IS ABORTION REALLY DESIGNATED A SIN IN THE BIBLE?

Although there is no verse that explicitly mentions “abortion,” there are many that would designate it a sin. Of course, there is the general injunction against taking the life of a human:

•                “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. (Genesis. 9:6)

The Bible makes no distinction between the human pre-born and the human post-born. A human is a human and not an animal. There is therefore no reason why this prohibition wouldn’t also apply to humans in the womb:

•                "Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.” (Numbers 35:33; Gen. 1:26-27)

The next verse identifies what happens when a pre-born is killed:

•                "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [to the fetus], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [to the fetus], you are to take life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)

If there is serious injury to the fetus, the penalties seem to be the same as the penalties for injury to a post-born. If the pre-born dies, there is to be a life for a life. Clearly, the pre-born is regarded as a human life in the same way the post-born is.

We also observe that God has profound interest in the fetus, as He does with any human:

•                For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. (Psalm 139:13-14)

God tells his Prophet Jeremiah that even in the womb, he was a “you” not an “it”:

•                "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

Even in the womb, the pre-born is considered a “baby”:

•                As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (Luke 1:44)

The baby is God’s workmanship:

•                “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15)

Abortion was explicitly condemned by the early church:

•                “Love your neighbor as yourself…You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.” (Didache)

•                “You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not murder a child by abortion nor shall you kill a newborn.” (Barnabus)

•                [In a vision of Hell] “I saw…women…who produced children out of wedlock and who procured abortions.” (Apocalypse of Peter)

In fact, there exists no Biblical evidence that we should not regard the fetus as a human being created in the image of God.

If you have had an abortion, confess your sin to the Lord, and He will forgive and cleanse you of your sins (1 John 1:9) that you might find the healing you will never find by trying to convince yourself that you did what was right.

Darwinism and its Moral Implications

Ideas about human origins are ripe with moral implications. Historian Richard Weikart, California State University, wrote in From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany:

• Before the advent of Darwinism in the mid-nineteenth century, there was no significant debate in Europe over the sanctity of human life, which was entrenched in European thought and law… Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as "the right to life," which according to John Locke, was one of the supreme rights of every individual. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, and to a large extent even on into the twentieth century, both the Christian churches and most anticlerical European liberals upheld the sanctity of human life. A rather uncontroversiaI part of the law code for the newly united Germany in 1871 was the prohibition against assisted suicide. Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide.

Darwinism powerfully ushered in a new worldview with its moral implications:

• By reducing humans to mere animals, by stressing human inequality, and by viewing the death of many "unfit" organisms as a necessary—and even progressive—natural phenomenon, Darwinism made the death of the "inferior" seem inevitable and even beneficent. Some Darwinists concluded that helping the "unfit" die—which had for millennia been called murder—was not morally reprehensible, but was rather morally good. 

• Those skeptical about the role Darwinism played in the rise of advocacy for involuntary euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion should consider several points. First, before the rise of Darwinism, there was no debate on these issues, as there was almost universal agreement in Europe that human life is sacred and that all innocent human lives should be protected. Second, the earliest advocates of involuntary euthanasia, infanticide, and abortion in Germany were devoted to a Darwinian worldview. Third, Haeckel, the most famous Darwinist in Germany, promoted these ideas in some of his best-selling books, so these ideas reached a wide audience, especially among those receptive to Darwinism. Finally, Haeckel and other Darwinists and eugenicists grounded their views on death and killing on their naturalistic interpretation of Darwinism.

Can Darwinism and its assertion that humans are just another animal be separated from its moral implications? Darwinists are feverishly endeavoring to do this very thing by disclaiming any connection with social Darwinism. Or is there an inseparable connection between Darwin and the social/moral implications of his theory? Is it inevitable that if we view humanity as the result of a purposeless biological process that we will treat humanity accordingly?

P.Z. Myers, Human Life, and Bodily Fluids

Where our thinking goes – especially our thinking about who we are as humans - so too will go society.

• Last week the Telegraph reported that the remains of over 15,000 aborted babies have been incinerated as clinical waste over the past two years in the UK, with some of them having been used in “waste-to-energy” plants that produce power for heat:

In response to this news, evolutionist P.Z. Myers wrote:

• I’m not in the least disturbed by the fact that patients were not consulted on how their dead fetus was disposed. When you go in for an operation, are you concerned about what is done with the bloody towels afterwards, or how your appendix or tonsils or excised cyst are treated? Did you think there was some special room deep in the bowels of the institution where they were reverently interred, attended by a weeping chaplain who said a few kind words over your precious bodily fluids? Nope. They’re sealed up in a bag, dealt with according to appropriate protocols for medical waste, and incinerated. Get over it.

Myers refuses to acknowledge that there is a profound distinction between human life and body tissue, and this confusion will inevitably lead to profound moral and legal changes. It already has.

If there is nothing sacred about the pre-born, then there is nothing sacred about the post-born. As a result, certain lives are now considered expendable – the elderly, the mentally or physically impaired, and other social undesirables, mere “bodily fluids.” After all, if the pre-born are mere “bodily fluids,” why should these others be anything more than that!

And do not think that this slow erosion of human dignity will stop at voluntary euthanasia. If the elderly are nothing more than a sack of bodily fluids, how long will this society justify designating valuable resources for their care? Not long!

We are entering into a fearful new world in which our value is socially – not divinely – constructed, resting upon the whim or good favor of the social moment to determine our value. This value might rest upon some consideration of our intelligence, productivity, sexual vitality or even our party affiliation.

However, value can no longer rest upon the notion that we are all created in the image of God and consequently possess certain unalienable rights. Instead, secular materialism will find that it cannot sustain such a notion of equality. Why not? Materialism cannot provide a basis for equality. From a physical point of view, we are not equal. Some are educated and productive; others are not. Some are healthy and strong; others are not. Some are regarded as a credit to society; others are seen as an unwanted cost. What then becomes of our notion of “equal rights” if there is no true equality? Why should they remain equal? Perhaps those deemed with greater value should have more rights?

We may superficially affirm equality or something akin to “unconditional positive regard” (UPR), but it will become no more than a manipulative and disingenuous tool without the necessary rational and divine underpinning. The psychologist might continue to treat her client with UPR, but as a product of her society, she will increasingly see UPR as an insincere attempt at psychological manipulation. Eventually, cynicism will eat away at its core.

If human life is no more than bodily tissue, then it is just a matter of time until our morals and laws reflect this belief. Our hospital incinerators are just the beginning.

Healing and Restoration: Preaching against Abortion and other Sins

I used to believe that effective preaching should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I still believe this but with a modification – we are all somewhat comfortable and somewhat afflicted. This means that effective preaching should afflict and comfort all of us.

How is preaching to afflict us? It must preach sin – not only the things that we do wrong but also the things that we neglect to do. We have failed to raise our voices on behalf of our persecuted brethren. Across the Islamic world, our brethren have become the objects of persecution, even of genocide. Tens of thousands of Christians are being routinely slaughtered, and many of our churches remain silent. But silence is culpable:

•  Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

If we do not fulfill our responsibility in this regard, we cannot point the indicting finger against the governments, media, and universities of the West for remaining silent. Meanwhile, these institutions are asking, “Why is the church silent regarding their own brethren!” This is doubly tragic, because it is our loving concern for our brethren that is supposed to demonstrate the reality of Christ in our midst and consequently, draw the outsider to Him (John 17:20-23).

If we know to do right and don’t do it, we sin (James 4:17). Why then are our churches not preaching against evil and our failure to address it? In reference to the evil of abortion, World Magazine offers several reasons for the silence:

• Preaching on the issue might seem uncool or anti-intellectual.
• Preaching on the issue might discomfort church members or hurt women in the congregation who’ve had abortions. (Jan. 25, 2014, 42)

Effective preaching should discomfort so that it also might comfort! The Apostle Paul did not want to cause his churches sorrow. However, he charged them with sin so that they might experience real comfort and healing:

• Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it—I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while— yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us. Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done. (2 Cor. 7:8-11)

“Godly sorrow” produces real comfort, earnestness and healing. This should be the aim of effective preaching. However, such preaching must also provide the elixir of grace. Paul understood the sorrow of the Corinthian church within the framework of grace. The sorrow was what “God intended” in His mercy to produce the healing of repentance.

I think that we have lost our taste for the offensive – preaching to convict of sin. “Fire and brimstone” preaching has been broadly discredited, and is now seen/experienced as “politically incorrect.” However, this is the very thing we need.

Nevertheless, I must confess that I had utterly abhorred this type of sermon – the “try harder, do better” sermon. I would often leave church feeling like useless trash, incapable of doing better. I felt like a spiritual failure. Consequently, I resented the pastor and everyone else in the church who seemed to resonate to this kind of preaching. Instead, I wanted the grace-sermon – the sermon that would tell me that I was okay just as I am.

For me the works-sermon was a denial of grace, and the grace-sermon was a denial of works and the need for obedience. However, as I grew in my appreciation and assurance of grace, I began to understand that the two – grace and obedience – were actually complementary and not antagonistic. They worked together in supporting each other.

I now hope to be convicted of my sin and to see anew how unworthy I am of the grace of God. Why endure this grief? When I do endure it, it brings me back to something far sweeter – the reminder that God loves and forgives me, despite my unworthiness (Luke 17:10). How precious then is His grace, renewed for me through this kind of preaching! This process does not allow grace to become something stale but rather activates it to the point of tears. It brings grace before me as a living Entity – “He loves me; He loves me, and I don’t deserve a morsel of it!”

Pastor Mark Driscoll preaches an anti-abortion sermon regularly to a church where many have either had or encouraged an abortion:

•  “You men who have encouraged, forced or paid for the abortion, you women who have killed your own child, murdered your own child… The good news is that Jesus died for the murderers… You need Jesus, and you need him to forgive you for your murder, and he will.” (44)

World reports that one woman “began worshipping and weeping”:

• Then her four living children hugged her, supported by her husband. Eventually, she started comforting another post-abortive woman. (44)

Now that’s healing! World mentions another reason why pastors are reluctant to preach on sin, namely abortion:

•  Preaching on the issue might politically stigmatize the pastor or politicize the pulpit, scaring seekers off. (42)

Perhaps to the contrary - the seeker might see the healing, relief, and comfort that result from both the preaching of sin and grace and note the authenticity and sincerity of the community that emerges from such biblical preaching.

Adult Pigs, Abortion and Richard Dawkins

Generally, I feel psychologically quite safe and secure. This is because my security, significance and identity does not depend upon my performance, comparative abilities or deteriorating physical condition. It depends on one thing alone – the omnipotent, immutable God who loves me and gave His life for me. In fact, His Word assures me that He loves me with a love that goes beyond anything I can conceive (Eph. 3:16-20).

I didn’t always feel this way, but rather the opposite. I would feel creepy and self-conscious around others, because my self-concept depended upon me and their assessment of me. In Transactional Analysis terms, they were OK but I wasn’t. I was always on probation.

This is the materialistic, earth-bound, people-bound perspective. Being human requires that we have a self-concept as much as it does that we have a name. However, when this self-concept is defined materialistically and socially, our psychological well-being is always in the balance. Consequently, we value ourselves in the way we perceive society values us. Without God, this is inevitable!

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins is a materialist. Value must consequently be derived socially and not Transcendentally. Recently, he tweeted:

• With respect to the meanings of “human” that are relevant to the morality of abortion, any fetus is less human than an adult pig.

From where does Dawkins derive the criteria by which he can make such an assessment? He also tweeted:

• Human features relevant to the morality of abortion include ability to feel pain, fear etc. & to be mourned by others. (Salvo, Summer 2013, 45)

In other words, we are worth more than a pig because we experience more pain, fear and mourning than do pigs. Consequently, if we are fetuses and don’t have these feelings to the same extent that adults have them, we are worth less – less than adult pigs.

We are left wondering how Dawkins can possibly know that humans suffer, fear, and are mourned more than adult pigs. Dawkins’ proposal also raises many questions:

1. Would sufferers from PTSD therefore have more value than those who don’t since they are experiencing more fear?
2. Are we of less value when we are sleeping, since we experience these feelings less intensely? (Dawkins can avoid this dilemma by tweaking his ideas by talking about the potential of experiencing these feelings. However, if he did that, he would undermine his case in favor of abortion!)
3. As we age and our mental and emotional capacities begin to fail us, do we then become as expendable as pigs?
4. If the fetus doesn’t have the value of an adult pig, why then the elderly? Should we just get rid of them because they are wasting scarce resources?

These are only a few of the many troubling questions that can be raised if society becomes supreme in assigning human worth. Such thinking is opening the door to a fearful “New World,” one in which the “golden years” may turn tragically into the bloody years.

I am surprised that Dawkins didn’t mention “education, productivity and intelligence,” as others have suggested, as criteria for assigning value. I would guess that he is silent about these because they are rightly associated with repugnant elitism. They suggest that the elite have more of a reason to live than do others, who are consequently more expendable.

However, whichever set of criteria society might adopt, it still remains that society assigns our value according to their own needs and whims. Therefore, if you are deemed to be one for whom others will mourn, you have more value than one who is less popular.

Such ideas can only engender distrust and insecurity and perhaps even the breakdown of society. If the adult pig is more valuable than the fetus or the infirmed or mentally ill, then our laws should be adjusted to protect the more valuable members.

What a horror – extending more rights to those socially deemed to be more valuable! Talk about co-dependency! Such ideas will reduce us to mere dependents upon the Big Brother Society, which not only can then hurt us physically but also deprive us of our sense of self. If this reconfiguration doesn’t engender bitterness, it will certainly make us fearful.

With the proliferation of such materialistic thinking, the elderly are now afraid to go to the hospital in certain Western countries, fearful lest their doctor or hospital deems them unworthy of life. Even worse, our grandmother will wonder whether we value her enough to keep her around.

Our Lord gives us something incalculably necessary for a robust human existence – His love and gracious valuation. Before Him, we are sacred and require, not only legal protection, but also the highest regards. We therefore can bask in the assurance of His estimation, no matter what others might think of us.

Interestingly, this assurance frees us up to sincerely love others. When we don’t need their opinions and valuation of us, we are then free to take our eyes off of our dependent self and to place them upon their needs!

Does Dawkins have any idea of this new world that he is inviting in? I think that he does. However, he needs to be consistent with his materialistic model, even if it leads to a hell on earth. As the Bible promises, we reap the fruit of our own doing. When we reject God, we also reject life!