Board index ‹ Abortion

[Hickory Hickory Dock]

You are officially dead when you're brain dead, or when there are no more signals in your brain, but fetuses that are aborted don't have these signals, meaning they're not alive. So abortion is not murder like you would think. It's like deposing god a dead man that isn't alive.

Abortion should be a choice given to women, especially if it's unwanted and will only bring financial issues on the mother or put a kid into adoption where he/she may never be adopted. They must have a right to choose- Freedom.

[jimwalton]

The Bible is relatively silent on the issue of abortion, which has resulted in well-meaning Christians taking a variety of positions on the matter. You will find Christians who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.

The first factor is that no one but no one knows when for sure when life begins. There are positions that range from the moment of conception, or when the brain starts functioning, or after the first trimester, or when the fetus is viable (when it is able to live outside the womb), to the moment of birth, or even to several months after the birth. NOBODY knows. Doctors don’t know. Scientists don’t know. Philosophers don’t know. Theologians don’t know.

So the first thing you must know about "when does human life begin" is that any position one takes should be a judgment based on the weight of evidence, and not on any proof or mere emotional preference. There will be arguments pro and con for any position you will take on this issue, so you must think it through and choose the position that makes the most sense.

While there is no passage of Scripture that says "Life begins at conception," there are Bible passages from which are derived the principle that the unborn human is a person possessing a unique life. Scripture also assumes a continuity of life from before the time of birth to after the time of birth. The same language and the same personal pronouns are used indiscriminately for both stages. Further, God's involvement in the life of the person extends back to conception (and even before). It's those teachings that make many Christians feel that abortion is murder, but let's take it further.

In the ancient Near East, abortion was one of several methods of birth control, among castration of the male, self-restraint, contraception, withdrawal, and infanticide. If a woman was pregnant, however, most ancient civilizations, via laws about assault and accidents leading to miscarriage, sought to protect the unborn child. The Old Testament likewise contains no laws about abortion, though it also has protections for the woman and child in pregnancy. To the best of our current knowledge, abortion was not practiced in Canaan, as it apparently was (by potions of various sorts) in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Egyptians, however, placed a high value on prenatal life, as evidenced by their practice of mummifying miscarried fetuses and stillborn babies, indicating their belief that the fetus would carry on to the next life in the afterworld. In Canaan, however, infanticide was practiced through child sacrifice, which may have been their counterpart to abortion (birth control). This may explain the silence of the prophets and the Law on abortion, and their outrage against child sacrifice. These teachings also contribute to Christians' ideas that abortion is murder.

What is the teaching of the Old Testament?

1. God created humans as a species in his image, and invested them as a species with the breath of life (nephesh). The other vital life forces that makes a person a "living being" is blood (Gn. 9.4-7) and breath (ruach). It is these three forces that biblically makes someone "a living being." Such creation of humans is not just a one-time incident with Adam & Eve, but continues with the species (2 Cor. 4.7; Eph. 2.10; Rom. 9.20-21).

2. Humans bear God's image, marred by sin, from conception on (Ps. 51.5; 58.3).

3. Birth is considered a co-creative process involving man, woman, and God (Gn. 4.1; 16.2; 21.1-2a; 29.31, et al.). Humankind is granted a share in the joyous task of creation.

4. The OT Law sought to protect the life of the mother and of the fetus (Ex. 21.22-25). A high value was placed on both. The fetus is given both "image of God" (Gn. 9.6) and nephesh status (see also Lev. 24.17-18). Furthermore, the fetus was not considered "a potential life or person" because it was still in the womb. From the perspective of Heb. 7.11, "potential life" is in the loins of the father. See also Amos 1.13b. Once an egg was fertilized, it seems to have "image of God" status.

5. The Old Testament elevates human life as a precious gift from God (Ps. 139.13-18).

What is the teaching of the New Testament?

Certainly the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures of the 1st century were familiar with the practice of abortion, though it never became a practice in Jewish society.

1. There are several passages in the NT that express condemnation of infanticide (Mt. 2.16-18; Acts 7.17-19). That does not imply, however, that they also prohibit abortion.

The NT paints a pictures of the value of babies and children (Mt. 11.25; 19.13-15; 21.16), but these passages speak of already-born babies or children, not fetuses. Luke, however, uses the same Greek word, brephos, of the fetus in the womb (Lk. 1.41, 44) as he does of the newborn child (Lk. 2.12, 16; Acts 7.19; cf. 1 Pet. 2.2).

2. Conception is seen as a blessing (Mt. 1.20; Lk. 1.24-25, 30. 31; Jn. 16.21; 1 Tim. 2.15; 5.14). Pregnancy is viewed in a positive light.

The New Testament elevates human life as a precious gift from God. Acts 17.25b. The OT prohibition of murder is reaffirmed many times (Mt. 5.21-22; 15.19; 19.17-18; Rom. 1.29; Rev. 22.15).

3. Humans are seen as being in the image of God (James 3.9; Rom. 8.29; 2 Cor. 3.18; Eph. 4.24; Col. 3.10; 2 Pet. 1.4; 1 Jn. 3.2).

God took on human flesh, which removes any doubt as to human dignity (Jn. 1.14; Phil. 2.6-7). He was who he was from the moment of conception.

4. The NT teaches personal continuity from womb to grave.

5. Paul makes it clear that a Christian woman (at least) does not own or rule over her own body (1 Cor. 6.15-7.5). The claim that "I can do what I want with my own body" is not a biblical teaching.

Theological Perspectives:

1. Humans are unique creatures in being in the image of God.

2. The woman does not have exclusive rights over the developing human inside of her body. Theologically, that life inside her is a gift and a trust from God. It is inappropriate to set up the issue as a conflict of "rights": the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the unborn child. In Scripture, there is no"“right to life." Life is a gift from God and a sign of grace. No one has a presumptive claim on it. See also 1 Cor. 6.19-20.

3. The destruction of human life in any form is the antithesis of God’s primary purpose in creation. Satan is perceived as the destroyer of life; God is the giver of life.

4. It in inappropriate to create lines by asking "When does human life begin?" or "When does the soul enter a human being?" Neither biology nor theology know the answer, and they never will. These are attempts to justify abortion by defining marginal cases out of the human race; Jesus' persistent teaching was to define the marginal cases with which he came in contact as "in."

5. The Bible speaks strongly against the shedding of innocent blood (Gn. 4.10; Ex. 23.7; Dt. 21.8; Prov. 1.10-11, 15-16; 18-19; 6.16-19; 28.17; Joel 3.19; 2 Ki. 24.3-4).

6. The Bible teaches us to help those who are helpless.

7. There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely suggests that the unborn child is anything less than a human person from the moment of conception.

This is why Christians often regard abortion as murder. Scientifically we know the zygote has his or her own DNA uniqueness, his own blood type, and is a separate being from the mother. The Bible seems to accord the value of human life to even the unborn child.

[Hickory Hickory Dock]

It is not alive as it is not fully developed or have brain activity. In that moment, it is not Alive.

[jimwalton]

Are you defining "life" as "fully developed" or as "having brain activity"? I'm not convinced that's a very scientific approach. Cells don't have brains but they are sophisticated machines that are distinctly alive. Some babies when they're born as premies aren't even fully developed, but no one would argue, "Then they aren't alive."

Within the first week cells in the zygote are reproducing. The organism is a separate organism from his/her mother or father, with a distinct and unique genetic code. It's alive (growth, reproduction, use of energy, organized, adapting, etc.).

In the 3rd week after conception, the primitive groove forms on the ectodermal surface of the embryonic disk. The spinal cord and brain will develop from this structure. By week 4 the heart is beating—it's alive. Blood is flowing.

By five weeks, the neural tube is enlarging. By 6 weeks the brain has developed into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible. Brain waves can first be measured by week 8. It's alive.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Help me understand.

[Hickory Hickory Dock]

It is okay to have an abortion because it's not human fully by how I define it

[jimwalton]

You're fully entitled to your opinion. I was responding because you asked "Why are you against abortion?"

You stand on dangerous ground, however. At what point is someone "fully human" or not? Is a mentally or physically incapacitated person "fully human"? How about a newborn with congenital defects? What about an elderly person with Alzheimer's? Depending how you define it, you've taken a hazardous stand on a shaky position.

[Hickory Hickory Dock]

No, because they are out of the womb, breathing without the support of a mother. They are alive with most of the time, brain activity like consciousness and thought. They also can still live while a fetus in early stages of development are so undeveloped it's not life.

[jimwalton]

So tell me: How are you defining "life"? It sounds as if you're saying (1) he or she is not alive if he can't breathe on his own, or (2) he or she is not alive if he is not fully developed. Or maybe both: he has to be fully developed and be breathing on his own. Is that how you are defining life?

[Hickory Hickory Dock]

I am defining life as some of those criteria, yes.

[jimwalton]

So then I take it you approve of euthanizing (killing) people who are on ventilators (can't breathe on their own), and of people with physical handicaps because they were born with some parts not fully developed?