I was recently given the following versus as a biblical justification for anti-abortion stance:

Do most Christians agree that this constitutes an anti-abortion stance by god. It seems to me that we have a lot more abortion rights advocates then atheists, so obviously there must be a difference in opinion.

I am not an expert in biblical criticism, so I though I would bring this argument here for input.

Maverick

Religious Tolerance.org, always useful, has a page on the Bible's pro-abortion positions:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm

It's good, and too long to post here.

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the link. It seems to reinforce my perception that there is no "set in stone" prohibition on abortion in the bible.

I still am curious what the average christian thinks about this issue. The religious right sure seems to think they have the biblical justification for their stance.

Maverick



[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited April 16, 2001).]

Maverick,

For the record, my stance on abortion has it's roots more in philosophy than religion. I do believe there is religious justification against abortion, but the philosophical side is so strong I rarely feel it necessary to site 'God' as an authority. Not to mention most people pro-choice don't consider God an authority. *L*



Epitome

Oh, my, I read through the Biblical Justifications for Abortion and find them extreme stretches... I don't have time to pick them all apart, but I'll start on the first few:

Adam was NEVER a fetus. He was formed out of CLAY. So to suggest that there is anything similar between a living, breathing (albeit through the umbilical cord) fetus and a lump of clay is ridiculous.

Suppose Rebekah decided to abort? This passage more supports the pro-life stance that unborn children, in the eyes of God, have more than a potential for life, but a destiny as well.

It's not clear that the child had 'no worth' only that it was testimony to Tamar's sin, punishable by death.

Oh this is rich. Consecrating the child to God was NOT killing them! DUH It was devoting them to God, performing sacrifices in their honor to make them Holy. The Bible lists the First Born's as inheriting the blessings and being the most important. It doesn't do this to the 'second born' who survives the sacrifice by being born second.

This is such a breach of Biblical scholarship it is testament to the incompetence and/or laziness of the author of this list... I'm not even going to bother picking apart the rest of the list.


Epitome

Life is usually connected to "breath" in the Bible--which can also sometimes be translated as spirit.

I take that to mean the ancient world thought life began with the first intake of breath. Of course, important persons like Augustus and Jesus had their divine conceptions, but most--even the Genesis myth of Adam getting life from God--has to do with an infusion of breath to become "a living being."

To be fixated on the well-being of the helpless fetus, surrounded by a world of secular evil uneasily safe in its mother's warm womb is closer to Freudian transferrence rather than any biological mandate from God. It seems like more fundamentalists and evangelicals focus more on the fetus than they do kids in their own families.

That is the sort of logic the people who bomb abortionists use, I suppose? :[ [No, you're not one; but that sounds like the logic they use...] I never understood how someone could justify murdering someone if they're against it? I much prefer that we not kill anyone, period [I see little reason to speed someone off to heaven, much less to hell...]. Thankfully, most of those Christians I'm familiar with do in fact spend a lot of time worrying about the kids that are already born, which I would assume is why the show "Focus on the Family" is successful, even though it doesn't seem terribly interesting.

I don't know of too many people foolish enough to believe that they could speak for the "average Christian", as the group is far too diverse to come up with an "average opinion". The best one could do is state his/her own opinion, and any supporting information to support that position.

In my experience, people generally chose their beliefs, then build the necessary foundation and walls around this opinion to protect it from differing opinions and beliefs. The beliefs that we generally chose are those supported by our chosen peer group. Whatever helps us fit in with the group, to be accepted by the group. The abortion / "right to life" issue is not an exception.

In the examples given in the link Michael provided, the "spin" placed on the verse is clearly in keeping with the agenda of the individual interpreting the verse.

A single example, although each verse could be taken in turn:
To me, these verses imply that Job considered his pre-birth state to be an extension of his current life. Why else would he say it would have been better off to have died at birth or before(Job 3:11 - Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?")? As in most things, we see what we want to see - and if it does not fit our paradigm, we often don't even see it. The idea that Job sees life as starting before birth fits my paradigm. It does not fit the author quoted above, so the meaning he attributes to the same verse is far different than the one I do.