It Doesn't Say That

 

                                        It Doesn’t Say That!

 

        It seems, these days, that essentially every vocal pro-lifer cites some religious basis for their belief. Sometimes they even kill people to prove their point.  If this were just dogma, it would be simple to dismiss as the current ramblings of a religious leader who is making shit up as he goes, and there is plenty of that to go around.  Truth is, however, most of these persons cite  what they claim are Biblical justifications for their muscular pro-life stance. As a person unencumbered by any attachment to the Bible as anything more than a poorly written (zero primary and precious little secondary source material) history of a minor Semitic tribe, I can, at least read what little there is relative to the topic without the handicap of evaluating it through the filter of superstition.   

        Abortion as such is never mentioned in the New Testament portion of the  Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced since ancient times by a variety of means. Jesus is mute on the subject, as he is on homosexuality. However, the OT books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers have interesting things to say which toss all the current Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic teachings, re: abortion, into the trash heap.

        Current avid pro-lifers, apparently with too much money and too little real knowledge of scripture, are fond of paying big bucks for roadside signs which trumpet "life begins at conception. If they choose to believe this, that's fine, just don't claim that it is really supported by scripture. There are many modern Evangelicals willing to interpret some NT verses as relating to abortion, but that is dogma and modern bias applied to relatively simple words in a way which, while suiting their modern desire for justification, are not such. This is especially relevant when we consider the "life begins at conception" issue.

        The Old Testament, In Genesis, clearly describes the beginning of life as related to the first drawing of breath, a position Augustine would echo in the 4th century. Of course, modern apologists for the Church's current position blame this on Augustine's understanding based on "the inferior science of his day."  They would be well advised to recall, at this juncture, the fondness of the Church for killing, punishing, and censuring for a millennium, any who dared contradict that same "inferior" science.     

        Exodus bumps that age of "legal existence" to 1 month, apparently since infant mortality rates caused many newborns to die. Similar provisions appear in Leviticus and Numbers.

        Most significantly, and in direct contradiction to the Abbot, Santorum, Cruz, Huckabee. et al cabal who insist that every pregnancy be allowed to proceed to fruition, no matter the circumstance, is the book of Numbers, the 5th chapter.  In summary, it provides the recipe for a priest to use to induce abortion in cases of adultery. Actually, it simply uses the word "jealousy" on the husband's part to justify the procedure!   Bear in mind, that in context, this would have included rape, as well, in a society where women are held accountable for any sex act performed upon them.  The drinking of the prescribed potion is actually the trial, in which God will kill the product of adultery; there is no requirement here or burden of proof on the husband.

        So: If you oppose abortion on religious grounds. there is no justification in the Bible for your position. Don't cite more modern NT "interpretations"; they are the products of humans with an agenda. It should be noted that the overwhelming number of makers of such interpretative pronouncements have no uteri.