The Masters Seminary
Journal 11/2 (Fall 2000) 169-190
Copyright © 2000 by Masters Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE ABORTION DILEMMA
Michael
A. Grisanti
Associate Professor
of Old Testament
In recent years Supreme-Court actions legalizing abortion
have
crystalized two ethical positions: pro-choice and pro-life. A series of
cases
resulted in decisions granting women the right to choose whether or
not to have
abortions. As a consequence, several methods of aborting unborn
children have
come into prominence: suction aspiration, dilation and
curettage, dilation and
evacuation, saline injection, hysterotomy,
prostaglandin chemical, RU-486, and
partial-birth abortion. Viewpoints on abortion break down into four
categories.
Some say abortion is
always right, others say sometimes, still others rarely, and
some say never. The Bible gives several reasons why abortion is
wrong because it
does not distinguish between a person's state before and after
birth, because it
indicates God "knew" certain ones before birth, because it
indicates King David
was a sinner from conception, and because John the Baptist
reacted while still in
his mother's womb. Both sides in the debate have used Exodus
21:22-25 to prove
their cases, but the passage has a number of exegetical
difficulties that keep it
from being a strong argument. Though several Ancient Near
Eastern law codes
are similar to the Exodus passage, the biblical law is
distinguishable from these in
several ways. Questionable situations when some would use the
mother's health,
pregnancies caused by rape or incest, and pregnancies facing fetal
handicaps do
not furnish sufficient grounds for abortion.
The Supreme Court's decision in 1973
to legalize abortion at almost any
time in a woman's pregnancy and for a wide variety
of reasons thrust the issue
onto the platform of heated national debate.
Discussion and debate over the
abortion issue occurs within families, in and
among churches, in communities, in
legislatures on the state and
federal level, throughout the court system, and in the
Executive Branch of each state and in the
federal government. Proponents on both
sides of the issue feel great passion for their
position and expend great energy
defending the legitimacy of their perspective on
the issue. Organizations,
publications, billboards, and
websites that advocate a certain position concerning
abortion abound. As with a number of ethical
issues, believers are on both sides of
the fence. Though some Christians fiercely oppose
abortion in any circumstance,
others just as fervently defend the right of a woman
to have access to an abortion.
169
170 The
Master's Seminary Journal
What does the Bible have to say
about the practice of abortion? How
should that belief affect Christian conduct in a world
given over to paganism? In
other words, how does a believer flesh out his belief
about abortion in his life and
ministry?
By definition, an abortion involves
the "expulsion of the human fetus ...
before it is capable of surviving outside the
womb."1 The two general categories of
abortion are the spontaneous and the induced. A
spontaneous abortion is one that
takes place naturally, with no external intervention.
It represents a situation over
which the mother has no control. In a number of
cases, a fertilized egg never
implants in the mother's womb and passes out of
her body during her monthly
period. Another kind of a spontaneous abortion
involves a miscarriage. In this
instance, the mother's body expels the developing
fetus before the baby is able to
live outside the womb.2 The second
category of abortion involves an induced
abortion, i.e., one brought about by medical
means (discussed at length below).
Statistically
speaking, since the Supreme Court's decision of 1973 (Roe v.
Wade),
the annual number of abortions has risen from 744,600 to a peak of 1.6
million (approximately 1.6 million abortions
were performed annually from 1980-
1992).
After 1992 the number of abortions performed annually
slowly dropped to
1.4
million in 1.996.3 From 1973 through :1996,
an estimated 34.4 million unborn
babies have died in hospitals and abortion clinics
throughout
4
years, abortions terminated between one-quarter and one-third of all
pregnancies
in
younger than 25.4 Over half of
unintended pregnancies worldwide end with
induced abortion.5 It has become the
second most common surgical procedure in
our country, circumcision being the first.6
The basic question in this debate is
"Are you in favor of abortion (pro-
abortion) or opposed to it
(anti-abortion)?" Or to put it another way, "Are you pro-
choice or pro-life?" The foundation for this
decision is this: Does a woman have
the right to do whatever she wishes with her body
(choice), or is the human
responsibil-
1 Charles C.
Ryrie, Biblical Answers to Contemporary
Issues (Chicago: Moody, 1991) 85.
2 John S. Feinberg and Paul D.
Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (
Crossway, 1993) 50.
3 These statistics are available
on numerous web sites dealing with the issue of abortion. For
two examples, see the home page for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research center
(www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
and the Ohio Right to Life home page
(www.ohiolife.org/stats/us 1996.htm).
4
Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions while teenagers obtain 20% (www.agi-
usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html).
5
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, this
involves 46 million pregnancies (and
abortions) worldwide (www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib_0599.html).
6 According to J. Kerby Anderson (Moral
Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives on Contemporary
Issues [
Statistics,
The Abortion Dilemma 171
ity to preserve life at all
times (life)?
Neither set of proponents finds
total agreement with the titles given them.
The
pro-abortionist does not regard herself/himself as anti-life even though he or
she does not view the fetus as a person. A number
of women regard themselves as
pro-choice but not pro-abortion. Nor is the
anti-abortionist really anti-choice. A
woman does have the responsibility to take care of
her body. However, the issue
of abortion touches two lives, those of the mother
and of the unborn child. Those
who oppose abortion contend that the mother's
preferences should not have
preeminence over the unborn child's life.
Consequently, the debate over abortion
is normally categorized by two basic positions:
pro-choice and pro-life.7
THE LEGAL BACKGROUND OF ABORTION
Various sources document the legal
history of the abortion debate. As part
of their discussion of the larger issue, numerous
volumes that focused on the issue
of abortion or ethics in general provide a helpful
overview of this legal history.8
More
recently, various websites offer the full text of the various legal decisions
as
well as links to other related websites.9
One has only to type the word "abortion"
in one of the major web search engines to find
hundreds of places to find informa-
tion of this kind.
Roe v. Wade (1973)10
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme
Court ruled that an unborn child is the
property of the mother. It concluded that she
might dispose of it for any reason
during the first six months of pregnancy, and at any
other time (last trimester) if,
in the opinion of a single licensed physician, it
is necessary to preserve her life and
health. During the first three months of pregnancy,
abortion may not be regulated.
During
the second trimester, it may be regulated only with reference to the
protection of the "mother's" health.
7 The complaint of this writer
about media coverage of this issue is the frequent use of unequal
terms for the two sides. Those in favor of abortion
are said to be pro-choice (not pro-abortion or
anti-life). But those opposed to abortion are
referred to as anti-abortion or anti-choice (not pro-
life).
8 Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics 48-50; Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics
(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 118-22; Curt Young, The Least
of These (
1984)
21-32.
9 Abortion Law
Homepage (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/index.htm); cf.
www.abortioninfo.net /facts.
10 410
172 The
Master's Seminary Journal
Doe v.
In a companion case decided on the
same day as Roe v. Wade, the Supreme
Court
struck down a
attempts to place limits on a woman's right to an
abortion had to conform to "a
compelling state interest." It is important to
note that the Supreme Court justices
interpreted the mother's health to include her
psychological and emotional health
in addition to her physical health.
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1977)12
This case removed some of the limits
that had been placed on abortion by
Roe v. Wade (e.g., spousal consent,
parental consent for a minor child). The
woman and her physician were the only ones legally
involved in the decision-
making process.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)13
This case represented one of the
first significant limits on an individual's
right to an abortion. Reversing certain lower court
decisions, the Supreme Court
upheld a
for "non-therapeutic" abortions. Building
on the Hyde Amendment that dealt with
the use of federal funds for abortions, this case
concerned the right of states to
limit or prohibit the use of tax funds to pay for
abortions.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1992)14
Pro-choice proponents brought this
case to the Supreme Court to protest
limitations placed on abortion in the state of
governor of the state). The state law in question
required that a woman seeking an
abortion give informed consent after receiving
certain relevant information 24
hours before the procedure (explanation of procedure,
risks of abortion, probable
gestational age of fetus), informed parental consent
for a minor child, and
evidence of spousal notification. Pro-life
advocates regarded this case as the best
opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade and pro-choice proponents hoped that the
Supreme
Court would strike down all the limitations. Neither side was totally
satisfied with the outcome. The Supreme Court did
not overturn Roe v. Wade but
retained all the
11 410
12 428
13 109
14 112
The
Abortion Dilemma 173
limitations except the spousal notification feature.
Although it does not belong to the legal/court
history of the abortion battle,
one should remember President Clinton's
contribution to this debate. On January
20,
1993, while the annual protest against Roe
v. Wade was going on outside the
White
House, President Clinton reversed more than a decade of executive support
for the unborn with one stroke of the pen.15
He signed an executive order that did
three things:
He lifted the "gag rule" that had
prohibited workers in federally funded
health clinics from mentioning
abortion as an alternative to dealing
with an unwanted pregnancy.
He lifted the federal prohibition against
performing abortions on military
bases and in military
hospitals.
He ended the moratorium on federal funding for
research that utilizes fetal
tissue procured from induced
abortions.
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)16
At least 30 states have passed a ban on
partial-birth abortions. Shortly after
abortions, Leroy Carhart,
filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the
statute. In September of 1999, the 8th Circuit
of the U.S. Court of Appeals declared
2000,
the Supreme Court agreed to hear its first partial-birth abortion case,
Stenberg v. Carhart. Attorneys for both sides presented oral arguments for the
case on April 25, 2000, and the court rendered a
decision on June 28, 2000,
overturning
Court
justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority,
affirmed that the
law results in an "undue burden upon a womans
right to make an abortion
decision."18
THE METHODS OF ABORTION
"Abortion" describes the act of
bringing forth young prematurely. A
spontaneous abortion is one that takes place
naturally, a situation over which the
15 Rae, Moral Choices 117.
16 99-830. For a brief summary of
this case and the perspective of Planned Parenthood, see
http://www.planneciparenthood.org/library/facts/stenberg.html.
17 For the full text of this case
presented at the state level to the U.S. District Court, see
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19970909/ 3205a.htm.
18 "Http://abenews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus_partialbirthruling
000628.html.
174 The
Master's Seminary Journal
mother has no control. An induced abortion is one that
is brought about by
medical means. The various methods of induced
abortion receive brief attention in
the following paragraphs.19
Suction Aspiration
This procedure is used in 80 percent of the
abortions up to the 12th week
of the pregnancy (1st trimester). The mouth of the
mother's cervix is dilated. A
hollow tube with a knifelike edged tip is inserted
into the womb. A suction force
28
times stronger than a vacuum cleaner literally tears the developing baby to
pieces
and sucks the remains into a container.
Dilation and Curettage (D & C)
The cervix is dilated with a series of
instruments to allow the insertion of
a curette--a loop-shaped knife--into the womb.
The instrument is used to scrape
the placenta from the uterus and then cut the baby
apart. The pieces are then drawn
through the cervix. An attending nurse must then
reassemble the tiny body to
make sure no parts remain in the womb to cause
infection.
Dilation and Evacuation (D & E)
This procedure occurs at 12-20 weeks. Since by
week 12 the baby's bones
are hardening and can no longer be sucked apart,
abortion is achieved by dismem-
berment. After dilating the
cervix, forceps with sharp metal teeth tear the baby
apart. The head is usually too large to be removed
whole and must be crushed and
drained before it is removed from the womb. As
with the above procedure, an
attending nurse inventories the body parts to
avoid infection in the womb from
parts left behind.
Saline Injection
This procedure is also called
"salt-poisoning" or hyper-natremic abortion
and is generally used after 13 weeks of pregnancy
(2nd trimester). A long needle
is inserted through the mother's abdomen to remove
some of the amniotic fluid
surrounding the baby and to replace it with a toxic,
saline solution. The baby then
breathes and swallows this solution. In most
cases, the unborn child dies in one or
two hours from salt poisoning, dehydration, and
hemorrhaging. The mother goes
into labor about 24 hours later and delivers a dead
(or in a few cases, dying) baby.
19 Numerous sources provide an
overview of these techniques. For two examples, see Feinberg
and Feinberg, Ethics 51-53, and Young, Least of These 83-99.
The Abortion Dilemma 175
Hysterotomy
During the last three months of the pregnancy
(3rd trimester) this
procedure is used. The womb is opened surgically
and the baby is removed, as in
a cesarean section. However, the purpose of this
procedure is to end the infant's
life. Instead of being cared for, the baby is
wrapped in a blanket, set aside, and
allowed to die.
Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion
This procedure involves the use of chemicals
recently developed by the
Upjohn
Phaimaceutical Company. Prostaglandin hormones,
injected into the
womb or released in a vaginal suppository, cause the
uterus to contract and deliver
the child prematurely--too young to survive. A
saline solution is sometimes
injected first, killing the baby before birth. A
self-administered tampon has been
going through clinical testing. The procedure has several side effects and live
births have been common (when saline solution is not
used). This procedure is
most common in
RU-486 (The Abortion Pill)20
After receiving approval for distribution in
and the People's Republic of
abortionists around the world. After
RU-486 became a viable alternative as an
abortion technique, numerous countries considered
allowing distribution within
their borders. In 1994, a research organization (The
Population Council) began
conducting the first nationwide study of the French
abortion pill (RU-486) in a
number of different clinics throughout the
FDA
gave RU-486 tentative approve for distribution in the
amazingly short 6-month approval process). Final
approval depended on FDA's
inspection of the company chosen to manufacture the
drug in the
Danco Laboratories LLC have agreed to serve as the
distributors for the RU-486
drug, but have not named their manufacturing source.
Although proponents of the RU-486 drug expected
final approval in late
spring or early summer, the FDA made an important
decision in June 2000. In a
letter to The Population Council, the FDA set
September 30, 2000 as a tentative
20 Supporters and opponents of
RU-486 have debated the potential complications of the drug.
For
a recent study that highlights some of those negative side-effects (written by
advocates of
the drug), see a recent article written in the
following well-known medical journal: Irving M. Spitz,
C.
Wayne Bardin, Lauri Benton,
and Ann Robbins, "Early Pregnancy Termination with
Mifepristone and Misoprostol
in the
(April
30, 1998):1241-47. The following website provides an abstract of the article
and gives
careful attention to those potential medical
complications: www.lifeissues.org/ru486/ru98-
05.html.
176 The
Master's Seminary Journal
deadline for approving the drug. To the dismay of
the drug's proponents, the FDA
placed three key restrictions on the distribution of
the RU-486 drug.
Only health professionals trained in surgical
abortion, medical abortion,
and sonography
can distribute the drug.
Any physician who administers this drug must
have admitting privileges at
a hospital within one
hour of their office in case something goes
awry.
An accredited agency must verify that all
doctors who intend to administer
this drug meet the training
requirements stated above.21
In the summer of 1999 the RU-486 drug received
approval in eight other
European
countries (
to the drug. A Canadian doctor in
clinical trial of the RU-486 drug.
A woman first takes RU-486, which blocks the action
of progesterone, a
hormone that prepares the lining of the uterus
for pregnancy and is essential to
maintain a pregnancy. Two days later she then
takes two tablets of a
prostaglandin, which causes the
uterus to contract. In most cases, the embryo is
expelled in four hours. RU-486 is normally taken
no later than 63 days after
pregnancy and is supposedly successful in about
96% of the cases. Complications
increase after 49 days of pregnancy.
Partial-Birth Abortion
In a partial-birth abortion the person
performing the abortion partially
delivers (legs, arms, and torso only) a living
unborn child before killing the unborn
child and completing the delivery. Before the
delivery is completed, the person
performing the abortion punctures the back of the
skull with scissors or another
instrument, inserts a suction curette into the
skull, and suctions the contents of the
skull so as to collapse it.
IS
ABORTION EVER RIGHT?: A SPECTRUM OF VIEWS
A survey of the voluminous pages written about
this debate from all
perspectives demonstrates that
people answer the question, "Is Abortion Ever
Right?," in four ways: always, sometimes (tinder certain
circumstances), rarely,
and never.
21 Shari Roan, "The Abortion
Pill: Finally at Hand?,"
The Abortion Dilemma 177
Always ("abortion on demand")
In the original Roe v. Wade decision (1973) the
Supreme Court ruled that
an unborn child is not entitled to legal
protection of his or her life and can be
aborted at anytime up until the moment of birth.
Though several pro-abortionists
limit abortion to the first two trimesters of
pregnancy, some abortion clinics will
perform an abortion at any time before birth.
Various factors contribute to a woman's decision
to have an abortion.
Some
of these are very complicated and make the issue of abortion even more
difficult. Here are some of the reasons proposed
by those who advocate abortions:
Therapeutic - the life of a mother may be at
risk should she carry a child to term.
Eugenic - the baby is retarded, deformed, or
handicapped in some way.
Psychiatric - the mother's
mental health.
Socio-economic - to ease
economic pressures on an individual/family.
Violation - in cases where
the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
On demand - for any reason important to the
mother.
Sometimes (under certain circumstances)
Within the anti-abortion movement, there is
disagreement whether abortion
might be legitimate in certain cases. For the most
part, pregnancies that threaten
the mother's health and those caused by rape or
incest are the ones debated and
discussed within the pro-life movement as possible
instances where an abortion
may have legitimacy.
Rarely
This reason applies only when the mother's life
is actually at stake,
primarily in the case of ectopic
or tubal pregnancies. With an ectopic
or tubal
pregnancy the fertilized egg implants in the
fallopian tube rather than the mother's
uterus. The doctor has only two options. On the one
hand, he can intervene and
take the baby's life by surgically removing the
fetus from the fallopian tube and
save the mother's life. His other option is to do
nothing and let both mother and
baby die. There is abundant medical information
available that no ectopic/tubal
pregnancy ever resulted in childbirth.
This is an issue to which pastors and potential
parents must give careful
attention. Over the last twenty years the number
of ectopic pregnancies has
increased fourfold. It now accounts for about
eleven percent of maternal deaths.
Sexually
transmitted diseases (that damage the fallopian tube), a retained IUD,22 a
22 IUD stands for "intra-uterine
device," a formerly popular birth control device.
178 The
Master's Seminary Journal
tubal ligation,
and tuboplasty23 appear to be causes for this significant increase
in
the occurrence of ectopic
pregnancies.
With regard to the "Sometimes" and
"Rarely" positions, the concerns for
the mother's health are normally limited to genuine
medical health risks. This
could involve the discovery of an aggressive form of
cancer, a serious heart
condition, or some other serious disease. In all
of these cases, the attending
physician has a legitimate desire to safeguard the
life and health of the mother. In
each of these instances the husband and wife must
wrestle with the doctor's
evaluation of the probable course of the ailment
and the life of their baby. Since
these circumstances have life and death in the
balance, they require decisions that
are far from easy. This writer seeks to limit a
legitimate use of abortion to the case
of an ectopic pregnancy.
This kind of circumstance appears to be clear. In the
other cases, this writer would do everything possible
to preserve both the mother's
and child's life. In the end, unless it was clear
that both mother and child would
die, he would not end the life of the child for the
sake of the mother's health.
Never
According to the proponents of this perspective,
no extenuating circum-
stances legitimize an abortion. Those who take
this position would even exclude
an ectopic pregnancy as
a legitimate cause for agreeing to an abortive procedure.
THE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE: WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?
(WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY?)
No Difference Whether before or after Birth
The Bible recognizes no essential difference
between the being in the
womb and the being after birth. From the point of
conception and forward, the
individual is a person. According to Genesis 4:1,
"Now Adam knew Eve his wife,
and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have
acquired a man from the
LORD.24 The passage views Cain's life as a continuity, and
his history extends
back to his conception. Eve makes no distinction
between his conception, birth,
and life. Eve regards conception and life as part
of the work of God. Job affirms,
"May
the day perish on which I was born, And the night in
which it was said, A
male child is conceived"' (Job 3:3). Job's life
has become an intolerable burden to
him. As Job laments his existence, he connects his
birth and his conception as
parallel items in a poetic unit. Both his
conception in his mother's womb and his
birth from his mother's womb form an integral part of
his existence.
23 Feinberg and
Feinberg, Ethics 414 n. 18.
24 Scripture quotations are taken
from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.
The Abortion Dilemma 179
God "Knew" Certain Persons before Birth
The Bible speaks of God "knowing"
certain persons before their birth,
indicating that God regarded them as persons that
early. The psalmist writes,
For You formed my
inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I
will praise You, for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are
Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden
from You, When I was made in
secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest
parts of the earth. Your eyes
saw my substance, beig yet unformed. And in
Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, when as yet
there were none of them
(139:13-16).
David
rejoices over Yahweh's careful watchcare over him
even in his mother's
womb. Verse 13 points to God's personal regard for
the psalmist that began when
he was yet in his mother's womb. Verses 14-15
highlight that David was the
product of God's creative work in his mother's
womb. Ronald Allen writes:
The Bible never speaks of fetal life as mere
chemical activity, cellular
growth, or vague force.
Rather, the fetus in the mother's womb is described
by the psalmist in vivid pictorial
language as being shaped, fashioned,
molded, and woven together by
the personal activity of God. That is, as
God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, so He
is actively involved
in fashioning the fetus in
the womb.25
God
affirmed to the prophet Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew
you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I
ordained you a prophet to the nations"
(Jer 1:5). God "knew" Jeremiah even before he was
conceived. God
"sanctified" Jeremiah and "ordained" him a
prophet before he came from the
womb. Also, God Himself is the One who forms the
fetus and orchestrates the
natural processes that bring about the miracle
of life (cf. Job 31:15; Ps 119:73;
Eccl
11:5, which suggest that God's providence rules throughout the gestation
period of a fetus). King David Was a Sinner from
Conception King David himself
acknowledged that he was a sinner
from the moment of his conception. In Psalm
51:5
(NIV) he affirms, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my
mother conceived me." In reflecting on the sin in
his heart, David recognizes that
the sin of his heart is not something recent but
goes back to the point of his
conception in the womb of his mother. Such a moral
state could be ascribed only
to a person. It is also important to note that the
psalmist links his birth with his
conception.
25 Ronald B. Allen, In Celebrating Love of Life (
Seminary, 1977) 6.
180 The
Master's Seminary Journal
John the Baptist Reacted Personally While
Inside
John, the Baptist is said to have reacted
personally when he was yet in the
womb of
my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
When Mary entered the room to
see her cousin Elizabeth, her cousin exclaimed that
her unborn child leaped for joy
in her womb.
Exodus
21:22-25: Accidental Miscarriage or Premature Birth?
Proponents of a pro-choice as well as a pro-life
perspective have used this
verse to support their interpretations of the Bible's
contribution to this issue. Since
it is a difficult. passage
and it finds a place in the argumentation of both sides of
the issue, it deserves careful attention. The NIV
and the NASB translations
provide a good comparison of the two primary
interpretations of these verses.
NIV: "(22) If men who
are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely (hAyd,lAy;
Uxc;yA, yase'u yeladeha), but there is no serious injury)
( NOsxA, 'ason),
the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands
and the court allows. (23) But if there is serious injury (NOsxA, 'ason),
you are to
take life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for
tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25)
burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for
bruise."
NASB: "(22) And if men
struggle with each other and strike a woman with child
so that she has a miscarriage (hAyd,lAy; Uxc;yA, yase'u yeladeha),
yet there is no
further injury
(NOsxA, ason), he shall surely be fined
as the woman's husband may
demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
(23) But if there is any
further injury (NOsxA, 'ason;),
then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (24)
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise."
Interpretive Options
Pro--abortion/pro-choice interpreters
customarily contend that these verses
present the occurrence of an accidental miscarriage,
while anti-abortion/pro-life
interpreters suggest that the
passage depicts a safe, premature birth.
Accidental Miscarriage (Normal Pro-Abortion Interpretation). According to
this interpretation,26 verse 22 depicts an
accidental miscarriage for which only
26 Some proponents of this
interpretation are Brevard S. Childs, The
Book of Exodus, OTL
(Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1974) 471-72; R. Alan Cole, Exodus:
An Introduction and
Commentary, TOT (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity, 1973) 169; Robert N. Congdon, "Exodus
21:22-25
and the Abortion Debate," Bibliotheca
Sacra 146/582 (April-June 1989):132-47;
Dolores
E. Dunnett,
The Abortion Dilemma 181
a fine is levied. Verse 23 refers to a mortal
injury inflicted on the mother and the
fetus for which an "eye for an eye"
punishment is required (see NASB translation).
Since
the punishment for accidentally killing an unborn child is less severe than
the punishment for killing an adult, some
proponents of this interpretation
conclude that the unborn baby must be considered
less than human (that is, of less
value than an actual person). According to this view,
the "harm" does not happen
or happens to the mother, not the premature child.
Safe, Premature Birth (
view,27 verse 22 presents a safe premature birth
for which a fine is levied. The next
verse describes some kind of harm brought upon the
mother and/or child for which
the judges require an "eye for an eye" punishment
(see NIV translation).
According
to this perspective, when harm of any kind comes to the mother or
child, the
"Evangelicals
and Abortion," JETS 33
(1990):217-18; Russell Fuller, "Exodus 22:22-23: The
Miscarriage
Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus," JETS 37 (1994):169-84; J. Philip
Hyatt,
Exodus, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 233-34;
The
Law of Exodus 21:22-23 Revisited," Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990):40-45; Dale
Patrick,
Old Testament Law (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1985) 76-77; Shalom Paul, Studies
in the Book
of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1970) 70-77;
Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, JPS Torah (New York: Jewish
Publication Society, 1991) 125-26; Joe M.
Sprinkle,
"The Interpretation of Exodus 21:22-25 (Lex Talionis) and Abortion," WTJ 55
(1993):233-53;
Bruce K. Waltke, "Old Testament Texts Bearing on
the Problem of the Control of
Human Reproduction," in Birth Control and the Christian. A Protestant Symposium on the
Control of Human
Reproduction,
eds. W. O. Spitzer and Carlyle Saylor (
House,
1969) 10-13; R. Westbrook, "Lex Talionis and Exodus 21:22-25," Revue Biblique 93
(1986):52-69.
27 Some proponents of this view
are
Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 247-49; Francis J. Beckwith,
"Abortion
and Public Policy: A Response to Some Arguments," JETS 32 (1989):512-15; Walter
Brueggemann, "The Book of Exodus," in the New Interpreter's Bible, ed. Leander E.
Keck et al.
(Nashville:
Abingdon, 1990) 1:864; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus
(Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1983) 275-77; Jack W. Cottrell,
"Abortion and the Mosaic Law," Christianity
Today 17/13 (March 16, 1973):6-9;
John J. Davis, Moses and the Gods of
Book of Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1971) 225-26; R. du Preez,
"The Status of
the Fetus in Mosaic Law," Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 1 (1990):5-21; John 1.
Premature
Birth?,"
Bible Translator 37/3 (July 1986):334-37; Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics 63-
65;
Paul B. Fowler, Abortion: Toward an
Evangelical Consensus (
1987)
149; Victor P. Hamilton, in the New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis, ed. W. VanGemeren (
Hoffmeier, "Abortion and the Old Testament
Law," in Abortion: A Christian Understanding
and
Response, ed. James K. Hoffmeier (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 57-62; H. Wayne
House,
"Miscarriage
or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25," WTJ
41
(1978):108-23; 'Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward
Old' Testament Ethics (
1983) 102-4, 168-72; C. F. Keil
and F. Delitzsch, The
Pentateuch, 3 vols, translated
by James Martin, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament (reprint;
1949)
2:135; Rae, Moral Choices 124-25;
Ronald F. Youngblood, Exodus, EC (
1983) 105. Meredith G. Kline ("Lex Talionis and the Human
Fetus," JETS 20 [1977]:197-98)
and
John
J. Davis (Abortion and the Christian:
What Every Believer Should Know [
Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1984], 51-52) propose a variation of this position by relating
verse 22
to the mother alone and verse 23 to the infant.
182 The
Master's Seminary Journal
payment of a fine is not a severe enough
penalty. A penalty appropriate to the
"harm" is required. Notice that the "harm"
does not happen or happens to the
premature child and/or the mother.
Primary Issues Involved
in Interpreting This Text
Since this passage is used as support for both
sides of the debate, an
overview of some key issues related to this text
is in order: the term "child," the
verb "to go out," the term
"mischief/harm," the lex talionis principle, and the
medical feasibility of an infant in biblical
times surviving a premature birth caused
by trauma.
The term "child" (dl,y,, yeled), Customary lexical
sources point out that
dl,y, (yeled)
refers to living people. It often occurs in a manner similar to Nbe (ben,
"son"), though with less emphasis on relationship to
parents.28 It occurs with
regard to family relationships, political administration,
prophetic ministry, and
eschatology.29
(Exod 1:17, 18; 3:6-9), to children who have been weaned
(Gen 21:8), to teenagers
(Gen
21:14-16), to youths (2 Kgs 2:24), to young men old
enough to serve in
foreign courts (Dan 1:4, 10, 15, 17), and to
descendants (Isa 29:23).30
The noun yeled never refers elsewhere to a child unrecognizable as
human
or incapable of existence outside the womb. In
fact, two Hebrew terms might have
been used if Moses had a miscarriage in mind: Ml,go (golem,
"embryo" or "fetus," Ps
139:16)
or lp,ne) (nepel, "stillborn
child," "miscarriage," Job 3:16; Ps 58:9
[English
58:8]; Eccl 6:3).
A final issue that deserves some attention is
the plural form of the noun
yeled. Of the 89 occurrences
of this noun, 47 instances are plural. The noun occurs
with a pronominal suffix 17 times and appears
exactly as it occurs in Exodus
21:22
in four other verses (Gen 33:2, 7; Exod 21:4; Ruth
1:5). Outside of Exodus
21,
yeled
refers to the children of woman (Leah, a slave woman, Naomi). The
reason for a plural form of yeled has mystified many
interpreters.
The passage depicts a single pregnant woman who
seeks to break up a fight
between men. In the midst of the chaos of the
conflict, the men strike her, causing
her to go into labor prematurely. The Hebrew text
reads, "and her children go out."
What
is the significance of this plural form in this context? Scholars have
suggested five interpretive alternatives.
In the first place, some scholars conclude that
this form of the noun is a
28 J. Kuhlewein,
dly, in the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament,
edited by E. Jenni and
C.
Westermann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997) 2:545.
29 Victor P.
and Exegesis, ed.
30
The Abortion Dilemma 183
plural of abstraction "with the sense the
product of her womb, an apt term for an
inadequately developed baby."31
Sprinkle adds that the plural of abstraction "is
used proleptically in
anticipation of, or foreshadowing, the fatal outcome."32
Secondly,
the plural could allow for several children and either sex.33 Thirdly,
some regard it as a generic plural used with a view
to including both contingencies
(vv. 22-23).34 Fourthly, it might refer to a
woman's capacity for childbearing.35 If
this is the case, the verse is not relevant to the
issue of abortion. Finally, it could
indicate "natural products in an unnatural
condition."36 None of the above options
has abundant examples outside of this passage that
would serve to provide
support. For contextual reasons, the present
writer prefers the second or third
alternative.
The verb xcAyA (yasa'). The term
"depart" (xcAyA, yasa') means literally to
"go out" and is ordinarily used to describe normal human
births (Gen 25:26;
38:28-30;
Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer 1:5; 20:18). This verb does
occur for a miscarriage
in Num 12:12 and possibly Deut 28:57. However, in
Num 12:12 "the dead one"
precedes the verb, making clear that a live birth
is not in view. In fact, Num 12:12
refers to a stillborn birth rather than a miscarriage.
The Deuteronomy passage does
not clarify whether a live birth or miscarriage is
in view. This verbal root does
appear one time in the OT with the idea of a
miscarriage with reference to oxen (a
fem. sing. participle, Ps
144:14).
The normal Hebrew verb for miscarriage, both in
animals and humans, is
lkw (skl, Exod
23:26; Hos 9:14; Gen 31:38; Job 2:10). The verb also
refers to,
God's
punishment of His people by allowing an invading force to take away their
children by violent means (Deut 32:25; 1 Sam
15:33; Lam 1:20) or by wild
animals (Lev 26:22; Ezek 5:17).37
The term NOsxA ('ason). The term "mischief " (NOsxA., 'ason) means "harm"
in a general sense. It is interesting to note that
in cognate languages (e.g., Akkadian
31 Sprinkle, "Interpretation
of Exodus" 249; cf. L. Schwienhorst-Schonberger,
Dad Bundesbuch
(Ex 20,22-23,33) BZAW 188 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1990) 81-83. ''Sprinkle,
"Interpretation
of Exodus" 250. Sprinkle points out that this
interpretation does not necessarily imply that a live,
unaborted fetus is subhuman. It
simply implies that a corpse is subhuman.
33 Cassuto, Book of
Exodus 275; Ellington, "Miscarriage or Premature Birth?"
336; Kaiser,
Toward Old Testament
Ethics
103; Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch 2:135; John M. Frame,
Medical Ethics:
Principles, Persons, and Problems, (
Reformed, 1988) 99.
34 Kline,
"Lex Talionis"
198-99.
35 A. Schenker,
"Drei Mosaiksteinchen:
Konigreich von Priestern',
'Und ihre Kinder gehen
weg', `Wir
tun and wir horen' (Exod 19,6; 21,22;
24,7)" in Studies in the Book of
Exodus, ed. M.
Vervenne (Louvain: Leuven University, 1996)
367-80.
36 House,
"Miscarriage or Premature Birth" 114.
37 Victor P.
and Exegesis 4:106.
184 The
Master's Seminary Journal
and post-biblical Hebrew) this term connotes
healing or refers to a physician. Its
five occurrences (Gen 42:4, 38; 44:29; Exod 21:22, 23) in the OT appear to be
euphemistic references to serious or even fatal
injury.38 In other words, it highlights
circumstances in which medical
attention is required.39
Proponents of the premature birth position
contend that since no
preposition and nominal suffix ("to her")
is included, the harm cannot be restricted
to the mother. Unlike the ANE law codes, where the
mother receives the focus of
the attention and no "child" is
mentioned, Exodus 21:22 refers to the pregnant
woman and the "child" that prematurely
leaves the womb. A natural reading of the
passage would suggest that the "no harm"
or "harm" applies either to the child or
the mother. Also, it is difficult to understand how
Moses could describe a violently
induced miscarriage as "no harm.40
Lex Talionis. This Latin phrase literally means "the law
for retaliation."
It
sought to establish a standard of justice and to limit retaliation to the exact
extent of the injury inflicted.41 It
countered the tendency of unlimited revenge.42
This
concept of retaliation ensured quality of treatment for the less privileged
members of Israelite society.
The legal principle of lex talionis advocated, first, the principle
of equal
justice for all and, second, the penalty must be
commensurate with the crime,
nothing more or less.43 The statement
of the lex talionis principle
in Exodus 21
permits no misunderstanding as it lists eight
illustrative equivalences.
Several proponents of the view that a
miscarriage takes place in both
instances (verses 22 and 23) argue that the lex talionis principle was not
necessarily understood literally. In many instances,
the demanded punishment
(whether execution or damage to a certain part of the body)
was often replaced by
a punitive fine or "ransom."44
Building on that conclusion, Sprinkle contends that
the fine demanded in the wake of the death of the
fetus in verse 22 and the lex
talionis verdict in the verse
are both monetary in nature.45 Although a difference
in degree
38
Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. Van Gemeren (
39 Sprinkle, "Interpretation
of Exodus 21:22-25" 246.
40 Proponents of the miscarriage
view contend that since the ANE law codes (see below)
only refer to the mother and not the fetus/infant,
there is no reason to expect Moses to refer to anyone
other than the mother (e.g., Fuller, "Exodus
22:22-23" 183).
41 Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics 72-73, 299-301.
42 Robin Wakely, hvk,in the New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and
Exegesis 2:607.
43
44 Sprinkle,
"Interpretation of Exodus" 237-43.
45 Ibid.,
243.
The Abortion Dilemma 185
is present, this law demands no distinction in the
quality or kind of punishment.
Medical Feasibility. A number of proponents of the miscarriage
position
contend that in the medically primitive time of
the OT, it is unlikely that any
infants survived a premature birth under severe
duress caused by blunt force
trauma.46 Although this
observation has validity, it does not pose an
insurmountable obstacle to the
premature birth view. By giving this law, Moses is
not implying that many infants born prematurely as
the result of blunt force
trauma will live. However, he could be establishing a
law that stands distinct from
the ANE law codes of his day. Not only is there
severe punishment in the wake of
unintentional mortal injury to a
mother or a fetus, but even forcing an early
delivery of an infant through violence, in the
event that the infant lives, faces a
demanding penalty.
What about
the Input/Example of Other ANE Law Codes?47
A number of Ancient Near Eastern law codes
contain scenarios similar to
that found in Exodus 21. An overview of the data
found in those law codes and a
brief evaluation of its impact on the issue at hand
follows below. For the sake of
brevity, the law codes are presented in chart
form.
The Code of Hammurabi (ANET, 175, laws 209-14).
An injury causing a gentleman's daughter to miscarry 10 shekels
An injury causing a gentleman's daughter to miscarry and die life
for life
An injury causing a commoner's daughter to miscarry 5 shekels
An injury causing a commoner's daughter to miscarry and die 30
shekels
An injury causing a gentleman's slavewoman
to miscarry 2 shekels
An injury causing a gentleman's slavewoman
to miscarry and die 20 shekels
The Hittite Laws (ANET,
190, laws 17-18).
An
injury causing a slave woman to miscarry (in the 10th month)
5 shekels
An injury causing a free woman to
miscarry (in the 5`h month) 5
shekels
An injury causing a free woman to
miscarry (in the I0th month) 10 shekels
The Middle Assyrian Laws
(ANET, 181, 184-85, laws 21, 50-53).
An injury causing a daughter to
miscarry a punitive fine, public flog-
ging, and royal service
An injury causing a free wife to
miscarry life for life
An injury causing a prostitute to
miscarry life for life
46 Robert N. Condon, "Exodus
21:22-25 and the Abortion Debate," BSac 146 (1989):140-431-
Sprinkle, "Interpretation of Exodus
21:22-25 " 249.
47 For a more complete
explanation of this issue (from an accidental miscarriage view), see
Fuller, "Exodus 22:22-23" 171-74.
186 The
Master's Seminary Journal
An injury causing a wife to miscarry48 a punitive fine
A self-induced miscarriage life
for life
Numerous scholars argue that since these and
other significant ANE law
codes address the occurrence of miscarriages and not
premature births in their
legislation and since the OT legal stipulations
frequently are quite similar to ANE
legal statements, one can assume that Moses is
dealing with miscarriage and not
premature birth. If Moses was introducing a new,
unique law, he would have
avoided any misunderstanding by utilizing
precise terminology to distinguish his
legislation from that of other ANE law codes.
In response, it is essential to observe that
although numerous scholars
contend that the Exodus passage must be
interpreted in light of the various ANE
law codes (where miscarriage appears to be in
view),49 the biblical law dealing
with this issue is different in some key areas. For
example, Exodus 21
Makes no distinction concerning the
age of the fetus
Makes no distinction with regard to
the social status of the injured woman
Introduces a different fate depending
on whether or not "harm" took place
Specifies that a child (yeled)
"comes out" from a pregnant mother's womb.
Most
of the ANE law codes refer to a case where someone causes a woman "to
drop that of her womb" (ANET, 175 n. 137) in a very generic fashion.
In summary, the Mosaic Law demanded that the
unborn child be protected
as a person and that the same penalties be
assessed when the child was injured as
when an adult person was injured. In the first
instance, the men guilty of hitting the
woman must render monetary compensation for the
trauma of premature birth
and any discomfort caused the mother. In the second
place, the legal principle of
lex talionis is invoked for the men
guilty of striking a mortal blow, leading to the
death of the child and/or the mother.
Key Observations on
Exodus 21:22-25
Opponents of abortion should not view
this passage as one of their
strongest biblical arguments
against abortion (in light of the interpretive
complexities).
Although these verses do not provide
an absolute prohibition of abortion,
they clearly do not teach
that an unborn child is less than human.
Even if verse 22 presents the
accidental miscarriage of an unborn child, this
48 The phrase can be rendered
"a wife with a history of miscarrying." For this interpretation of
the
ANET
translation, "who does not rear her children," see G. R. Driver and
J. C. Miles, The
Assyrian Laws (Oxford: Clarendon,
1935) 114-15.
49 E.g., Fuller,
"Exodus 22:22-23 " 171-74; Sprinkle, "Interpretation of Exodus
21:22-25 " 250, et al.
The Abortion Dilemma 187
conclusion in no way legitimizes the intentional
aborting of an unborn child.
Even according to the
accidental miscarriage view, since a fine is levied against
the guilty
parties for causing this tragedy, the death of an unborn child is
not acceptable.
If an accidental
miscarriage results in a fine levied against the guilty party, how
much more
serious would be the intentional killing of an unborn child? It is
totally inappropriate to use
this passage to sanction abortion, an intentional
killing of a child.
The different penalties levied, a fine
in one case and lex talionis in
the other
case, does
not necessarily indicate anything about personhood and worth.
As a rule, Moses did not impose a mandatory
death penalty in cases of
accidental killing (Exod 21:13, 20-21).
The relatively "light"
sentence in verse 22 in no way indicates that the
fetus/infant is less important or
less than a person. In the immediately
preceding passage (21:20-21) a
slave owner who kills his slave
unintentionally escapes with no penalty
at all. Does Mosaic law regard
slaves as less than human
persons? Legal status rather than personhood are
in view in both instances.
This writer agrees with Youngblood who writes,
"The complexities
involved in attempting to interpret verse 22 make
it unwise to press it into service
in the abortion controversy, pro or con.50
McQuilkin affirms that "Such an unclear and
hotly disputed passage could hardly be used to
establish the status of
the unborn with unassailable biblical
authority."51
WHAT ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONABLE CASES
(e.g., mother's health, rape, incest)?
Between the polar positions that suggest that
abortion is always or never
permissible, a number of people wrestle with the
possibility that in some cases
abortion might represent a potential
consideration. The most common position
among those who are generally against abortion is
that abortion can serve as an
acceptable option in the case of a pregnancy
causing risk to the mother's health, or
when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
or incest.52 Narrower still, there
are people who would limit abortions to ectopic pregnancies (see above for
explanation). The following paragraphs survey those
possibilities.
The Mother's Health
(Therapeutic Abortion)
At the outset, it is important to note that the
present writer intentionally
limits this discussion to the mother's physical
well-being. Many individuals include
50 Youngblood, Exodus 105.
51 Robertson McQuilkin,
An Introduction to Biblical Ethics
(Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1989) 320.
52 Most politicians who oppose
abortion fall into this camp.
188 The
Master's Seminary Journal
her psychological, social, and economic situation
as part of the mother's health.53
D.
Gareth Jones rejects abortion on demand but contends that "unresolvable
dilemmas" in which the fetus places the
mother's life in great jeopardy provide an
acceptable ground for abortion.54 Most
proponents of this position contend that
the actual person (the mother) is of greater
intrinsic value than the potential person
(the fetus) she is carrying.55
First of all, statistically, this
"dilemma" of facing the potential loss of a
mother's life is a rarity, and when it occurs,
the decision is not one of choosing
whose life to take and whose life to save. Instead,
it is a choice between losing
both patients or saving the mother. In the rare case
where a pregnancy must be
abbreviated to protect the life of the mother, the
proper procedure would be to give
the child extraordinary care with the hopes of
bringing it to maturity. C. Everett
Koop,
former Surgeon General of the
stated, "In my thirty-six years in pediatric
surgery I have never known of one
instance where the child had to be aborted to
save the mother's life."56
Pregnancies Caused by
Rape/Incest
No doubt victims of these horrible crimes
experience humiliation, fear, and
anger. The unborn child is a tangible reminder of the
abusive act that traumatized
the woman. According to those who would allow
abortions in the wake of this
abuse, it is "unfair" that a woman who has
endured rape or incest should have to
carry the evidence of her tragedy through nine months
of pregnancy and
subsequent childbirth. Another complicating factor
is that victims of incest are
normally fairly young and are later along in
their pregnancy before it is diagnosed.
Because
of their relative youth, their pregnancies may be more difficult and the
childbirth more strenuous. Nevertheless, while it
is "unfair" that the victim of
rape/incest goes through the demands of pregnancy
and childbirth, would it not be
a greater injustice to kill the unborn child?
Pregnancies Facing Fetal
Handicaps
Some examples of fetal handicaps that serve as
justifiable circumstances
53 The 1973 Supreme Court case of
Doe v.
psychological health with her
physical health as elements to be considered as part of the woman's
health (as it relates to justification for having an
abortion).
54 D. Gareth Jones, Brave New People: Ethical Issues at the
Commencement of Life (Grand
Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985) 76-77.
55 Ibid.,
177; Norman L. Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (
1971) 117-18.
56 C.
Koop
is apparently referring to instances of aborting a fetus that has attached
itself to the mother's
womb. From the perspective of the current writer, an
ectopic pregnancy provides the only clear
and legitimate occasion for a therapeutic abortion.
If a physician does not remove the fetus from
the mother's fallopian tube, as a result both
mother and infant will without question die.
The Abortion Dilemma 189
for abortion are anencephaly (part or all of the
brain is missing), Tay-Sachs
(severe enzyme deficiency causing blindness and paralysis), spina bifida, and
Down's
Syndrome. For example, D. Gareth Jones regards
anencephaly as
legitimate ground for abortion but rejects Down's
syndrome as a viable occasion
for abortion. He comes to this conclusion because
anencephaly, where the major
brain centers are lacking, signifies that "there
is no prospect of anything remotely
resembling human life."57 He
contends that Down's syndrome does not rob the
fetus of the potential of having many personhood
qualities.58 The debate revolving
around this "hard case" focuses on the
following alternatives: Quality of life vs.
Sanctity/Value of life.
Quality of life. Fundamental to this emphasis is the idea that
human life
is not possessed of any inherent worth, and thus
the individual human being must
achieve a serious right to life. Though some
scholars suggest objective criteria to
guide one's decisions when facing situations of this
kind, for the most part the
decision-making process has little
objectivity. The projected "quality" of life for
the fetus is the basis for the decision to abort or
not.
Because of the untold suffering that might be
experienced by the fetus as
well as the agony, pressure, and financial strain
that would come upon the parents,
pro-abortionists will recommend abortion
in certain instances.
Sanctity/Value of life. Those who give emphasis to life's
sanctity regard
human life as distinct from all other life,
possessing an inherent dignity which
renders it worthy of protection and preservation
simply because it is human life.
According
to Genesis 1:26-27, man is created in the image of God (Gen
1:26-27).
At the very least that indicates two things. In the
first place, God's image
in man renders man distinct from all other created
beings on this earth. Secondly,
God's
image in man renders man worthy of protection; to shed innocent blood is
reprehensible because "in the
image of God He made man" (Gen 9:6). This
majesty or dignity is not acquired or achieved,
nor is it affected by the individual's
personal worth to society, but God endows it. It
is part and parcel of our
humanness. Throughout
Scripture, God invites man to enter into a personal
relationship with Himself through
His Son Jesus Christ. Since life has sanctity and
value given by God Himself, we cannot judge its
quality by our mortal standards.
Although life's realities are complex at times,
from the perspective of this
writer, very few situations provide an occasion to
consider abortion as a legitimate
option. An ectopic/tubal
pregnancy provides the only clear justification for
abortion in the life of a believer. The instances
of pregnancy caused by rape or
incest or the potential of a fetus afflicted with a
serious handicap place undue
attention on the
57 Jones, Brave New People 180.
58 Ibid.,
181. Whether or not Tay-Sachs disease would warrant
an abortion depends on the
potential
impact of the child on the rest of the family unit (ibid., 181-82).
190 The
Master's Seminary Journal
potential quality of life for the fetus or place
an improper focus on the abuse
experienced by the unwilling mother. The human
"injustice" of those scenarios
must be subordinated to God's definition of justice.
CONCLUSION
Since the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade in
1973, almost 40 million
pregnancies have ended in abortion. Pro-abortion
proponents enthusiastically
lobby for the continued legality of
abortion-on-demand. Those opposed to
abortion fall into three general camps: abortion
is acceptable sometimes (risk to
life of the mother, in the wake of rape or incest),
rarely (ectopic pregnancies), or
never.
The Bible affirms the personhood of the fetus in
a number of ways.
Exodus
21:22-25 (which receives the bulk of this article's attention) should not be
used as a compelling "proof-text" for
either the pro- or anti-abortion camps One
can draw certain important conclusions from this
important passage. An unborn
child is not less than human. Even if Exodus 21:22
depicts an accidental miscar-
riage (for which only a fine
is levied), this conclusion in no way legitimizes the
intentional aborting of an unborn child.
ADDENDUM
After "The Abortion Dilemma" had gone
through the editorial process for
this issue of The Master's Seminary Journal, the FDA
announced their approval of
the early abortion pill known as RU-486. Instead of
implementing the potential
restrictions mentioned above in this
article (176), the FDA has granted almost
unlimited approval. Any physician will be able to
prescribe the drug if he/she has
a backup who can provide surgical intervention in
cases of complications.
Consequently,
this drug will find its way into family-practice clinics as well as
into abortion clinics.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The Masters Seminary
Web
site: www.tms.edu
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: thildebrandt@gordon.edu