Skip to main content

It's commonly claimed that it's a Christian duty to abolish abortion, in accordance with a Biblical teaching that abortion is a sin. However, one Christian's reading of the Bible poses challenges to that assumption, instead turning up some eye-opening Biblical views on terminating a pregnancy.

Written by Nynia Chance for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.


The American version of the War on Women has been going on for quite some time, and one of the most long-standing fronts in this war is abortion. It's an unpleasant topic that's fraught with complexities and complications, so it's been a frequent tool in dividing us into Pro- and Anti- camps of social warfare (and in the cases of murders of doctors and bombings of clinics, actual violent warfare).

The War on Women has been especially effective in getting many to feel as though Christians need to march in lockstep against the idea of allowing abortions of any type to ever be legal, to the point of criminalizing miscarriage, itself. Those who try to conscript religious Christians into this war do so under the argument that the Bible itself demands such a prohibition.

Except that it doesn't. The Bible never once specifically forbids abortions; it's actually quite the contrary! Not only were methods of abortion well-known at the time, there's times when the Bible states God commands that one take place. I'm going to walk through a few examples as illustrations.

Tamar: Killing an Undesirable Pregnancy

In Genesis 38, we have the story of Tamar, from whom king David descended. She was the widow of Judah's oldest son, Er, who had died without fathering any children. In accordance with the law, it fell to his next-oldest brother Onan to give Tamar children who would belong posthumously to Er. Onan pretended to agree to avoid being disinherited and publicly humiliated, but then he “spilled his seed” so he didn't have to father any sons that would belong to his dead brother, not him. This sin of selfishness was so great that Onan then was put to death. (We'll get into this one another time when we talk about birth control, by the way.)

Even though the law then mandated that the third and final son was to fulfill husbandly duties to Tamar, Judah made an excuse that the son was too young, and postponed the marriage indefinitely. Tamar, on the other hand, still felt that it was her responsibility to produce heirs for Er, and that it was Judah's responsibility to make that happen. This was one of the families of Israel, and it was at risk of dying out without any heirs to carry it onward; Tamar wasn't going to let that happen on her watch. So during a major feast, she dressed up in a disguise of a Sacred Prostitute, from the local shrines where women invited men to join with them in honoring the Divine Feminine through an enactment of the Male-Female Sacred Union. (More on this when we talk about homosexuality.) Judah took this supposed roadside harlot up on this offer, even giving her the tokens she requested for the union.

When Tamar was found to have been pregnant from harlotry, well, there was only one thing for it! Judah proclaimed that she had to be put to death in accordance with the law, and the unborn child right along with her. Since she was the daughter of a priest (Melchizedek, I believe), rather than being stoned, she'd be granted burning, with molten metal being poured down her throat for a quicker death than being hit with rocks. Now remember that Judah knew that he'd been with a Sacred Prostitute even if he didn't know it was Tamar, so just contemplate the level of hypocrisy at work here. It wasn't until Tamar produced the tokens he'd given her that he realized the baby was his, and stayed the execution.

So in this story, I see the Bible saying that killing an unborn child is necessary when it's not a child conceived in a way the mother's society wants. Also, that the mother should die along with it, because of engaging in an act the sentencer himself had done.

Hosea: Progeny of the Rebellious Shall Not be Born

In the book of Hosea, we have the prophet relaying a message from God, saying what will happen to the Israelites who had rebelled as punishment for their transgressions. In Hosea 9:14, we are told God will cause the deaths of the unborn, as he will “give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” In Hosea 13:16 it is proclaimed:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

In Isaiah 7:20 and 10:5, it is stated that the Assyrians will be used by God as the means of implementing these punishments. In 2 Kings it describes how they fulfilled this role:

  • 8:12 And Hazael (future king of Syria) said, Why weepeth my lord? And he (Elisha) answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

  • 15:16 (Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

So in this series of scripture, I read the Bible saying that violently ripping the unborn from the womb is a just and worthy retribution if their parents were considered to have rebelled against God.

Sotah: Abortion-Inducing Potion due to Husband's Jealousy

In Numbers 5, we have instructions given by God to Moses regarding situations where a husband is fiercely jealous of his wife, and there aren't witnesses to prove whether she did or did not have an affair. She is to be taken before the priest who will mix up a potion and have her swear an oath of cursing before drinking it. “And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.” Otherwise, in poetic terms, it is described that she will lose the baby, by judgment of God.

As an aside, one interesting thing about the ritual of the Sotah is that it's believed the woman was put before the court with her hair loose and stripped bare to the waist, treated like the “harlot” she was accused to be even before the “bitter waters” proclaimed her guilt or innocence.

So in this ritual, I see the Bible saying that if a husband is seriously jealous, his wife should be made to take a drink that will cause an abortion if she slept with another man (regardless of whose child it is).

Causing a Miscarriage: Mere Property Loss

The latest push in the War on Women has been to declare that anyone who causes the loss of a pregnancy shall be guilty of murder. This has resulted in young women who have suffered a miscarriage to endure the further torment of being arrested and jailed for the tragedy. However, the Bible didn't treat miscarriage as murder, regardless of intent. Rather, it was treated as a property loss by the father, punishable by whatever fine the judges felt was appropriate.

This is spelled out in Exodus 21:22-25: 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, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now there are those who try to say that the fruit departing just means a premature birth and mischief is whether the child is lost or not, but the ambiguity is gone when you review more direct translations than the poetic euphemisms of the King James Version.  For example, from the Complete Jewish Bible

22 “If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. 23 But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound and bruise for bruise.

Note that Exodus 21 also deals with when a man beats his servants, saying he'll be punished only if the servant dies within a couple days. If they linger on, clinging at death's door before finally perishing from their wounds, the man is blameless. This whole chapter makes it clear to me that the ancient biblical law is hardly unwavering in a declaration that “all life is sacred and must be preserved”, as many claim. But then many of the same people who would prosecute a woman for a miscarriage are also proponents of War and using Execution as a punishment for those convicted of certain crimes. Just saying.

Summary: The Bible is Not Anti-Abortion

My conclusion as a Christian is that the Bible is not anti-abortion. Rather, there is a non-Biblically-based movement that pretends to use the Bible as its justification for attacking women who do not carry a pregnancy to term (even if it was an unintended loss).

Now, even though we just covered some cases where the Bible actively advocates and even commands the loss of the unborn, there will be those who want to overlook them and claim that the Bible still prohibits abortion. Their argument is that we are commanded Thou Shalt Not Kill ('rasach', which is extra-legal killing or murder), and that the Bible teaches us that Life Begins at Conception. We'll deal with that in my next installment, but here's a spoiler: as a devout reader of the Bible, I see it another way.

Originally posted to RH Reality Check on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:49 AM PDT.

Also republished by Street Prophets .

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for this well researched... (11+ / 0-)


    Plato's " The Cave" taught me to question reality.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:58:13 AM PDT

  •  excellent excellent job (8+ / 0-)

    tipped, rec'd and bookmarked

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:22:17 PM PDT

  •  Very nice (6+ / 0-)

    I have read about the Bible's weak anti-abortion stance, but I had never seen a compendium of its pro-abortion passages.

    I never could bring myself to read much of it, too boring.

  •  As a non-Christian, I've always been perplexed... (9+ / 0-)

    that zealots use the Bible to defend whatever the hell they want to do.  But I've read the Bible and it's subjective.  I honestly think it's just a blank canvas, that the reader can project their own preconceived notions on to.

    In other words, it's used as a crutch, an excuse, and a scapegoat.

  •  Well done scholarship! (5+ / 0-)

    I've cited those myself
    when speaking with fairly open minded people.

    The issue boils down to this:
    most fundies rarely read scripture.

    They are spoon-fed passages from the 'authorities'
    and molded not to question.

    How can you be people of faith and not read,
    nor even know the real Bible?

    Most people can't; most don't want to:
    it takes work, effort, scholarship to read
    and study to understand.
    So why bother?

    Just let the 'pastor' tell you what to believe.

    Sad but true.
    Thanks for the reminder.

  •  So What? Christ Forbids Public Prayer Yet Public (4+ / 0-)

    prayer in school was the original crusade of the religious right.

    They make up their belief set out of all sorts of loose odds and ends, and they only get them from authorities they recognize. We're not one of those, even if we cite the Bible they supposedly follow as the literal word of God.

    There isn't any debate with the religious right; I suppose this information could have some utility with non-fundamentalist non-rightwing-Catholic voters, but I wonder how many of them aren't already pro choice?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:51:40 PM PDT

  •  Creationist Science - Life begins at Conception? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    big annie

    I always thought life began at birth with the full automobile model delivered fresh from the factory and not at the beginning of the assembly line.

    just because man invented God, does not mean that God does not exist

    by MikeMcShea on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:01:06 PM PDT

  •  I think you Miss the Most inportang (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lexalou, raincrow, ncarolinagirl

    Look at Genesis 2.  It says that God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and gave him a soul.    Frankly, in addition to the stories you mention, this is the best evidence in the Bible since the nuts always cite thou shalt not kill.  The argument that "I've known you since before you were born" is a stretch for the other side, but it does suggest that something separate existed apart from the woman prior to birth.

    In my view, the Bible doesn't say anything definitive either one way or another about abortion, and therefore, unless you are a Catholic and believe that the Pope is inerrant (also not found in the Bible) then it's up to you to decide for yourself what you think.

    My argument has always been (being a former Republican) that if abortion is left to the individual conscience, then government ought not to interfere with different decisions that different people make.  Of course, I also believe in government funding for poor women's abortions, solely because it is cheaper.

    So you know, I'm kind of out there on this issue.

  •  Thanks be to God for your good scholarship! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZedMont, raincrow, ncarolinagirl

    What is truly tiring is hearing people quote from Old Testament scripture without seeming to care in the least what the historical context is, or whether the translation means what they think it means.  Context matters and you can't cherry pick one quote while ignoring completely those right adjacent.  

    We should treat people with prejudice and visit real world consequences on them with this questionable text as the source material? I mean, come on.  That's not Christian.

    This is seeking desperately for authority to command others with.  

    Why should it matter?  Having grown up around evangelical culture in Texas, I don't think that very many people really have a clue about the Bible.  This is about power over others,
    and it is about money.

    The linkage between evangelical religion and oil wealth has to do with a need for the kind of justifications that really can get people in the mood to write a will to dedicate millions to the cause.  

    That is the whole deal.  Hucksterism.  The money changers have taken over the Temple and are using Christ's corpse as a ventriloquist's dummy.  The gullible are buying it.  

    The amount of money involved is a real threat to the Republic, however.  It isn't just the faithful who are being scammed (and deeply resent it being pointed out.)  The use of churches in every community as an organizing base from which to project PR messaging out into the larger culture, and the tens of millions spent to influence media at every level is truly awesome on a Cecil B DeMill parting-the-red-sea kind of scale.  

    It is also dangerous because a lot of people don't analyze where the stuff they hear is coming from.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

  •  There's a passage somewhere, (I thought it was in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box, ncarolinagirl

    1 Timothy, but looked recently and couldn't find it), that instructs parents not to bear a child they couldn't provide for. Thatwould be a useful passage to be able to quote.

    Thanks for the work and perspective.

    Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. The Druid

    by FarWestGirl on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:54:25 PM PDT

  •  The general historical ignorance of most (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, ncarolinagirl

    fundies and conservatives in America is astounding. Women have been aborting their unwanted pregnancies for as long as they have been getting pregnant but the right seems to think abortion was invented in the 70's by feminists who just wanted to stick it to men. I dunno. Makes my head hurt.

  •  I believe life begins at conception -- OK, when (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the gametes have fused and the new diploid fusion product starts differentiating -- a statistically new and unique genome has been created. When is a more logical, less arbitrary point at which to declare a new life has begun? I understand that it is politically unattractive to say one is aborting a new life (which may or may not be the same thing as a new "person"; personally, I don't consider a blastocyst to have much personhood, but that's just one more arbitrary belief).

    Regardless, my right to decide who will or won't use the substance of my body for their sustenance inheres to me. Others may prevent me from exercising my right, but it remains my right nonetheless.

  •  You commit infanticide... (0+ / 0-)
    When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned -
    For what crime she was killed;
    (Then) shall each soul know what it has put forward.  (81:8-9, 14) your own peril.  Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

    Muslims and tigers and bears, oh my!

    by JDsg on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:44:15 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site