Changes

Before we look at these texts, we should consider a quick attempt by Christians to sidestep this entire question. Personhood is irrelevant, they argue; even if the zygote were not yet a person, it is nonetheless human life, and killing it is wrong. But this argument falls easily. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the 6th Commandment is rasach, which more accurately means "murder," or illegal killing judged harmful by the community. It is itself a relative term! Many forms of killing were considered legal; indeed, God often gave Israel permission to kill. (In I Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…") Generally, levitical law permits killing in times of war, the commission of justice and in self-defense. But recall that the levitical law we have in the Bible is incomplete, and comes to us in large gaps. If a law did exist on abortion, then we simply do not know what it was. Fortunately, we have an excellent idea on what the law on abortion might have been. As Rabbi Balfour Brickner, National Director of the Commission on Interfaith Activities, says:

Before we look at these texts, we should consider a quick attempt by Christians to sidestep this entire question. Personhood is irrelevant, they argue; even if the zygote were not yet a person, it is nonetheless human life, and killing it is wrong. But this argument falls easily. The Hebrew word for "kill" in the 6th Commandment is rasach, which more accurately means "murder," or illegal killing judged harmful by the community. It is itself a relative term! Many forms of killing were considered legal; indeed, God often gave Israel permission to kill. (In I Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…") Generally, levitical law permits killing in times of war, the commission of justice and in self-defense. But recall that the levitical law we have in the Bible is incomplete, and comes to us in large gaps. If a law did exist on abortion, then we simply do not know what it was. Fortunately, we have an excellent idea on what the law on abortion might have been. As Rabbi Balfour Brickner, National Director of the Commission on Interfaith Activities, says:

      "Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."  

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."  

Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law. This fact alone should give serious pause to the pro-life movement.

Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law. This fact alone should give serious pause to the pro-life movement.

From here we turn to specific Biblical evidence for ensoulment and personhood. Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:

From here we turn to specific Biblical evidence for ensoulment and personhood. Pro-choice activists have a near-argument stopper in Exodus 21:22-23:

      "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

The first texts are Job 10:8 and 11, describing the experience of Job in the womb:

The first texts are Job 10:8 and 11, describing the experience of Job in the womb:

      "Your hands shaped me and made me… Did you not… clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?"

"Your hands shaped me and made me… Did you not… clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?"

This text describes only God's physical construction of the fetus, and brings pro-lifers no closer to proving when ensoulment occurs. Besides not resolving the central question, however, this text raises one of the thorniest issues in all theology. And that is: if God is responsible for the physical creation of the fetus (indeed, the entire universe), then is God responsible for physical deformity, imperfection, even the Devil and sin? Fortunately, we need not resolve this 3,000 year-old controversy to prove the following point: despite the belief that God made everything, which is reflected in this text, some of these things nonetheless turn out evil, and even God permits humans to correct evil.

This text describes only God's physical construction of the fetus, and brings pro-lifers no closer to proving when ensoulment occurs. Besides not resolving the central question, however, this text raises one of the thorniest issues in all theology. And that is: if God is responsible for the physical creation of the fetus (indeed, the entire universe), then is God responsible for physical deformity, imperfection, even the Devil and sin? Fortunately, we need not resolve this 3,000 year-old controversy to prove the following point: despite the belief that God made everything, which is reflected in this text, some of these things nonetheless turn out evil, and even God permits humans to correct evil.

The second passage is Psalms 139:13-16:

The second passage is Psalms 139:13-16:

      "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. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

"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. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

This is a favorite passage among pro-life Christians, but they probably be much less enthusiastic about it if they knew more about the third verse. The philosophers of many cultures around Israel -- including Plato of Greece -- believed that the unborn were formed and designed in the soil of the earth, and then were supernaturally lifted into the womb of the mother. The third verse of this passage betrays this ancient superstition.

This is a favorite passage among pro-life Christians, but they probably be much less enthusiastic about it if they knew more about the third verse. The philosophers of many cultures around Israel -- including Plato of Greece -- believed that the unborn were formed and designed in the soil of the earth, and then were supernaturally lifted into the womb of the mother. The third verse of this passage betrays this ancient superstition.

Jeremiah 1:5 repeats this theme:

Jeremiah 1:5 repeats this theme:

      "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."

"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."

This text comes right out and says it: before I formed you - that is, before conception -- God had foreknowledge of Jeremiah. Again, foreknowledge does not equal personhood.

This text comes right out and says it: before I formed you - that is, before conception -- God had foreknowledge of Jeremiah. Again, foreknowledge does not equal personhood.

Another pro-life text is Genesis 9:6:

Another pro-life text is Genesis 9:6:

      "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man."

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man."

One rebuttal to this interpretation is that the zygote bears no resemblance whatsoever to a finished person; a 12-week fetus resembles perhaps only 70% of a person, and only by the 8th month does a fetus possess the completed organs of a full-fledged person. Besides, this law is relative; God permitted many legal forms of killing.

One rebuttal to this interpretation is that the zygote bears no resemblance whatsoever to a finished person; a 12-week fetus resembles perhaps only 70% of a person, and only by the 8th month does a fetus possess the completed organs of a full-fledged person. Besides, this law is relative; God permitted many legal forms of killing.