Since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, more and more anti-abortion laws have been put in place across the nation, particularly in Republican-controlled states. These are driven by “pro-life” arguments that draw heavily from religious beliefs, primarily those espoused by many Christian denominations. However, despite the fact that these churches stand against abortion, there is no precedent in the Bible supporting their position, and in fact, that religious tome is silent on the matter.
Many Christians will argue that the Bible clearly emphasizes the sanctity of life and places prohibitions on killing, so those factors should justify claims that it supports an anti-abortion stance. And it is quite true that the text delivers plenty of passages that affirm the inviolability of life. But it never addresses abortion specifically, so there is certainly a deficiency when citing that religious text as a reliable source against the practice.
However, there is one particular passage that should be of interest relating to the subject, and that can be found in Exodus 21:22-25:
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Here, you will see the penalty for the death of an unborn child vs. the death of a pregnant woman, and the consequences are quite different. If the child dies by miscarriage because the assailants struck the woman, a fine shall be paid based on what the husband asks for. Essentially, the child is treated as property here, and specifically the property of the husband who assesses the fine. That is, of course, in line with the male-dominated society at that time, but the death of the child is treated as much less tragic than the death of the woman.
If the woman dies, then the perpetrators are put to death. And that obviously places the value of the woman’s life as higher than that of the child’s. And while this may not necessarily be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of abortion on the part of the Bible, it certainly puts the state laws at odds with that tome in cases where the mother’s life is in danger because of the pregnancy. It certainly seems like a logical conclusion that the Bible would support the termination of pregnancy to save the life of the mother, contrary to the laws that currently exist in several states.
Ultimately, the religious position does not matter because of the clear separation of church and state established in the Federal Constitution (Article VI and the 1st Amendment). But it is important to point out that the Bible does not present a clear argument against abortion to begin with, not even a few feeble passages like those that some rely upon to justify their anti-gay stance (more on that in a coming post). The Bible is silent on abortion, and only a very vague interpretation can be called upon in pro-life arguments.
The fact is that the legal determination on abortion should be made within the context of this country’s secular laws, and the determination of when life begins should be made with evidence supported by science and health officials. The initial “heartbeat” is not even considered the beginning of life by many in the health community, and the idea that life begins at conception is not supported by any credible science. In addition, the legality of abortion, along with the timeframe on when restrictions should be put in place, should be determined by legislation that reflects the general sentiment across the country, not the opinion of a minority driven by insupportable religious views.
This does not mean that the rights of the fetus should be dispensed with in favor of the rights of the woman involved, as a balance between the two needs to be achieved. There is a point where the rights of that unborn fetus need to be taken into account and at least weighed against the rights of the woman (more on this in a coming post). But that should be based on science and legal precedent, and at no point should it lead to a complete ban on abortion, especially in cases of rape or incest and/or when the woman’s life is in danger.
Many of the Republican states that have passed anti-abortion laws have taken a very draconian stance that violates the rights of the women involved and that should be struck down as discriminatory and chauvinistic (more on that at this link). The religious justifications that they use to defend the laws do not stand up to scrutiny, nor should they be allowed to sway legislative action. In addition, the anti-abortion stance is not in line with public sentiment, especially the extreme laws passed by states like Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, and more, and they should be challenged and overturned because they have no place in a secular nation that believes in equal rights for all.