Disclaimer: This post is addressing pro-abortion Christians. The issue of abortion however is not purely a Christian one. You can be an atheist, Jew, Muslim, Christian and recognize abortion is morally wrong because abortion is a broader moral issue. There are many secular arguments against abortion as well but because I am addressing Christians that are expected to follow scripture that is the focus of this post.
One of the more common tropes you hear from pro-abortion Christians is that the bible has nothing to say about the topic of abortion. So to them the issue of abortion is ultimately a subjective moral issue that everyone can have their own conscience on. Because technically the bible doesn’t say anything either way on the issue.
So is this true? Can you be a good Christian and condone the act of abortion?
Well not so fast. Because this is a fallacy known as the argument from silence which is attempting to draw a conclusion based on the absence of a statement.
Just because the bible may not explicitly condemn abortion does not mean we can make the positive conclusion that Christian teachings are ambivalent on the issue.
Let’s take the trinity for example. Try finding the word trinity mentioned anywhere in the good book. You won’t find it. Yet the early Christian church fathers already had a very clear doctrine on the trinity not that long after Christ’s crucifixion. And the trinity is such an essential doctrine to the Christian faith that everyone, Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and even Nestorians agree on it in spite of centuries of schisms over other issues because it’s just that fundamental.
And so how did we ultimately came to accept the trinity? Because the early church fathers studied scripture fanatically and discovered that these scriptures allude to one single God (1 Corinthians 8:4), yet three distinct persons that are referred to as God. The Father (John 6:27) the Son (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10–12) which are assigned different roles within the Godhead (1 Corinthians 8:6).
So while the trinity itself is never explicitly mentioned in the bible the incredible amount of verses that allude to the concept (I gave only a few examples) led to the eventual development of the formula and the conclusion that this is the only possible ontology of God that is consistent with scripture.
Now let’s see if we can apply this method to abortion.
Of course the first and most obvious argument would be the simple “you shall not murder” and have it be over with. Of course to me this is more than enough evidence that the bible condemns abortion because abortion is murder.
But that would be too easy now wouldn’t it? The obvious retort would be that they don’t believe abortion is murder. So no this isn’t my sole argument. I actually want to show that from biblical and early Christian accounts the evidence of the religion condemning abortion is much stronger than ambivalence or supportive.
Biblical argument against abortion:
First is the semantic issue of the commandment against murder. It is very clear that the bible does not condemn all killing. Killing can be a morally justifiable act and is shown as such in scriptures plenty of times. During self-defense, just war or God’s judgement to name a few. The original Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 was רָצַח or Ratsach which scholars pretty much agree translates to murder which by definition is an unlawful form of killing.
But what did the Hebrews understand to be unlawful? We can use process of elimination to figure that out.
The killing must be done against someone innocent. As I mentioned again there are instances of God condoning or commanding killing done against those who were not innocent. (2 Kings 16:3)
The killing can be premeditated or manslaughter but premeditated carries quite a significantly harsher punishment than manslaughter (Exodus 21:12–13). So this shows us they had a very good understanding of the act of premeditated killing as a uniquely evil form of murder.
The killing must be done against a life. This is just basic logic you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.
The killing must be done against a human. God condones the use of animals as food (Genesis 9:3) meaning there is a moral justification for killing them.
So does abortion fall under the biblical definition of murder as prohibited by the 10 commandments? Let’s go by them one by one.
- Abortion is premeditated by definition otherwise we define it as a miscarriage. Check.
- An unborn life is innocent as it does not have the agency to do anything that could make it justifiable to kill. Check.
- An unborn human is undeniably part of the human species as it carries a human genome. Check.
Now we get to the question can we call the unborn alive? Does life start at conception? Well I could say that scientists and journals overwhelmingly say they do and that an unborn satisfies all the criteria we use to define life (homeostatis, metabolism, organization, adaptation). But again we want to know if this stance is backed up by Christian teachings. So does the bible teach that life starts at conception?
In Psalm 51:5 King David states that he was born in sin from the moment he was conceived. So at conception he was by nature sinful. Now this shows that scipture must consider life to start at conception. Because it is simply not possible for sin to exist in a non-living entity. According to Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death. That is important because only a life can die. And if that’s true then scripture is clearly saying that as soon as you’re born in sin you are a living being, ergo scripture teaches life begins at conception.
So just like how the trinity is not mentioned but is undeniably implied throughout scripture the same case here is made for life starting at conception and abortion being a form of premeditated murder.
Now pro-choice Christians might try to argue that I am cherrypicking verses and I would challenge them to explain how and why I am wrong in my analysis but you don’t have to simply take my words for abortion being condemned.
Early Christian arguments against abortion:
To go back to the trinity for a bit. While the scriptures clearly reveal the trinity to be God’s true nature there wasn’t anything in the bible that stated this doctrine in a very clear manner. Instead it was up to the early church fathers to formulate these doctrines. People like Theophilus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus but also early Christian writing such as the didache helped us to understand it clearly.
The reason why I talk about this is because other than the bible itself the best source we have for understanding Christian doctrine are the early church fathers.
Now yes the bible is still the sole infallible authority in my view however that doesn’t mean that the stances of the early church leaders aren’t extremely valuable to us. Millions of Christians recite the Nicene Creed at church not because it’s found in scripture but because it affirms what scripture already teaches. So why do I consider the early Christians an important authority on understanding the meaning of scripture?
- These early church fathers lived incredibly close to the original events of the crucifixion and its eyewitnesses. Many either knew the apostles, knew people who knew the apostles or were born one generation after. This is very significant considering many historical figures we take for granted to have existed have historical sources dating multiple centuries after their deaths. As historical sources on early Christian teachings they are very reliable.
- These are men who have developed some of the most significant theological contributions to Christianity, the fact that they in such a short timespan of Christianity’s existence were able to understand something as complex as the trinity which is universally accepted by Christian denominations is a testament to their scholarship.
- These are men who were willing to face persecution and martyrdom for their beliefs and did not take kindly to heretical views. These are not men that would just make up doctrines. They genuinely believed or knew that these were views held by the early Christians
- They had access to traditions and writings that have been lost to time, oral traditions and teachings that were passed down only generation or two so they are likely relying on a lot of significant sources which we no longer have but luckily survived through their writing. Furthermore because they were so early there’s no chance these traditions could have been corrupted over time.
Now I will be clear the church fathers are not infallible. They made mistakes, they held views that in retrospect aren’t accurate. But it’s the corroboration of multiple early Christian sources alongside the biblical evidence I already provided that matters.
So let’s look at our first source the didache. A non-canonical but early text that has been dated by scholars to be around the second half of the 1st century which would mean it was written around the time of the gospels and it has accurate teachings on things like baptism and the eucharist. Now in chapter 2 of the Didache which deals with sins there’s a line that states You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten
Then there’s the epistle of Barnabas another non-canonical but early writing dating to about late 1st to early 2nd century. Many church fathers attributed this to Barnabas a close associate to Paul the Apostle himself and helped him convert god-fearers early on. It states You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born
Notice how both start with you shall alluding to the commandments. So why do we have two first century texts that expand on the commandment to specifically include abortion? Well it’s possible that early Christians wanted to morally distinguish themselves from Roman pagan practices by emphasizing that abortion is an example of murder condemned in the commandments.
For example A Plea for the Christians was a 117 AD letter written by Athenagoras of Athens to convince Marcus Aurelius to end the persecution of Christians arguing these were unjustified persecutions based on false charges.
But most relevant here was the charge that Christians murdered and cannibalized babies based on a misunderstanding of the eucharist. In the letter he lets it be known that they not only regard infanticide to be evil but abortion too.
And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder
Now the importance in this letter especially is the context. Athenagoras was not merely defending Christians from false charges but proved how it was the Roman pagans that acted in ways precisely that made Christians be persecuted to begin with. So this is not merely an opinion of one man, this is Athenagoras talking on behalf of the Christian community and contrasting their moral teachings to that of the pagans.
Tertullian a 2nd century Christian theologian described by scholars as the founder of western theology and who wrote many polemics against heretical movements had this to say.
Murder being once for all forbidden, we [Christians] may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier mankilling; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.
Notice again the use of we here. This is not only his personal opinion he is giving commentary about a practice that was forbidden for Christians to act on.
And after Christianity was legalized by Constantine and Christians were able to regulate their churches better we start seeing how the churches actually handled abortions. The Synod of Elvira punished abortion after adultery as a double crime by denying communion while the Council of Ancyra put imposed a 10 year excommunication.
But if you’re still not convinced the Council of Chalcedon which is considered authoritative for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the majority of Protestants said this.
We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force
In other words the council affirmed the condemnation of abortion in regional synods.
The fact is among the patristics who discussed abortion not a single one can be found that is supportive or even neutral on the issue.
The issue of quickening or ensoulment which is when the soul enters the body thus making it alive which pro-abortions Christian gleefully will use as an argument that the pro-life stance is a recent invention that came later during the Middle Ages and even then abortion was never considered anything other than a sin. Aquinas made it clear for example that even before ensoulment abortion violated natural law.
The question was merely how severe it was. But ultimately this belief came from Aristotle as for as much as I can respect the philosopher he was wrong about a lot and now we understand life to begin at conception, both scientifically and biblically.
Conclusion:
Based on what the scripture actually teaches about life and murder in addition to the universal moral condemnation of abortion by Christians living around the times of the apostles or only a generation or two later and even being affirmed by an authoritative ecunemical council it seems to me that being opposed to abortion is as Christian as affirming the trinity, and in contrast supporting abortion is as un-christian as denying the trinity.
