The Bible Doesn't Always Have the Answers We Want

Dear Lovers of Life:

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs case, returning the jurisdiction over abortion legislation to the states, anti-abortion activists have aggressively mounted their case attempting to limit women’s choice in every state. I would like to say at outset that I am firmly pro-choice; however, in today’s Monday Musing I am not going to weigh in on specific legislative proposals but focus instead on what I believe is the misuse of Scripture by the anti-abortion right. Repeatedly we’ve heard it said that the Bible is against abortion, or even more aggressively, “God hates abortion”, but on the specific topic of pregnancy termination, the Bible says no such thing.

What anti-abortionists do with Scripture is cobble together some poetic passages about divine awareness of fetal potential and declare the absolute sanctity of the unborn. For example, in Psalm 139.13 & 16 we read, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,” and “My frame was not hidden from you when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. (NRSV)” These verses are taken by abortion opponents as literal evidence of divine intimacy with an unborn fetus; so they conclude that God relates to the unborn as full persons and therefore worthy of legislative protection. But theirs is a pick-and-choose literalism, because in this same Psalm the writer also speaks of climbing into the heavens, bedding down in Sheol, flying on wings to the sunrise and being held by God’s hand (vs 7-10), all clearly poetic imagery and not literal human or divine activities. There are a few other passages that describe God’s attention to the pre-born (see also Psalm 51, Jeremiah 1.1-4 and Judges 13.3-5), but these are either poetic images like Psalm 139 or arguments for the superiority of the specific individuals Jeremiah and Samson. These are not verses which prove the categorical sanctification of all human fetal tissue. An anti-abortionists’ argument is simply not found anywhere in the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.

There is, however, one obscure passage in Exodus 21 claiming that the legal status of a fetus is to be considered less than a human life. In verses 22-23 the text describes the punishment exacted if a pregnant woman is accidently injured while two other men are fighting. If, as a result of a blow, the woman miscarries, “the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.” If, on the other hand, the woman dies, “then you shall give life for life”. The law places a monetary fine for the fetus, but full juridical retribution for the life of the mother. The fetus is property; the woman is a person.

This passage from Exodus 21 is, of course, problematic for other reasons, because here, as everywhere else in the Bible, the fetus and the woman are treated as property of the father and husband. While scripture nowhere defends the sanctity of fetal tissue, scripture likewise nowhere defends the independent autonomy of a woman’s choice. That’s the problem with the Bible; it seldom offers consistent refuge for any side in modern political arguments.

I’m offering this musing in the Advent season because of a particularly emotional appeal offered by anti-abortionists this time of year. The appeal goes this way: “What if Mary was pro-choice and had aborted the son of God?” This pearl-clutching rhetoric continues arguing that if fetuses were not human, “How did the future John the Baptist leap in Elizabeth’s womb when pregnant Mary entered the room?” (Luke 1.26-45) 

My response to this loaded seasonal imagery is two-fold. First, if God wished to protect fetal tissue, I’m pretty sure angelic appearances would assure more full-term births. Mary’s choice not to abort (a dangerous but possible intervention in her day) was strongly influenced by Gabriel telling her not to fear this pregnancy or birth. Additionally, when Elizabeth in her sixth month speaks of her child jumping in the womb with the joy of meeting the pregnant mother of the Messiah, the younger fetus Jesus offers no corresponding leap. This argues for full personhood infused at the time of ‘the quickening’, meaning until the fetus is fully formed and able to spontaneously move within the womb it is not considered a person. This ‘quickening’ interpretation of personhood was majority Christian doctrine for well over 1,500 years. Prior to that, many Jewish and Christian interpreters even said that the soul does not enter the body until their first breath, not unlike Adam in Genesis.

My point being that the Bible is not a refuge for many theological discussions. It is equally impossible to defend anti-slavery or anti-polygamy by relying exclusively on Biblical passages. Usually, our social and theological conclusions precede our reading of the text, so we find verses and narratives which confirm our arguments rather than distilling our thought from a pure reading, as some claim they are doing.

Dubious of those who aggressively argue their political points because “the Bible tells them so”, I remain,

With Love,
Jonathan Krogh
Your Pastor