pleas for mercy to a defeated foe, still rings true. We still face moments, as humans always have, when our maudlin assumptions about human nature are shown to be naïve, when “live and let live” platitudes are no longer a viable option, and when we, like Lincoln, invoke Divine judgment.

There are even times when we, like Lincoln, realize that God’s judgment is not just due to “them” but also to “us.” These moments remind us that there is a higher order to life and that evil not only exists but also deserves judgment that will eventually come. In the last half century, over 60 million Americans have been sacrificed on the altar of absolute autonomy. In the last half decade, the surgical scarring of young bodies has become a national gnostic nightmare. “We” have done this.

As squeamish as we are about identifying which calamities, diseases, and disasters are God’s judgments for which sin, throughout the Bible, prophets, apostles, and even Christ Himself speak of judgment owed and paid out for national sins. Sometimes His judgment is portrayed as an act; other times it is portrayed as turning us over to the natural consequences of bad ideas and behavior. Either way, biblically speaking, if there is no place for divine judgment in our theology, there is something unchristian about our worldview.

Hope is not found in concluding that the dividing line of good and evil falls only within the hearts of others, nor is it found in the destruction of what God has made. After all, it was the same Christ who warned that “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” who also promised to make all things new and to be with His people until the end of the age. It is the One whose judgment is always right who has promised a New Heaven and New Earth.

Lincoln seemed to have some sense of this, which is why he spoke hard truths about his nation’s sins while also looking in hope to a time when those sins would be removed: 

With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

________

Copyright (c) 2023 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

As a member of the medical community in America, it is with special shame that this writer views the medically sanctioned, continuing slaughter of millions of unborn infants. George F. Will gently stated that “just as prenatal medicine was beginning to produce marvelous life-saving and life-enhancing achievements, Supreme Court justices made it the law of the land that the patients for such medicine have no right to life.”1 The awful paradox is that despite tremendous scientific and technological advances improving the quality of life in the United States, an equally strong advance, the humanistic ethic has undermined the intrinsic value or sanctity of all human life.

Montgomery commented, “While all sins are equal, some sins are more equal than others.”2 God’s wrath, he wrote, seems particularly kindled against certain sinful acts. Uzzah (2 Sam. 6:6-7) or Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) are examples. Along with His concern for the welfare of the family and the institution of marriage and for the welfare of the Jews, God seems particularly interested in the welfare of children. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, ... for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 19:14, NIV).

Destruction by the horror of being thrown into the sea with a millstone around the neck is associated with Babylon in Revelation 18:21 and with those who do harm to little children in Matthew 18:1-6. A little child-unable to save himself and fully dependent -- is, like the Jewish people, one of those weak things of this world chosen by God to “confound the wise.” Those who harm them do so at their peril, both in time and in eternity.3

Many biologists, geneticists, and physicians agree that biological life begins at conception.4 The Scriptures clearly add to that foundation by teaching that God places value on unborn life a sacred (see for instance Exod. 4:11; Job 10:8-12; Ps. 139:13-16; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 1:18; and Luke 1:39-44). Waltke summarizes an insightful study of the Scriptures relating to the nature of fetal life by concluding that “on both theological and exegetical grounds ... the body, the life, and the moral faculty of man originate simultaneously at conception.”5

That the early church fathers recognized this truth is evidenced in the writings of Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, and others.6 The one who studies Old Testament law is surprised, therefore, in light of such evidence to find a paucity of legal information relating to fetal life. Kline observed, “The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none.”7 This lack of legislation relating to fetal life in Hebrew law is made even more significant by the finding several ancient Near Eastern codes of law that deal with the subject.8 For instance a Middle Assyrian law dated between 1450 B.C. and 1250 B.C. prescribed death by torture in cases of induced abortion. The text reads: “If a woman by her own deed has cast [aborted] that which is within her womb, and a charge has been brought and proved against her, they shall impale her and not bury her. If she dies from casting that which is in her womb, they shall impale her and not bury her.”9

Does the silence of Old Testament law lead to the conclusion that God condones the practice of abortion? This question assumes greater significance in light of fact that such an eminent scholar as Waltke proposed such thinking.10 The “argument from silence that he proposed has been aptly dealt with by Scott11 and Crawley.12 In light of their comment Waltke was humble enough to retract his earlier conclusions.13

The silence of Old Testament law referring to feticide does not mean God is unconcerned about fetus. Rather, it should lead one to examine the entire weight of scriptural evidence relating to fetal status. Crawley writes that the omission of feticide is “one indication, among many, of the intense regard felt by the Jewish people for parenthood and the future of their race.”14 Kline states, “It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention offense in the criminal code.”15 There is, however, one passage in Old Testament Law that mentions the human fetus. The first of three Old Testament LEX TALIONIS (law of retribution) passages is Exodus 21:22-25: “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 appoint 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.”

Differences in interpretation of this law have alternately led to both acceptance and rejection abortion by evangelicals.

If it can be established from Exodus 21:22-25 that the unborn

fetus is qualitatively inferior to fully human life, then the

Bible-believing Christian must give serious consideration to the

contention that there are several circumstances that may be

greater evils than abortion, such as mental disorder in the

mother, the probability that the child will be born malformed, or

the trauma pregnancy resulting from rape.16

This article examines Exodus 21:22-25 from historical, legal, medical, and textual (linguistic) points of view to seek to reach conclusion on its meaning, and to answer the question, Does the Old Testament law condone abortion?

THE CONTEXT

The Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22-23:33) contains regulations concerned with fairness and justice in human relationships. Its laws deal specifically with issues such as treatment of slaves, theft and repayment, sexual mores, crimes of violence, and religious practice. While the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2-17) summarize the relationship of the covenant God to His people and relationships between His people, the Book of the Covenant amplifies this covenant law.

The passage in question is found in a series of laws concerned with cases of criminal negligence. These are CASUISTIC laws (case laws) and as such are designed to answer particular legal questions. APODICTIC laws on the other hand are designed to state universal truths (e.g., “Thou shalt not kill”). Exodus 21:18-19 deals with injury inflicted during a quarrel. Verses 20-21 concern punishment of slaves and manslaughter. Following the recitation of the LEX TALIONIS (vv. 22-25), then, are laws on specific injuries to slaves (vv. 26-27) and injuries inflicted by a goring ox (vv. 28-32). At first glance there seems little to relate these laws to one another. But their “casuistic” nature and the placement of the LEX TALIONIS in their midst does give them some affiliation.

The “law of retribution” is a well-documented legal formula of ancient Near Eastern legal codes. It is cited in the Mesopotamian law codes of Eshnunna (ca. 2000 B.C.), Lipit-Ishtar (ca. 1860 B.C.), and Hammurabi (1700 B.C.).17 In its literal application, exact retribution for the injury (or death) incurred was to be applied to the offender. That the law of talion did not always or even primarily require literal application, but merely application of its principle, has been accepted by numerous scholars.18 Fisher notes the following:

Even in prebiblical times, the principle of monetary

substitution (payment of claims and damages) was gradually

replacing literal, physical retribution. The code of Eshnunna,

for example, states that “If a man bites the nose of another man

and severs it, he shall pay one mina of silver. For an eye, one

mina; for a tooth one-half mina; for a slap in the face ten

shekels of silver.”19

Examination of the two other biblical LEX TALIONIS texts concurs with the idea that literal interpretation is not mandated. In Leviticus 24:18 the “life-for-life” principle is applied to the situation in which an animal’s life is taken, and this is interpreted three verses later by the statement that “the one who kills an animal shall make it good.”

Likewise in Deuteronomy 19:5-21, which speaks of judging false witness, there is “not a simple literal equivalence between the terms of the talion penalty clause and all the variety of cases which a false witness might figure.”20

The application of the law talion in Exodus 21 is similarly nonliteral. The kinds of injuries listed in the talion formula (e.g., a burn) are not ones likely to occur in a situation where two men struggle with each other and inadvertently strike a pregnant woman Furthermore the immediate context refers to the situation in which men quarrel and injury is inflicted (vv. 18-19). Instead of the expected “wound for wound” formula, monetary compensation is mandated. Similarly the passage that follows (vv. 26-27) mandates decidedly nontalionic judgment: a slave’s freedom for traumatic loss of eye or tooth.

Clearly then the LEX TALIONIS formula provides for exact justice, not for exact retribution. The punishment must be commensurate with the crime, neither too excessive nor too lenient. One might postulate on this basis that the penalty “life for life” might be amended in the case of some cases as well. Certainly the “ransom” allowed in the case of the negligent owner of a goring ox (v. 30) would seem at first glance to fit such a proposition. However, owner’s negligence is taken into account here. Keil and Delitzsch note, “As this guilt, however, had not been incurred through an intentional crime, but had arisen simply from carelessness, he was allowed to redeem his forfeited life by payment of expiation money.”21 And the homicide was not committed personally, with murderous INTENT, and therefore fell outside the restriction of Numbers 35:31-32, which allowed no ransom in such situation.

In the case of premeditated murder, even the altar of Yahweh could not protect the offender fro the death penalty (Exod. 21:14). The application of LEX TALIONIS in Leviticus 24:17-21 makes it clear that while “life for life” may only require compensation if the death of an animal is involved, it most certainly requires capital punishment if a man is killed. Likewise the “cities of refuge” (Num. 35:9-21) were for those who had committed unintentional manslaughter. One guilty of premeditated murder had absolutely no recourse. “You shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death” (Num. 35:31). If the guilty one fled to a city of refuge, the Law stated that “the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die” (Deut. 19:12).

Every crime except for premeditated murder could be remedied by restitution of some sort. Even manslaughter could be remedied this way, if the motives of the perpetrator were not culpable.

As seen, LEX TALIONIS in Leviticus 24 applies the “life-for-life” formula to the situation of intentional manslaughter. Its application in the Deuteronomy 19:21 context is likewise to a situation where intentional manslaughter occurs (vv. 11-13) or is intended by false testimony (v. 19). While many have ascribed the LEX TALIONIS pasage in question (Exod. 21) to an event of unpremeditated injury,(22) it would seem evident from the biblical context of LEX TALIONIS usages that an intentional event is being judged. A study of talionic law in Babylonian and Islamic contexts similarly reveals its application only in cases of intentional homicide and injury.23 In an excellent discussion of the intentional nature of this crime, Layton analyzes the use of the Hebrew verb hcAnA in Exodus 21:22.24 The use of hcAnA implies a premeditated, physical struggle. This clarifes the enigma of a talionic punishment for the mortal injury in this text. Only in light of intentionality does the use of LEX TALIONIS make sense. Only in such a light can one understand the lack of any proviion for the perpetrator’s protection in a city of refuge.

THE CASE

The law in Exodus 21:22-25 is formulated in a twice-repeated “if ... then” fashion. The “if” part of each conditional statement, referred to as the protasis, speaks of the legal situation. The “then” part, known as the apodosis, speaks of the legal consequence.25 The difference between the first statement (v. 22) and the second statement (vv. 23-25) revolves around the word NOsxA, translated “injury.”

The first statement speaks to the situation where there is no NOsxA and a fine is mandated. The second statement speaks to a situation involving NOsxA and the LEX TALIONIS is applied.

The protasis in verse 22 sets forth the situation where men are fighting (most likely two men) with intent to cause injury. Unfortunately for all involved, a pregnant woman gets in the way of a blow and is struck. Whether she is an innocent bystander or the wife of one of the assailants is not clear from the text and is inconsequential to the outcome. What is of significance is what happens to the woman. After she is struck, “her children go out” (hAyd,lAy; Uxc;yAv;). Because the understanding of this phrase is critical to a correct understanding of this passage, it bears close evaluation. Is this a case of premature live birth or of miscarriage?

The term dl,y, is the common Hebrew word for child or offspring. Why the plural form is used here is unclear. Keil and Delitzsch suggest that it is used in an indefinite sense, to indicate that there might be more than one child in the mother’s womb.26 Kline proposes that the use of the plural is “peculiarly appropriate to an aborted fetus, especially at an earlier, more amorphous embryonic stage.”27 House suggests that it is employed grammatically to indicate “natural products in an unnatural condition.”28

While dl,uy, elsewhere always means “living child” or one capable of living outside the womb (Gen. 44:20; Isa. 9:6), the adopting of the plural in this case is a significant modifier indicating the unnatural state of affairs. But that the circumstances were unnatural does not adequately answer the controversial question of whether the baby “came out” alive or dead.

Many recent interpreters have concluded that the use of the verb xcAyA (“to go or come out”) indicates nothing other than the birth of a living child.29 This conclusion is based on two key points: the Old Testament usage of xcAyA, and the availability of a specific term for miscarriage which was not employed. As for the latter, the Hebrew word for miscarriage is lkawA. This term is used frequently throughout the Old Testament (Gen. 31:38; Exod. 23:26; Hos. 9:14; 2 Kings 2:19; etc.) referring to the miscarriages of women, of animals, and of nonproductive land. As for xcAyA it is utilized in reference to the normal births of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:25-26), Perez and Zerah (Gen. 38:27 [30]), and Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5; 20:18). When Job lamented about his own birth, he used this word (Job 3:11; 10:18). It has been purported that in every case where xcAyA is used in the context of childbirth it refers to a live birth except in Numbers 12:12. This verse is clearly speaking of a stillbirth, but Cottrell is correct in noting that it is not the verb that communicates the concept of death.30 In this verse the subject is not dl,y,, “child,” but tme, “something dead.”31

While xcAyA normally refers to ordinary childbirth, it is a neutral term and may denote anything that “comes out” of the mother’s womb.32 In Numbers 12:12 it refers to a nonviable fetus. In Job 3:11 it is used to describe neither an ordinary delivery nor a stillbirth, but a difficult delivery with resulting perinatal death of the infant,[33] an all-too-common occurrence even today in areas that have inadequate obstetric care.

The word xcAyA as used in Exodus 21:22 may refer to other than a live birth. Kline concludes that “it is not demonstrable either that this language in itself must be understood with reference to a miscarriage or that it cannot be so understood.”34 He astutely notes that even those who allege that this must refer to a live birth take it to refer to a miscarriage when they come to the second conditional statement (v. 23). For here they relate the (possibly) fatal injury to both mother AND child.35 (To maintain that dl,y, must indicate a living child proves difficult at this same point, for a deadly injury to both would obviously result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.) This writer feels that the weight of evidence favors an interpretation of xcAyA in Exodus 21:22 as “miscarriage” and not “live birth.” This conclusion is based on the following textual, historical, and ancient Near Eastern legal evidence and on medical evidence.

THE EVIDENCE

First, as already noted, the textual evidence doe not mandate an interpretation of “live birth.” In fact the Mishnah in its commentary on this Exodus 21 passage (Baba Kamma 5:4) uses this precise phrase “unequivocally in the sense of miscarriage.36

Second, the historical exegesis of the passage has universally given it the meaning of miscarriage. Waltke quite conclusively makes this point, citing a long list of ancient scholars.37

Third, a comparison with five ancient Near Eastern law codes in similar case law formulations reveal that all of them refer to miscarriage and not to premature birth.38 As Layton comments,

These laws cannot be ignored, for virtually all Old Testament

exegetes acknowledge the value of them in illuminating the

meaning of the legal portions of the text. It would seem

incredible for Exodus 21:22 to deal, with premature birth while

the other five legal collections deal with miscarriage.39

Fourth, of particular interest to this writer is the medical data that speaks to the viability of infants delivered prematurely after a traumatic incident.

Studies show that trauma of all types occurs in five to ten percent of all pregnancies.40 In the early gestational period the uterus is, protected by the bones of the mother’s pelvis and is fairly immune to trauma. In the second and third trimesters of pregnancy the enlarging uterus becomes more and more vulnerable. For this reason penetrating abdominal wounds have a high fetal mortality as pregnancy progresses. The situation described in Exodus, however, appears to indicate blunt injury and not the penetrating variety (a stab wound is not inferred).

Contrary to popular opinion, blunt abdominal trauma that is not severe usually causes no problem to the fetus, well-protected as it is within the uterus and amniotic “shock-absorber.”41 Well over two-thirds of blunt trauma in pregnancy in the Western world happens in the course of motor vehicle accidents or physical assault. And even in the high-energy impact of the former, “despite its prominence ... the uterus and contents stay intact most of the time.”42

Thus it seems fair to assume that the blow delivered in the biblical case was significant. Kline builds a convincing argument for such an understanding of the verb JganA (“to strike”) based on its use in other scriptural texts.43

The most common reason for fetal demise in such cases is the death of the mother with secondary death of the unborn child.44 Kline’s suggestion that the mother dies from the blow but the baby lives[45] is medically nonsensical: a cesarean section might save the baby’s life if it were performed within five minutes of the mother’s death. If the mother survives and the child is born (in the biblical case), this raises the question of the status of the baby which “comes out” prematurely.

First, it is important to note that injury to the fetus IN UTERO may be direct or indirect. Direct injury is rare, mainly occurring late in pregnancy when the head is deep in the pelvis and major trauma causes fetal skull fracture. A recent review of the obstetric literature revealed only 19 such reported cases.46 The outcome was almost universally fetal demise, except when cesarean section was performed. There is no report of that particular surgical procedure having been performed in the ancient Near East.

Indirect injury to the fetus occurs when there is disruption of the oxygen supply coming through the umbilical cord. Rarely trauma may result in uterine rupture with grave consequences for mother and infant without immediate surgical intervention. Such event occurs in less than one percent of trauma.47 More commonly, in six percent of blunt trauma during pregnancy there is an overt disruption of the normal connection between the placenta and the uterus.48 Fetal mortality in such cases, given the best obstetric and neonatal care available in the United States, is 34 percent.49 Another reference cites 30 to 68 percent fetal mortality.50 Without intravenous methods of fluid therapy for the mother and surgical intervention, it is obvious that the fetal outcome in the vast majority of these cases would be death. Timms states that “following uterine rupture or significant placental separation, rapid exploration [surgically] and fetal delivery provide the only chance for fetal survival.”51

Less severe abdominal trauma may result in smaller disruptions of the placenta from the uterus, and less catastrophic outcomes. It is unknown how often an occult (self-limiting) placental separation takes place in these situations, but it may be the cause of common complaints such as “increased uterine activity” or slight cramping. Most of these cases progress to a normal outcome. In an excellent study of trauma in pregnancy Crosby suggests that if fetal oxygenation is impaired, labor or fetal death will occur within 48 hours.52

Premature labor is a serious problem after trauma and is aggressively treated in appropriate cases these days with medication to stop uterine contractions. The lungs of the developing infant are not ready for life outside the womb until 33 to 34 weeks gestation (out of 40 weeks in a “full-term” pregnancy). In a non-hospital setting, the mortality rate of these infants is very high.

There are only a few instances, in a non-technological era, in which blunt trauma serious enough to cause abortion of the fetus would result in a viable birth. If medical data has anything to say about Exodus 21:22, it indicates that the overwhelming probability for such a situation is an outcome of trauma-induced abortion with fetal demise.

The first conditional statement (Exod. 21:22) concludes with the pivotal phrase “yet there is no NOsxA.” This word NOsxA is used only three other times in the Old Testament. All three occurrences are in the story of Joseph (Gen. 42:4, 38; 44:29) and describe a severe or deadly type of injury. Jackson, among others, has concluded that this passage must also be relating a mortal injury.53 But the evidence is not decisive. House comments in response:

Jackson should be tempered a little in his understanding of ASON

in view of the rarity of the word. He surely demonstrates that

the word refers to severe or even fatal injury, but the text in

Exodus, the only other section of the Old Testament using the

word, could allow for ASON to be applied to a lesser injury.54

Since the infant has miscarried due to the blow, the “no injury” statement must apply to the mother. Occasionally a woman in such a circumstance would experience minimal external injury, but the placental disruption would nevertheless result in fetal death and miscarriage.

Some maintain that NOsxA must apply to both mother and child,[55] particularly to the child because of the grammatical structure of the sentence.56 Others are equally convinced that the mother alone is referred to by NOsxA.57 The linguistic evidence is equivocal, and in light of the evidence illuminating one’s understanding of the rest of the protasis, it becomes evident that “no NOsxA” applies to the mother.

THE JUDGMENT

The apodosis of the first conditional statement (Exod. 21:22) gives the judgment to be rendered in such a case: A pregnant woman is struck inadvertently, in the course of a physical struggle in which men are intending to injure one another, and as a result of the abdominal blow she suffers a miscarriage. In such a case the perpetrator is to be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and “he shall pay as the judges decide.”

The word “fine” has also been interpreted variously. Kline has expressed his opinion that the Hebrew word here, wnafA might carry the more general meaning of “punishment” in any form.58 Taking that interpretation, he builds a case for the understanding that this punishment would often be death or a “ransom” to be paid in place of death. His conclusion is appealing:

It will appear that even if it were granted that the first

penalty has reference to a miscarriage and the second penalty to

has suffered by the woman, as the dominant interpretation

suggests, it would still not follow that the penalty for the

destruction of the fetus was different in kind or even in degree

from the penalty for harming the woman.59

However, the evidence is less than compelling for accepting such an understanding of the word wnafA. In its other Old Testament applications it is used to denote the imposing of a monetary fine (Deut. 22:19; 2 Chron. 36:3). The noun also usually speaks of a monetary penalty.60 There are other Hebrew terms, furthermore, which might have been better used to imply physical retribution (e.g., MqAnA “vengeance”).

This fine was to be limited and enforced by “judges,” as most interpreters have understood the final phrase. House quotes Morgenstern on this point:

It goes without saying, of course, that his law never

contemplated that the husband could demand of the offending party

any sum of money or any other compensation that he might desire,

for then there could well be no limit to what he might claim.

Some method of regulation of the demand of the husband, so that

it might be kept within reasonable; limits, was absolutely

indispensable; and just this must have been provided for in the

last two words of the sentence.61

Frame expresses discomfort with the idea that a mere fine should be sufficient compensation for, the loss of an unborn Hebrew child.62 While other ancient Near Eastern law codes required such, pecuniary compensation in similar circumstances, it seems incongruous that the Scriptures should present the fetus so clearly as fully human life (as noted earlier) and yet allow a fine here instead of life-for-life retribution.

Some have suggested the casuistic nature of the law sheds some light on this enigma.63 Casuistic law as designed to meet the needs of a particular case. The guilty party, though judged for an intentional crime by LEX TALIONIS in the case of the woman, did not strike her abdomen with murderous intent toward the fetus. Therefore in this case the legal decision was not the normal judgment for manslaughter or murder, but a fine. This would fall into the same class as the nearby case law involving the negligent ox-owner (Exod. 21:28-30). His goring ox was a repeat offender and finally gored someone to death. The ox was killed while the owner, though guilty, got off in some instances with a monetary settlement (a “ransom”).

One problem with this argument is that the same, “intentionality” that made the offenders liable for the death of the mother should also have made the liable for the death of the fetus, if both were of equal status.

Perhaps it is more accurate to suggest that the Old Testament Law placed different value on different lives. The lives of slaves and aliens were repeatedly given a valuation less than, that of Hebrew citizens. For instance in the preceding case (Exod. 21:20) a slave beaten to death by his master. Instead of the phrase “he shall be put to death,” as would have been the ruling for murder, the man was to be “punished” or “avenged.” Some suggest that this meant he must be put to death, but this interpretation is doubtful. The next verse is more blunt: “If, however, [the slave] survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property” (v. 21).

Allen writes that since a fine was paid for the life of the slave -- certainly a human being -- in the same way the paying of a fine for the life of the fetus does not indicate a life that was less than fully human.64 He states, “The less severe penal relates more to the circumstances of the crime than of the kind of life that was lost.”65 While agreeing with the truth of the former statement this writer feels that the logic is reversed in the latter. The circumstances (while of significance) are of less importance, not more. The kind of life lost -- though without doubt fully human is of greater importance than the circumstances.

In the case of the goring ox circumstances are exactly the same for three different groups of fully human persons: Hebrew adults, Hebrew children, and slaves. The murderous ox is slaughtered in each case, indicating its blood-guiltiness in the taking of human life. But the culpable owner is in danger of losing his life only if the ox gored to death a free Hebrew person. The slave’s life is simply exchanged for 30 shekels. Without question, the kind of life that was lost determines the difference in the severity of the penalty.

The punishment for illicit intercourse with a female slave presents the same scenario: The circumstances of the crime are identical, but the kind of person molested makes a difference when it comes to assigning a penalty. As Leviticus 19:20 states, “Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed, nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.”

Furthermore as recorded in Leviticus 27, the Lord gave Moses instructions for redeeming persons or items dedicated (enslaved) to the Lord by rash vows. In this passage a monetary value is assigned to individuals. While elsewhere the slave’s life is valued at 30 shekels, here an adult Hebrew male is worth 50 shekels. The valuation of a Hebrew female was 30 shekels. Those either younger or older received a smaller valuation. For instance male children -- one month of age up to five years -- were given a substitutionary worth of five shekels, and female in the same age-group were valued at three shekels (Lev. 27:6). The priest would assign a redemption price for a person too poor to pay at the usual rate (v. 8).

The God of the Hebrews places high priority and value on all human life. It must be understood that “the moral nature of the Mosaic Law far surpassed the paganism of the other ancient Near Eastern law codes.”66 The rights of slaves and others of inferior status were guarded carefully. But incongruous as it may seem, God chose to place a higher value on some lives than others. God chose Israel to be His own special people, and in so doing “chose against” the alien. God chose to value the life of a free Hebrew adult more highly than that of a slave. In the situation where lives were being vowed to the Lord, He placed a lesser value on women than men, on young children than adults. This should help one understand how in Exodus 21:22 the life of the fully human fetus might receive a monetary valuation instead of the life-for-life edict.

THE CONCLUSION

The second conditional statement (Exod. 21:23-25) is now easily understood. If a pregnant woman were violently struck by men fighting together and she subsequently miscarried but suffered no personal injury, a fine was imposed on the guilty individual. If there were any NOsxA (grave injury) to the woman, then the LEX TALIONIS applied. If she died, as would frequently occur in such a circumstance, life for life was the penalty. For a lesser injury, the punishment was to be in measure, commensurate with the damage done.

It has been shown that the unborn fetus was regarded as fully human life from the time of conception. However, the valuation placed on the unborn was less than that placed on a Hebrew adult or child. Analogously in the context of the passage a lesser value given to the slave. Does this mean, as Cottrell has stated, that there may be rationale for “therapeutic” abortion? Might there circumstances in which the endangered psycho-social health of the mother or the probability of fetal malformation would be greater evils than abortion?

Based on this review of pertinent Scripture, the writer does not believe so. As Frame has written, “Doubtless the unborn child, like the slave, had a lesser status in Israelite society than other persons. It cannot be demonstrated, however, that this lesser status was a status of nonpersonhood. And that is the point at issue.”67 Fetal life is fully human life. The only circumstance that presents a greater “evil” than abortion (and thus would weigh in favor of abortion based on the lesser status of the fetus) is the unusual situation where the gestation presents a life-threatening danger to the mother (one of greater status). Fortunately such an occurrence is exceedingly rare these days, except in the form of ectopic pregnancy.

Jones feels this very situation is the downfall of the principle of “fetal inviolability,” and thus he postulates a number of situations in which abortion might not be the greatest evil.68 But his position, has been shown, is not the biblical one. Opting to sacrifice one life in order to save another from death is entirely different from destroying one life in order to save another from distress or discomfort.

It is worth noting that this casuistic law was written to meet the needs of a particular set of events. Those events were wholly different from the events that today lead to an elective abortion. In the latter situation, it is the mother herself who willingly submits to aggression against the human life within her. As Allen has written:

On no account, then, may this text in the Law of Moses be used

as a rationale for abortion on demand as practiced today. The

circumstances are too different to be compared. How can we

compare the accidental miscarriage of a woman caught up in a

street brawl to the decision of a woman today to go to one of the

clinics that specializes in the purposeful termination of life?

There simply is no parallel in he Bible, nor does there seem to

be any biblical justification for the current practice of

abortion in our culture.69

In any interpretation Exodus 21:22-25 treats the destruction of the unborn child as an unjust and illegal action. Frame is correct in stating that “it is perverse indeed to attempt to justify abortion by reference to a passage that condemns precisely the sort of destruction performed by the abortionist.70 May the truth of Scripture touch people’s hearts today and give them renewed motivation to love life as God does and to honor the weak of this world as He honors them.

________

Notes:

1 George F. Will, “The Case of the Unborn Patient,” NEWSWEEK, June 22, 1981, p. 92.

2 John Warwick Montgomery, “Abortion: Courting Severe Judgment,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, January 25, 1980, p. 54.

3 Ibid.

4 Statement of “Special Judiciary Committee on Separation of Powers,” quoted in ACTION LINE (CAC newsletter), February 5, 1982, pp. 2-3.

5 Bruce K. Waltke, “Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion,” JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 19 (Winter 1976): 3-13.

6 John A. Rasmussen, “Abortion: Historical and Biblical Perspectives,” COVENANT THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY 43 (January 1979): 19-25; John Ellington, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” BIBLE TRANSLATION 37 (July 1986): 334-37.

7 Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 20 (Summer 1977): 193-201. 8 H. Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL 41 (1978): 108-23; Bruce K. Waltke, “The Old Testament an Birth Control,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, November 8, 1968, pp. 99-105. 9 Cited by Waltke, “The Old Testament and Birth Control,” p. 99.

10 Ibid., p. 100.

11 Graham Scott, “Abortion and the Incarnation,” JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 17 (Winter 1974):

12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS (1914), s.v. “Feticide,” by A. E. Crawley, 6:

13 Waltke, “Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion,” p. 3, note.

14 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, 6:55.

15 Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” p. 193.

16 Jack Cottrell, “Abortion and the Law,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 16, 1973, p. 7.

17 Eugene Fisher, “Lex Talionis in the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition,” JOURNAL OF ECUMENICAL STUDIES (Summer 1982): 582-87.

18 Floyd E. Schneider, “Penology in the Mosaic Law” (ThM thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, May 1978), pp. 7-12; Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” pp. 196-97; Fisher, “LEX TALIONIS in the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition,” pp. 584-85.

19 Fisher, “LEX TALIONIS in the Bible and Rabbinic Tradition,” pp. 584-85.

20 Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” p. 197.

21 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Exodus,” in THE PENTATEUCH, 3 vols., trans. James Martin, COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), 2:135.

22 John M. Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” in THOU SHALT NOT KILL, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1978), p. 52; J. Carl Laney, “The Abortion Epidemic: America’s Silent Holocaust,” BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 139 October-December 1982): 348; R. Alan Cole, EXODUS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity ress, 1973), p.169.

23 Scott Layton, “An Exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Law” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979), p. 46.

24 Ibid., pp. 12-13.

25 Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” p. 193.

26 Keil and Delitzsch, “Exodus,” p. 135.

27 Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” p. 193.

28 House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” p. 114.

29 Ellington, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” p. 337.

30 Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” p. 8.

31 Ellington, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” p. 336.

32 Layton, “An Exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” p. 20.

33 Ibid., p. 38, N. 35.

34 Kline, “LEX TALIONIS and the Human Fetus,” p. 198.

35 Ibid.

36 Layton, “An Exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” p.22.

37 Bruce K. Waltke, “Letter to the Editor,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, January 3, 1969, p. 302.

38 Layton, “An Exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” p. 18.

39 Ibid.

40 Michael Katz, “Maternal Trauma during Pregnancy,” in MATERNAL-FETAL MEDICINE, ed. Robert K. Creasy and Robert Reshick (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1984), p. 773.

41 J. Pritchard, P. MacDonald, and N. Gant, “Injuries and Malformations of the Fetus, and Newborn Infant,” in WILLIAMS OBSTETRICS, 17th ed. (Norwalk, CT: Appleton, Cen- tury, Crofts, 1985), p. 797.

42 Katz, “Maternal Trauma during Pregnancy,” p. 777.

43 Kline, “LEX TALIONIS and the Human Fetus,” p. 198.

44 Katz, “Maternal Trauma during Pregnancy,” p. 777.

45 Kline, “LEX TALIONIS and the Human Fetus,” pp. 198-200.

46 Noelle Bowdler, “Fetal Skull Fracture and Brain Injury after a Maternal Automobile Accident,” JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE 32 (May 1987): 376

47 Katz, “Maternal Trauma during Pregnancy,” pp. 777-78.

48 Ibid.

49 Pritchard, MacDonald, and Gant, “Injuries and Malformation of the Fetus and Newborn Infant,” pp. 396-97.

50 M. Rick Timms, “Blunt and Penetrating Trauma during Pregnancy: Four Cases,” JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA 74 (March 1983): 159-160.

51 Ibid., p. 161.

52 W. M. Crosby, “Trauma during Pregnancy: Maternal and Fetal Injury,” OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGIC SURVEY 29 (1974): 683.

53 Bernard S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exodus XXI 22-25,” VETUS TESTAMENTUM 23 (July 1973): 274-75. 54 House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” p. 120.

55 Frame,” Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” p. 55; House, “Miscarriage or Pre-mature Birth?” p. 8.

56 Kline, “LEX TALIONIS and the Human Fetus,” p. 199.

57 Waltke, cited by House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth?” p. 117; Kenneth Kitchen, cited by Layton, “An Exegesis of Exodus 21:22-25 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” p. 27.

58 Kline, “LEX TALIONIS and the Human Fetus,” pp. 194-95.

59 Ibid., p. 194.

60 THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 1981), s.v. “wnafA” by Ronald B. Allen, 2:685-86.

61 Morgenstern, cited by House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth; p. 122,

62 Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” p. 56.

63 Ronald B. Allen, ABORTION: WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984), pp. 12-13.

64 Ibid., p. 12.

65 Ibid.

66 Schneider, “Penology in the Mosaic Law,” p. 60.

67 Frame,” Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” p. 53.

68 D. Gareth Jones, “Abortion -- An Exercise in Biomedical Ethics,” paper presented to the American Scientific Affiliation Conference, n.d., p. 22.

69 Allen, ABORTION: WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN? pp. 13-14.

70 Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” p. 52.

________

Copyright © 1989 by Dallas Theological Seminary.

When Tina Anderson was 15 years old and pregnant, the minister of Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, Massachusetts, brought her to the front of the congregation to ask for forgiveness. Pastor Chuck Phelps read from Deuteronomy about a virgin who has sex with a man and “did not cry for help” -- and then the man and woman are stoned to death. Phelps expelled Anderson from the church’s school, and helped her move out of town to live with a family he knew in Colorado.

Police in Concord couldn’t reach her, which made it impossible for investigators to follow up on her accusation that she was raped by another church member. It wasn’t until 14 years later that Anderson contacted police back home. When confronted, Ernest Willis, now 52, confessed to a “thoughtless act of sexual misconduct.”

Anderson says when she told him she was pregnant, Willis offered to punch her in the stomach to cause a miscarriage. Anderson testified she had refused his suggestion of an abortion because she had “been taught growing up, the church believes that’s one of the worst things you can do.” The baby was put up for adoption in Colorado.

Anderson didn’t press things because Pastor Phelps had told her “good Christians forgive and forget” when she told him her stepfather had abused her. Willis was convicted of two counts of rape, and sentenced to 15-30 years in prison.

________

Concord Monitor

Overcome evil with good — that was Chuck Colson’s mantra. And nowhere is it more applicable than in the fight against abortion, as one loving Korean pastor is proving. Stay tuned to BreakPoint.

The images and video broadcast around the world triggered shock and disgust: a team of Chinese firefighters sawed open a narrow sewage pipe and removed a screaming newborn baby. The tiny boy, whose only name was “59,” after the number of his hospital incubator, miraculously survived after being flushed or dropped — we’re still not sure — into a public sewer, where he became lodged.

Realizing what she says was a mistake, the baby’s mother notified authorities, who rushed to the scene and dismantled the pipe piece by piece until the exhausted and frightened baby appeared. The young single mother says she meant to abort the baby when she found out she was pregnant — but couldn’t afford the procedure.

Well, the good news is that Baby 59 is doing well and has since been taken home by his mother’s family. And more good news is that the incident has brought China’s abominable One Child Policy back to the fore of the world’s attention, and highlighted the fact that — whatever the details of Baby 59’s case — countless infants are abandoned by their mothers in China every year because of this terrible, terrible law.

That’s to say nothing of forced abortions and infanticide under the policy, another gruesome example of which emerged just days ago when a six-month pregnant woman died of hemorrhaging following a forced abortion.

But China isn’t the only Asian country where being born alive is no guarantee of safe conduct. In South Korea, hundreds of infants are abandoned on the streets every year. The problem is so severe that one Korean pastor decided to take unprecedented action.

His story is the subject of an award-winning documentary by 22-year-old American film student, Brian Ivie.

Stirred by a report in the LA Times about Pastor Lee Jong-rak and his unique solution to infant abandonment, Ivie raised enough money to lead a team to Seoul, South Korea to capture this tiny but inspirational ministry.

Pastor Lee Jong-rak calls it his “Drop Box.” The concept is simple. Instead of aborting or abandoning their infants, mothers who either can’t keep or don’t want their babies bring them to the wooden box affixed to Pastor Lee’s house. They say goodbye, and shut the door. The box, which is equipped with lights and a heater, reads in Korean, “Please don’t throw away unwanted or disabled babies, or babies of single mothers. Please bring them here instead.”

When the box opens, a bell rings, and Pastor Lee, his wife, or a volunteer comes and takes the child inside. Since Pastor Lee installed the Drop Box in 2009, as many as 18 babies a month have arrived, and the same number of children currently live in his home, which doubles as an orphanage. He and his wife have even adopted ten of their own — the maximum number local authorities will allow.

Sometimes he speaks to the mothers face-to-face. One told him she intended to poison herself and her newborn before hearing about the Drop Box. Another simply left a note, which read

“My baby! Mom is so sorry. I am so sorry to make this decision ... I hope you meet great parents ... I don’t deserve to say a word. Mom loves you more than anything else. I leave you here because I don’t know who your father is. I used to think about something bad, but I guess this box is safer for you ... Please forgive me.”

The fight for life is more than just political. In so many ways, it’s decided in the cultural imagination — and heroes like this provide the inspiration we need to replace cultures that spawned Kermit Gosnell, sewer pipes, child abandonment and forced abortions, with a culture that looks more like the home of Pastor Lee Jong-rak.

That, my friends, is overcoming evil with good.

________

Copyright (c) 2013 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

The claim of some pro-choice groups that Scripture does not address abortion would have surprised both Jews and Christians living in the first century. That’s because they were virtually unanimous that the Bible implicitly -- though clearly -- prohibited the killing of unborn children.

Abortion advocates today tend either to deny this fact or remain gladly ignorant of it. For example, Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, issued a “pastoral letter to patients” last spring stating, “Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures -- Jewish or Christian -- and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision.”

Of course, the Bible does not contain the direct commandment, “Thou shalt not have an abortion.” But based on passages like Psalm 139:14-16, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Amos 1:13 and others, ancient Jews and Christians believed it was clear that God cared for the unborn and regarded abortion as a sin.

Some may be surprised to learn that abortion existed more than 2,000 years ago, with surgical and chemical abortions performed in pagan cultures hundreds of years before Christ’s birth. The Greeks were among the first Ancient Near Eastern people to permit abortion, with Plato arguing in “The Republic” that pregnant women over 40 should be required to have abortions.

In contrast to pagan cultures, Judaism emphasized the value of unborn and pre-born life dating back at least to the time of Moses, when God’s people protected infant males from being slaughtered at birth as Pharaoh ordered (Exodus 1:15-21). In fact, some scholars believe Pharaoh’s command to kill Hebrew boys “on the birthstool” (Exodus 1:16) was actually a command to commit partial birth abortion, with “birth stool” functioning as a Hebrew euphemism for “birth canal.”

Either way, the Jewish culture of life was evident, and the Jews of Jesus’ time expressed their anti-abortion convictions. The Jewish work Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, written between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, taught that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly.” First Enoch, which was written in the first or second century B.C., said it was evil to “smash the embryo in the womb.”

Josephus, a Jewish historian born in A.D. 37, summarized, “The Law orders all offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus.”

Early Christians agreed. The Didache, a first-century document that some church fathers argued should have been included in the New Testament, taught, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.” Another Christian writing considered for inclusion in the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, said, “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.” Both of these documents were read aloud in some churches.

When Spanish bishops convened a council in approximately 305 in the city of Elvira, they voted unanimously to decree eternal excommunication for women who had abortions -- a decision that reflected their just condemnation of the practice though it failed to reflect the biblical promise of forgiveness to post-abortive women who confess their sin and trust Christ as their Lord and Savior.

“If a woman conceives in adultery and then has an abortion, she may not commune again ... because she has sinned twice,” the council decreed.

Among other early church leaders whose writings condemned abortion explicitly were Tertullian (c. 150 - c. 229), Clement of Alexandria (c. 153 - c. 215), Basil of Caesarea (c. 329-379), Jerome (c. 347-419) and John Chrysostom (c. 349-407).

Perhaps one reason the New Testament writers did not address abortion was that they did not need to. For the first 500 years of Christianity, there was a strong and practically unanimous consensus among believers that terminating a pregnancy violated Scripture’s doctrine of the sanctity of human life.

A thousand years later, John Calvin demonstrated that the Christian tradition of opposing abortion was still alive and well. Commenting on Exodus 21:22-23, Calvin wrote, “The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.”

In the strictest sense, abortion advocates are correct: the Bible does not speak explicitly to abortion. But that should not leave believers in a state of moral confusion any more than the Bible’s failure to explicitly address money laundering or Internet pornography. For more than 2,000 years, the Lord’s followers have extrapolated from biblical principles that some behaviors are obviously sinful. The united witness of Jews and Christians regarding abortion is a case in point.

Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom, Calvin and a host of other believers from every nation, tribe, people and tongue would scoff at the claim that Scripture is silent and that God’s people historically have been divided regarding abortion.

The argument for and against abortion, in a nutshell:

A. Arguments in favor of abortion.

1) A pluralistic society should not prevent individuals

from doing what their religious principles allow.

2) A free society should not invade the privacy of a

woman's body.

3) A just society should not pass laws whose execution

inevitably creates unfairness.

4) A merciful society should not make laws that force

terrible handicaps on children.

5) A wise society will not pass laws that it cannot,

and perhaps does not have the will to, enforce.

6) Each of these arguments assumes the fetus is not

in any sense a human being.

B. Arguments against abortion.

1) A pluralistic society does not allow people to

follow their consciences to kill an innocent human.

2) A free society will invade privacy if it is certain an

innocent human is about to be killed privately.

3) A just society can have unfair laws, if no law leads

to even greater unfairness.

4) A merciful society may make laws that burden children

if having no laws causes innocent unborn children

to be killed.

5) A wise society may make laws it cannot enforce if not

making them causes killing human beings legal.

6) Each of above makes an important assumption -

the fetus is a human being.

#2419

*