http://wheresjesus.multiply.com/...
With deepest thanks to C. Dennis McKinsey and his website on biblical errancy.
The Bible Does not prohibit abortion. Ask a religionist to quote a Biblical source for their stance and, if you don't get blank stares or a change of subjects or a question directed right back at you -- you'll probably get a vague, stumbling attempt at a quote.
Abortion is not prohibited by any biblical verse or any series of connected verses. The only text that is repeatedly cited in this regard is EX. 21:22-23 ("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"). Even fundamentalist John R. Rice, whom Jerry Falwell described as his mentor, admitted that "only in the case of Ex. 21:22-25 does the Bible specifically mention retaliation for the death or injury of an unborn child" (Abortion by John R. Rice, p. 8).
Unfortunately for apologists their favorite quotation is inadequate in several respects.
First, we are no longer under the Old Law according to biblicists and EX. 21 is a good example of same.
Second, and even more important, careful reading of the words will show that they do not prohibit abortion. In fact, they aren't even discussing abortion. Notice what is said! If two men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman such that a miscarriage occurs, "yet no mischief follows: he shall surely be punished." The man who caused the miscarriage will be punished and forced to pay by the woman's husband and a judge for what he did to the woman, not for what he did to the fetus.
Third, the last line says, "if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." If any mischief to the woman, not the fetus, follows, then the offender will be killed. The key word is "if." "If" any mischief follows. The mischief has already occurred if the miscarriage was the main concern. Obviously, mischief to the woman is the only concern since the fetus is gone.
In truth, Ex. 21:22-23 has nothing to do with abortion. It's actually saying that if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured in the process and has a miscarriage but suffers no other injury, the offender should be punished by the woman's husband. On the other hand, if the woman incurred "mischief," which appears to be death, then the injuring party must die.
Although there are no verses in the Bible clearly in opposition to abortion, is there any strategy by which biblicists can use the Bible to oppose abortion?
Yes there is, but two hurdles must be surmounted.
First, they must not only find verses in opposition to the killing of human beings in general but also find verses saying the fetus is a human being throughout the entire 9-month gestation period. If the fetus is a human being for the entire 9 months and the killing of humans is wrong, then biblical opposition to abortion is demonstrated.
If we assume the 6th Commandment (EX. 20:13), REV. 21:8 ("...murderers...shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone...."), 1 JOHN 3:15 ("...and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him"), GEN. 9:6 ("Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man"), and EX. 21:12 ("He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death") are still operative and refer to the killing of human beings, one can reasonably conclude the first hurdle has been scaled.
The second obstacle, however, is considerably more formidable for the apologist. Apologists must not only employ verses showing that which lives in the womb is a human being, but that it is a human being throughout the entire 9-month period. Having laid down the requirements we can now analyze the most commonly used anti-abortion texts:
EX. 23:7 ("Keep thee far from a false matter, and the innocent and righteous slay thou not...."),
DEUT. 27:25 ("Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person"), and
2 KINGS 24:4 ("And also for the innocent blood that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood which the Lord would not pardon")
are inapplicable because they assume the very point in dispute, i.e., that the fetus is a human being. He would have to be a human being in order to be innocent. Everyone would agree that the slaying of innocent people is wrong, but apologists are obligated to prove the fetus is "people" according to the Bible before claiming the Bible prohibits abortion. Humanity precedes innocence.
Moreover, PSALM 58:3 ("The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies"), JOB 14:4 ("Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one"), and JOB 15:14 ("What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?") not only show that newborns are not innocent but deal a fatal blow to the whole "age of accountability" idea. In fact, one could argue that PSALM 51:5 ("Behold, I was shapen in iniquity: and in sin did my mother conceive me") shows that the fetus, itself, is not innocent if one believes it's a human being. It's hard to conceive of one being shapen in sin and iniquity while remaining pure.
If the Bible doesn't prohibit abortion, then why the fanatical full court press to outlaw it?
Here's an answer:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
The answer is hatred.
Hatred not just for women but for all human beings. We're all born filled with sin and accumulate it with practically everything meaningful we do. The mind is innately evil or at least has a strong tendency for sinning, and we should clean themselves -- turn our minds over to God; let God take over and control us. And this goes for the rational, sometimes agonizing decision of a woman to abort a fetus. It's just another chance for condervatives to strangle rational decisions from a large group of people.
Conservatives actually hate real human life. Witness their stances being fully pro-death sentences, pro-wars, pro-torture and such. Even in the Terri Schaivo case you can see it if you look close enough. They didn't want to "save" Terri. They wanted to force her to stay in a miserable, wretched existence (assuming she was conscious, as the conservatives hoped), non-human in every real way. Anti-human.
Anti-human. Anti-life.
UPDATE: Thanks for a lot of fascinating debate, tips and recs. I have to go offline for a while; back as soon as I can.
UPDATE II: Wow -- a fantastic response! Across tomorrow (a little tonight) I'll try to respond to every comment where I feel I can make a point.
Thank you!