The notion that the Bible prohibits abortion is more recent than the invention of the Happy Meal.

In 1968, Christianity Today (Billy Graham’s magazine) pointed out that Leviticus 24:17 commands capital punishment for murder, but Exodus 21:22–24 lays out a specific scenario under which, if a fetus is killed, the offender must pay a fine to her husband. The author concluded that, according to the Bible, a fetus does not have a soul. This wasn’t a bombshell—it was simply the perspective of evangelical Christians at the time. Did the Bible change in the intervening years? Of course not—only Republicans’ strategy to make abortion a political issue to help them get out of the wilderness. It’s gone well for them, politically speaking, 

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

17 replies on “The notion that the Bible prohibits abortion is more recent than the invention of the Happy Meal.”

  1. Except that’s not what the passage says. You’re usually much more thorough than this, Waldo. If something (presumably) lends weight to your beliefs, you just accept it without fact-checking? You should’ve checked this one out before posting it.

    The Hebrew words in that passage mean “come out” as opposed to “abortion.” The law as explained in Exodus was that if two men were fighting and they hurt a pregnant woman, and she gave birth prematurely, they will pay the husband a fine. If “harm follows” (i.e., actual injury… though this is not defined) then there will be equal recompense. If that passage was intended to mean the death of a fetus, Hebrew has a word for that — shachol. But the author didn’t use that word. Instead, the word used means “to depart.” Big difference.

    It’s clear that you don’t think fetuses are people, yet in another thread you said that there was no difference between a baby just before v. just after birth. So you’re not consistent.

    If the baby is no different a moment before birth, then she is deserving of consideration and protection under the law. What about 12 hours before that? There is a line somewhere….right?

  2. Except that’s not what Waldo said the passage says…it’s what the “professor from Dallas Theological Seminary” said the passage says, in the article he wrote in 1968 for Christianity Today. That author, not Waldo, said “God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.” So if you have a beef with that interpretation of the text, your beef is with that author, is it not?

    I thought Waldo was merely pointing out that interpretations of the Bible’s position on abortion have always been in flux, despite the confidence with which many social conservatives assert that the Bible “clearly” defines abortion as murder.

  3. You know, a majority of Americans, and really anyone for whom the Enlightenment was a meaningful human advancement, understand that this is a very personal matter. And conservatives continuous effort to make it subject to government intervention is the height of small government hypocrisy. Fortunately Roe v. Wade sided with the forces of personal liberty and privacy. Move on.

  4. The notion that the Bible prohibits abortion is more recent than the invention of the Happy Meal.

    I’d be careful with that headline — one can find biblical condemnations of abortion dating back to Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria back in the 2nd century CE all the way up to Calvin in the late Middle Ages. The facts in the linked article could just as easily support the thesis that the blanket legalization of abortion in 1973 spurred evangelicals to champion a more biblically traditional view of abortion and the life of unborn children.

  5. Jon S., when you say “biblical condemnations of abortion dating back to Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria back in the 2nd century CE all the way up to Calvin in the late Middle Ages,” do you mean that one can find individual thinkers dating back to Tertullian etc. who interpret the Bible as prohibiting abortion? Because I don’t think many people would dispute that one has always been able find thinkers who interpret the Bible that way.

    What’s more to the point here, I think, is that the corollary is also true; throughout history, there have been thinkers who do NOT find a biblical basis for the prohibition on abortion. That is what probably needs to be said, loudly at this particular point in time — that for all the confident assertions that “of course the Bible clearly and unequivocally considers abortion to be murder, how could anyone think otherwise?”, throughout history, it hasn’t been that simple at all.

  6. Claire, I mean that Tertullian, Clement and John Calvin — all historic and influential church leaders of their time — are on the record as condemning abortion from a religious point of view. Waldo’s headline certainly seems to dispute this, but I think that’s mostly because he’s paraphrasing the linked article, and the linked article rather sloppily draws broad conclusions from very narrow slices of data.

    …throughout history, there have been thinkers who do NOT find a biblical basis for the prohibition on abortion.

    Well, sure, but if that’s the point, it’s not particularly new or groundbreaking. Name a teaching of Christianity that hasn’t been debated ad nauseum by those calling themselves Christians.

  7. one can find biblical condemnations of abortion dating back to Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria back in the 2nd century CE all the way up to Calvin in the late Middle Ages.

    I’m not sure that’s a hole you want to keep digging Jon, but I’ll bite: Cite?

  8. Jon S. is on the right track here. Prominent thinkers in the Catholic Church have been quite consistent in opposition to abortion. Here is a cite.

    Were there dissenting opinions? For sure, but the overwhelming stance is consistent. You don’t have to be pro-life or pro-choice to come to that conclusion.

    As it happens, the Bible isn’t definitive on this issue and protestants are in the awkward position, having discarded the interpretive value of Church tradition, to create certainty where it can’t be derived.

  9. Those were the same “Prominent thinkers in the Catholic Church” who suppressed the influence of Jesus’ closest disciple – Mary Magdalene, the essential influence of a woman on the birth of Christianity; and fomented a 2 thousand year effort by the Catholic Church to suppress the influence of women in the Church. Pity that the other denominations have piled on. What is it with these Abrahamic religions? Especially Christianity! It’s like you got the Good News, and went right back to the same old testament ways – claiming dominion over women. It diminishes all Christians.

  10. Bubby — This is a popular lens these days. Research the various critiques of the Church through history and you will find that it is pretty easy to pick one hobby horse and find evidence for it over 2,000 years. Before it was anti-woman, it was anti-labor. Before that it was monarchist. Before that it was serfist and so on. After a while it gets a little ridiculous and the plain truth is that the Church is a rather disorganized group with varied levels of piety.

    Keith — I realize this is about protestants. My point was twofold: 1) Jon S. has a valid point about Christian interpretation being pretty consistent; and 2) protestants disregard the value of historical interpretation and they have the burden of continually re-interpreting the Bible into the modern age.

  11. I didn’t think Waldo’s post was about evangelical Protestants OR Catholics OR about religion per se. I thought it was about Republicans who use abortion as a political issue and in so doing present the issue as if the Bible has always been perfectly clear and consistent about it.

Comments are closed.