Fascinating! I have never read such impressive sophistry before. This is what happens when people trust themselves to interpret scripture alone. This is probably the worst result of Sola Scriptura that I have yet read.
In any event, it is not so difficult to rebut the interpretation of the passages they cite.
“For Thou didst form my inward parts; thou didst weave me together in my mother’s womb…Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
They miss the point. The reason pro-lifers use this quote is because it is very clear that I was a me in my mother’s womb; before I was born I was a created person.
“Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)
They argue that Jeremiah was a
special fetus. That just because he had attained personhood before birth, as clearly exemplified by this passage, does not mean we all do. That is just silly. They make the same argument for John the Baptist.
Then they go on to the supposedly pro-choice verses. They cite a number a verses that say something along the lines of “it would have been better not to be born.” They take this as support for abortion. It is not. The sufferer says that he wishes he had died in the womb. (To die, you must be alive- point pro-lifers!) That does not mean that he condones killing, in utero or anywhere else. It means he wishes he had died- as it says.
Than they talk about miscarriages in a few contexts. Miscarriages happen. That no more condones abortion than earthquakes condone genocide.
They also cite a few contexts where scripture says that miscarriage would be better than an evil life. Hard to argue. Also, not an argument for abortion. It is an argument for avoiding an evil life.
“When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
This one is interesting. They say because a criminal is not killed for injuring a pregnant woman badly enough that she miscarries, that is evidence that the fetus is not seen as a life. Taken alone, that might be the case. In the context of the rest of scripture, that interpretation is ludicrous.
Then they go back to miscarriage.
The last passage they cite is taken from Numbers chapter 5, and it is really odd. It discusses how to treat a woman who is suspected of adultery, but the accusation cannot be proved. Basically, the priest says that
if she is guilty she be cursed.
‘If no other man has had intercourse with you, and you have not gone astray by impurity while under the authority of your husband, be immune to the curse brought by this bitter water. But if you have gone astray while under the authority of your husband and have acted impurely by letting a man other than your husband have intercourse with you’-- so shall the priest adjure the woman with this oath of imprecation–‘may the LORD make you an example of malediction and imprecation among your people by causing your thighs to waste away and your belly to swell! May this water, then, that brings a curse, enter your body to make your belly swell and your thighs waste away!’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, amen!’
Their interpretation is that scripture condones voodoo. “Virtually all Biblical scholars agree that this voodoo ritual and its cloaked euphemisms refer to an induced (not to mention unsafe) abortion.” Right. That is probably it.
Either that or it could be what it sounds like. “If I am guilty of this offense, may I be cursed with infertility or miscarriage.”
The strangest of their defenses comes next when they use a series of citations about violence against children who are born as evidence for their case. Here it becomes finally clear that they are not making a case for abortion, but against scripture.
I could go on, but this has become tedious.
