Do you know that Planned Parenthood used the Bible and religion to convince women they are morally justified to kill their unborn babies. Maybe that’s why some prominent “Christians” are supporting the pro-abortion Democrat Party like one of Billy Graham’s granddaughters.
The organization’s so-called “Pastoral Letter” begins with this outlandish claim:
“Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures.”
Planned Parenthood is in line with “A Pagan’s Blog” that was posted on the Beliefnet site: “There is NO mention of abortion in the Bible.”
On a side note, The Temple of Satan uses similar arguments in support of killing unborn babies. The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets include the belief that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” A TikTok video posted on May 3, 2022, includes text that reads, “how to protect your religious freedom of abortion.”
Inherent in PP’s statement is that many religious leaders disapprove of abortion. It’s not a valid argument to say that because some religious leaders support killing an unborn baby that it’s a morally acceptable choice. Religious leaders in Jesus’ day wanted to stone Him (John 8:59), arrest Him (Matt. 21:46), and eventually connived to have Him crucified with false testimony: “Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death” (Matt. 26:59).
It’s true that there is no “Thou shalt not abort your unborn baby.” The reason for this is that the Sixth Commandment covers unborn babies because unborn babies are viewed as persons in terms of biblical law. Moreover, no Hebrew woman would have thought to kill her unborn baby. To be barren was one of the worst things for a woman to endure (Gen. 17:15-16; 25:21; 30:1; 1 Sam. 1:2-10; Ps. 113:9; 127:3-5; Luke 1:7; 23:29; Gal. 4:27; Heb. 11:11). To kill an “inheritance from the Lord” would have been unthinkable.
The Bible attributes self-consciousness to preborn babies, something that modern medicine has studied and acknowledged, but the Bible was there first with the evidence. Jacob and Esau “struggled together within” their mother’s womb (Gen. 25:22). The New Testament offers a similar glimpse into prenatal consciousness: “And it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). “Struggling” and “leaping” are the result of consciousness.
Then there’s the case law of Exodus 21:22-25 where two men struggle, and a pregnant woman is struck as she intervenes to break up the fight. She goes into labor. We find, “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child. . .” (Ex. 21:22). It’s here that biblical case law kicks in.
(For a more detailed study of the abortion issue see “Abortion, Biblical Law, and the Civil Magistrate” in my book Restoring the Foundation of Civilization: God’s Government or Chaos)
Restoring the Foundation of Civilization
There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Buy NowSome commentators claim that the death of the “fetus”—“an unborn offspring”—is nothing more than a property crime rather than the killing of a human being. This is absurd. The operating premise of the pro-abortionists is that a preborn baby is not defined as a person. The Bible teaches otherwise. The original Hebrew reads: “And if men struggle with each other and strike a pregnant woman so that her children[yeled] come out….” Notice that the text uses the word “children,” not “products of conception.” The Hebrew word for “children” in this verse is used in other contexts to designate a child already born. For example, in Exodus 2:6 we read: “When Pharaoh’s daughter opened [the basket], she saw the child [yeled], and behold, the boy was crying. And she had pity on him and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children [yeled].’”
If there is no injury to these individuals—the mother and her prematurely delivered child or children—then there is no penalty. If there is injury, then the judges must decide on an appropriate penalty based on the extent of the injury either to the mother and/or her children because both are persons in terms of biblical law.
Some translations have “so that she has a miscarriage.” The 1977 edition of the New American Standard Version translates the text using “miscarriage.” The 1995 translation is better (“she gives birth prematurely”), neither translation captures the literal rendering. In a marginal note, the NASB translators recognize that the word-for-word rendering of the text is “her children come out.”
Other translations are better. Here’s one example:
“When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born [prematurely] but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment” (Holman Christian Standard Bible).
Notice that it’s “so that her children are born.” Here’s another from Young’s Literal Translation (1898):
“And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges.”
There are two Hebrew words that fit the circumstances of miscarriage or premature birth. “The Hebrew word for “miscarriage” was available to Moses since it appears in Exodus 23:26: “There shall be no one miscarrying [shakal] or barren in your land.” Also see Hosea 9:14: “Give them, O LORD—what will You give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”
Another example is found in the book of Job: “Or like a miscarriage [nefel] which is discarded, I would not be” (Job 3:16). Meredith G. Kline offers a helpful summary of the passage:
This law found in Exodus 21:22-25 turns out to be perhaps the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person…. No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life…. The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it…. Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22-25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life.[1]
Umberto Cassuto, also known as Moshe David Cassuto (1883-1951), was a Jewish rabbi and biblical scholar born in Florence, Italy. In his commentary on Exodus, he presents an accurate translation of the passage based on the nuances of the Hebrew:
When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens — that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life.[2]
James B. Jordan has this to say on the passage from Exodus 22 in his book The Law of the Covenant. As you read the following, keep in mind that the Democrats believe that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn baby up to the time he or she is born and in some cases after the birth:
[T]he Bible always considers the child in the womb to be fully alive, a person in the fullest sense, so that if the child came out dead or damaged, that would constitute “harm” to the child. The situation as described in v. 22 is that the woman is late in pregnancy, and as a result of the blow is caused to deliver the child prematurely, but neither the child nor the mother is harmed by the blow.
*****
Verse 23 goes on to say that if there is harm either to mother or to child, then the assailant must pay a more severe penalty. “Life for life” means that if either the mother or the child is killed, the assailant must also be put to death. The position of this law, after the mandatory death penalties of vv. 12-20, but before the provision for composition in vv. 29-30, indicates that compensation is not permissible in this case.
The Law of the Covenant
If we take a man-centered approach to these laws, we might say that the purpose of this legislation is only to ensure human prosperity. Such an approach to the law of God misses the most basic point. These laws show us God's own genuine personal care for His world, and as such these laws cannot be altered by human whim. To be sure, the Bible is man-oriented, and thus obedience to these laws will improve human life; but the laws are God's, and cannot be changed by man. Thus, as we examine the laws in Exodus 21-23, our first concern must be the glory of God, not whether these laws seem right to us sinful men. If we start with God, we will soon see how these laws also improve human life.
Buy NowThe King James Version takes a different translation approach but is consistent with the text that “children” are “coming out.” The KJV reads, “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” (Ex. 21:22). The use of the word “fruit” is a descriptive euphemism for a born child in the Old Testament (Gen. 30:2) and the New Testament (Luke 1:42): “And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” The Greek word translated “fruit” is used elsewhere: “You will know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16).
There is no getting around the fact that the Bible opposes killing unborn children, for that’s what they’re called.
[1] Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, 5 (1985-1986), 75, 83, 88-89. This article originally appeared in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1977). Also see H. Wayne House, “Miscarriage or Premature Birth: Additional Thoughts on Exodus 21:22-25,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Fall 1978), 108-123.
[2] Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1967), 275.