5 Verses That Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights?

Recently a friend sent me an article entitled 5 Verses that Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights.   My friend, who was taken aback that the article had been written at all and then shared on Facebook (where he saw it) stated, “The whole world is going absolutely insane.  I thought the whole ‘choose your gender’ trend was asinine, but now they are actually trying to argue that the Bible supports abortion… The evil in this world is growing by the day.”  I agree with my friend.  I also understand that what he was really saying to me was, “Seth, since it’s you thing, write a blog article refuting this garbage.”   I’m happy to oblige.  The idea that the Bible supports abortion rights is absolute nonsense.

The author of the article, Curtis Fiers, appears to completely lack an understanding of how to properly understand and apply Scripture.  Ironically, Fiers wrote that pro-life individuals, when arguing from the Bible that abortion is murder are, “simply taking verses and twisting them to imply that abortion equals killing a human.”  The misapplication of scriptures in which Fiers engaged demonstrates not only what twisting scripture actually looks like but also a general ignorance of biblical history and culture.

Exodus 21 and the Unborn

The first passage that Fiers cited to make his case is Exodus 21:22-25.  According to Fiers this verse “lays out the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry and it’s just a fine.”  Fiers quoted the scripture as follows:


There is a conspicuous absence of the specific English translation of the Bible which Fiers cited.  I googled the phrases “when men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman” and “so that she suffers a miscarriage” and I could not find the exact wording that Fiers provided.  The closest match I could find to Fiers’ wording was that of the NABRE translation.  This translation uses the English term miscarry to translate the Hebrew term yatsa. More popular translations such as the ESV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, and NKJV do not translate the Hebrew term thusly.  This Hebrew term, according to Strong’s Concordance, means “to go or come out.”  It does not necessarily denote what modern English people would understand as a miscarriage.  As John Piper noted in his own analysis of this verse, there is a Hebrew verb, shakal, that is properly understood to mean miscarry.  This very term is used in the twenty-third chapter of Exodus to communicate the concept of miscarriage.  It is not used in the verse cited above, without translation reference, by Fiers.  A more in-depth treatment of the proper translation of Exodus 21 can be found at Chrisitan Apologist Greg Koukl’s website.

Students of bible translations and church demographics know that most evangelical Christians, the type of people most likely to deny that abortion rights exist, do not use Bible translations that translate the Hebrew term yasta as miscarry.  Some of those who Fiers accuses of “twisting scripture” likely unaware of translations that use the English term miscarry to translate yatsa.  Such translations are in the minority of the body of biblical translations.  One such translation is the NRSV.  This translation is popular among mainline Christians, who are more likely than their evangelical counterparts to take a pro-choice position on legalized abortion.  Mainliners are also more likely to deny the inerrancy of scripture.  Those who accept the inerrancy of scripture (i.e. who actually believe the Bible is true) use translations such as the ESV, NASB, and NIV.

Evangelical Christians are much more likely to be familiar with Exodus 21 wording such as this (from the latest edition of the NASB):

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,  burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

This wording indicates that a woman’s stress can cause her to go into premature labor but not cause injury to her or her child.  If such is this case, the offender may be fined by her husband for the hardship caused.  The baby, in this situation survives.  If there is injury, either to child or mother, the offender’s life is forfeit.  This verse is often cited by Christians to give biblical support that preborn life is valued by God.  It’s easy see why.

Even if one grants that Fiers’ minority translation of miscarry is the correct one, Exodus 21 does not “prove” that the Bible supports abortion rights.  Quite the opposite is the case.  The situation in question is not an elective abortion but an accidental miscarriage caused by a fight.  The father, not the mother, has the right to demand a fine from the offender.  In the modern American context, pro-choice people support a woman’s right to choose.  In the biblical context, as Fiers cites it, a mother doesn’t even have the right to demand a fine for the accidental loss of her unborn baby.  Her husband does.  Furthermore, there is no right to abort the child.  The one who caused the miscarriage is fined.  If one has a right to do something, then the government has no right to fine him for it.  Even if yatsa is understood to mean “miscarry” it indicates that there is some value, though less than that of an adult, to unborn life.  Even in modern legal systems human life is valued differently.  The wrongful death of a thirty year old attorney will command a greater civil legal penalty than the wrongful death of a ninety year old retired janitor with advanced Alzheimer’s. The young lawyer’s family will be owed more compensation by the one who committed the tort because their loved one had a greater potential to provide income for his family than did the retired janitor.  Both wrongly killed people are human.  Both are alive.  Both had their property rights violated by an offender.  The penalty for doing so, however, is different.  So, too, would be the case in Exodus 21.  A husband would have invested heavily in supporting his adult wife.  He would have invested little in supporting his unborn child.  Thus, the civil penalty for killing each one is different.  Consider the nature of civil torts; negligence is factor in the severity of the penalty for a tort. Consider criminal infractions, involuntary manslaughter carries a tougher penalty than first degree murder.  Such factors come into play in the Old Testament law.

In using an inaccurate translation to argue that Exodus 21 supports abortion rights, Fiers errs.  It’s one thing to use a wrong translation and arrive at a wrong conclusion.  It’s another to fail to exercise proper logic and legal reasoning altogether.  Fiers does both.  Exodus 21 does not support abortion rights under any circumstances.

Ecclesiastes 6 and Life not Worth Living

The second passage Fiers cite to make his case in Ecclesiastes 6.  However, in the case of this verse Fiers cites the KJV.


It’s worth noting that the KJV renders Exodus 21:22 as follows:

“If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides.”

The KJV does not support the rendering of the Hebrew term yasta as miscarry.  It indicates premature birth.  It appears that Fiers used whatever Bible translation best suited his purposes.  The NABRE, which Fiers previously cited uses renders the Ecclesiastes text born dead rather than untimely birth.  In any case, this passage is not talking about an elective abortion but deeply tragic occurrence, a still birth.  In reference to this verse, Fiers makes two claims, “the Bible literally says it’s better to die in the womb than live an unhappy life. This flies directly into the face of all anti-choice believers.”

The first claim is true.  The bible does literally say that.  However, it does not literally mean that.  The translation Fiers chose to present this verse is ultimately irrelevant because he failed to first understand the genre of the biblical book itself.  Ecclesiastes, like Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, is ancient Near Eastern literature.  It’s of a poetic genre.  It’s not always mean to be taken literally.  For example, Psalm 50:10 says that’s God owns “the cattle on a thousand hills.”  Psalm 50:10 verse does not literally mean that are exactly one thousands hills upon which are cows owned by God.  It means that God owns lots and lots of cows, all of them in the whole world in fact.  In its entirety, Psalm 50:10 (NASB) says:

“For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills.”

Ancient Near Eastern poetry will often compare or contrast two things.  This verse compares wild animals with domestic animals. It does not indicate that God owns all the wild animals but only one thousand domestic cows.  It means, that God owns all of the animals in the entire world (Psalm 24 says the same thing in a more direct way).

Ecclesiastes 6 poetically makes use of hyperbole.  In the ancient Israelite world the birth of a child was an occasion for great joy.  The still birth of a child was an occasion for great sorrow.  (For those in the modern world who don’t murder their babies in the womb, this still holds true.)  In the ancient world, one who had many children was understood to be protected in his old age.  In the days before social security and 401(k)s one depended upon one one’s children for support when he got old and infirm.  Fathering “a hundred children” would be seen a great blessing.  It should also be seen as great hyperbole.  Almost no one who has ever read this piece of poetry has literally fathered one hundred children.  This piece of poetry compares a superlatively happy thing (having lots of children and living many years) with a superlatively sad thing (dying at birth).  It uses hyperbole to make its primary point; that a life lived without a satisfied soul is a tragic one.  Material blessing pales in comparison to spiritual blessing; this is the over arching message of Ecclesiastes.

Ecclesiastes does not fly directly in the face of pro-life people.  It does quite the opposite.  It supports the worldview that new life is precious and is to be celebrated.  This is the worldview presupposed by writers of the biblical text.  Furthermore, even if Fiers was correct and this text literally meant that it was better to die at birth than live an unhappy life, it would still not support elective abortion rights.  No one aborting a 12-week-old unborn baby knows with any certainly that the child will live a good or a bad life.  History provides examples of poor children who went on to lead productive and happy lives.  It also provides examples of rich children who went on to lead morose lives.  Only God knows how any given life will turn out.  Furthermore, people subjectively define happiness.  Some people are fine with being poor and having little.  Some people are more materialistic.  No one can predict the value system of a 12-week-old unborn child.  No one, then, can electively abort a child for her own good.  It’s impossible to ask a dead child if he would have liked to live.  There is only one God and the abortionist is not Him.

Numbers 3 and the Beginning of Life

The third verse cited by Fiers to make his case is from Numbers 3. Fiers didn’t so much disregard genre in his application of this verse.  He disregarded context, theology, and culture.


According to Fiers, since the Lord did not order Moses to count males who were under one month old, those children might not “hold a human value”.  This would contradict the pro-life position that human life begins at conception.  However, there could be other reasons that Moses was not required to count Levites boys less than a month old.

The Jews went by a lunar calendar and a lunar month is 29.5 days.  In ancient Israelite culture, a woman was ceremonially unclean for forty days after giving birth to a male child.  She was unclean even longer if she bore a female child.  It wouldn’t be proper for a census taker to approach an unclean woman to count her infant and check the baby’s gender.  Furthermore, infant mortality rates were much higher in the ancient Middle Eastern wilderness than they are today.  Today, babies born in hospitals who have trouble latching to their mother’s breast can be fed with synthetic formula and given modern medical care.  Such babies died three thousand years ago.  It may not have been reasonable to count babies for a census until after the odds of their continued viability increased.  This doesn’t’ mean that babies under one month old didn’t hold a human value.  Fiers apparently didn’t take these conditions into consideration.  Nor, did he take into consideration the reason for the census.  This is not the only census in the Bible nor is it the only one in the book of Numbers.  In Numbers 26 a census of all males over twenty years old (fighting age) is ordered.  Would Fiers argue that those under twenty years old don’t hold human value?  Taking this census out of context, as he does the census of Numbers 3, he could.  Additionally, would Fiers take this passage to mean that females don’t hold human value?  Females aren’t counted at all.

Genesis 2 and Breath

Fiers ultimately did not buy his own argument from Numbers 3.  However, he rejects it only because of a misapplication of Genesis 2.


Referencing this verse, Fiers asked, “If Adam, the first human to ever exist, had to take a breath before being considered a living soul, why is the same not true for unborn fetuses?”  Fiers misses the point of this passage entirely.  In the greater context of Genesis, many living things are created (animals, birds, fish, etc…).  In contrast to all other living things, mankind is presented as a special creation of God.  Mankind is made in God’s own image.  This text is translated “And the Lord formed man” and not “And the Lord formed Adam” for a reason.  The Hebrew term for man is adam.  When the text is translated Adam, it is because it refers specifically to first individual man God created.  When the text is translated man, it is because it refers to mankind in general.  So, not only does Genesis 2:7 refer to the creation of the specific man, Adam, it also refers to the creation of mankind as a whole.  Unlike other animals, man became a living soul because God breathed life into him.  The concept of special creation holds significance in this verse.  This verse does not refer to any kind of formula that requires one to take a breath of oxygen through his lungs in order to be considered a human soul.  Genesis is not a medical textbook; it is a theological account of history.  It should be read and understood thusly.

Adam was inanimate dust.  He was made human by the breath of God.  He then fathered children with his wife.  These children were not formed from the dust of the ground but from the coming together of Adam and Eve.  They, like all humans who are born of their parents, are human because they come from humans.  Dogs make dogs.  Cats make cats.  Humans make humans.

 Numbers 5 and the Test of Fidelity

The last passage Fiers cited to make a pro-abortion case from scripture is Numbers 5:27. Fiers cites this passage as his Coup de grâce against pro-life Christians.  This passage describes what is known as “the trial of jealousy”.


Analyzing this scripture, Fiers writes, “If the woman has cheated and is carrying another man’s child…the mystical dirt water…will cause her to immediately miscarry…So even if pro-lifers can dodge all these other verses, they can’t deny that this one essentially says, ‘Abortion is okay as long as it’s forced upon a woman, against her will, for cheating on her husband.’

I can and I do.

Again, Fiers is off base.  Even in a hypothetical world where his case is true, this verse doesn’t indicate that women have the right to have an elective abortion.  This verse would indicate that if a husband thinks he has been cheated on and if his wife truly has conceived a child by doing so, then he can choose to bring her before a priest to drink a certain concoction prepared by the priest.  If and only if the wife has been unfaithful will she miscarry.  The child dies, not by the election of a man, but by the supernatural action of God.  There is no abortion clinic, back alley or in a hospital, on earth with a Jewish priest who is empowered by God to concoct the drink required for the trial of jealously and then perform that right.  If Fiers thinks this is way to obtain a moral abortion, I encourage him to have at it.  Of course, neither he nor anyone else will be able to under the New Covenant.

Still, Fiers’ case is wrong.  He once again played the translation switching game.  This time, Fiers has chosen to cite the NIV.  This in itself is interesting in that he previously cited literal translations where as the NIV translation committee strove to render textual meaning without a word-for-word translation.  It is not a popular version for scholarly study in any denomination, liberal or protestant. It is likely that Fiers cited the NIV because it is one of the rare translations that uses the English term miscarry into this passage.  Most translations do not.  For example, the NASB renders this passage:

“When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people.”

This language does not indicate a miscarriage but bareness.  (Again, the Hebrew term for miscarriage, shakal, is not used.)  Because children we so valued, bareness was seen as a curse among the ancients.  This passage does not indicate the miscarriage of a baby but the destruction of a woman’s ability to reproduce at all.  It also demonstrates the lengths that the Old Testament law went to protect women.  Regarding the trail of jealously, Old Testament scholar Paul Copan wrote:

“Let’s summarize the theme of this text. If a man suspected his wife of adultery, he could bring her before the priest to accuse her. In this case, two or three witnesses weren’t available (Deut. 17:6–7); the only “witness” was the husband’s suspicion that his wife had been cheating on him. Critics charge that this would have been a terrifying ordeal: a cheating wife’s abdomen would swell and her thigh would shrivel after drinking “the water of bitterness.” Critics raise the question, “Why couldn’t a woman bring her husband before the priest if she suspected that he was guilty of adultery?” As it turns out, critics have chosen a poor text to illustrate oppression of women. For one thing, consider the context, which gives us every reason to think that this law applied to men as well. Before and after this passage, the legislation concerns both men and women: “Israelites” (Num. 5:2 NIV), “a man or woman” (Num. 5:6), “a man or a woman” (Num. 6:2). It wasn’t just the husband’s prerogative to call for this special trial; the wife could as well. Second, this priestly court was actually arranged for the protection and defense of women, not to humiliate them before proud husbands or prejudiced mobs. This law protected women from a husband’s violent rage or arbitrary threat of divorce to get rid of his wife cheaply.4 And if the woman happened to be guilty, then she’d rightly be terrified by a supernatural sign affecting her body. In fact, as with the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in the early church (Acts 5), the Israelites would have a sobering warning regarding God’s attitude toward adultery.”  (Copan, Paul (2011-01-01). Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (pp. 104-105). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)

I have my doubts that Fiers consulted the writings of Old Testament Scholars like Copan in making his “undeniable” case for abortion rights.

Taking the Butchers Word

There is an aphorism that says one can get a good look at a steak by sticking his head up a cow’s behind but it is better to take the butcher’s word for it.  I’ve written this piece to give you the butcher’s word for it.  Fiers is wrong, very wrong.  As one who has formally studied scriptures, I was able to identify the fallacies and misapplication in Fiers’ arguments before I drove 5 miles in my car (I read the story on my phone as I was leaving work).  Fiers’ article is truly one of the worse treatments of the biblical text that I’ve ever read.  I’d call it bush league, but that would insult the bush league.  It seems to me that Fiers’ article is either the result of remarkable ignorance or purposeful deception.  Given the political controversy of the abortion issue and Fiers’ selective use of scripture translations, deception seems to be the most likely conclusion.

One doesn’t have to be a Bible scholar to use basic Google skills to look up the context of these verses.  The John Piper and Greg Koulke articles I cited can be found with minimal effort (and they are better Bible scholars than am I).  If Fiers did any research to understand the other side of his argument, he almost certainly didn’t expect his readership to do so.  In this time of internet sound bytes and intellectual laziness, Fiers seems to have taken the opportunity to push his agenda on those who are too lazy to question it.  I think most Christians will reject his writing outright (as some have done in the comment section of his article).  I write this as one who truly believes that the Bible is true.  I want to accurately present what it teaches not matter what the outcome.  I don’t think that is Fiers’ motive.  I don’t think he believes the Bible to be true at all, at least not all of it.

I do and I urge you to study it and understand it.  In it are the words of life.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

41 thoughts on “5 Verses That Prove the Bible Supports Abortion Rights?

  1. Elyse

    Thank you for addressing this article. It is hard to see people justify murder and it is hard also to sit back and watch someone play games with God’s Holy word. God bless you and may many eyes and hearts become open to the Grace of Christ.

    Many commenters will disagree and be cruel but some will stop and think. Many have had abortions themselves. Please, readers, know that Christ forgives. You don’t have to justify it any more. This sin can be as far from you as the east is from the west.

    1. Curtis Fiers

      Gracious… I was really hoping you had more of a readership. Would’ve been nice to get the views of the uneducated people that follow you as well. More views = more money. I’d like to thank you, though, for reading my article. You put money in my pocket for writing that abortion is good.

      Thanks 😀 Please do keep up with my writing. The only thing better than making money off doing what I love, is making money off uneducated, bigoted morons who read my stuff just to whine about it 😉

      1. sethdunn88 Post author

        You’re talking about the method of murder, I’m talking about murder itself. You’ve created a false dichotomy between abortion and murder.

  2. David A.

    The Bible says what it says. It doesn’t say what Christians want it to say nor does it say what anyone’s scripture twisted interpretation says… it says what it says… I’m fascinated by the mental gymnastics Christians will attempt to pull on people to convince them the Bible doesn’t really say what it says, especially when it’s in dicrect conflict with their beliefs!

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      I agree that it says what it says and not what people want it to say.

      What’s the issue with that here? I’m responding to the misunderstanding from a non-Christian.

  3. Debra

    I am pro choice Christian, and I have been trying very hard to read the Bible and see how Christian understand God to be pro life. But for the life of me the Bible is very clearly pro choice at least for everyone that is not Christian. The Bible in the Old Testament is always telling its people to attack and take over land to kill every male, and all the young and dash all the infants into the rock psalms 137:9, took me awhile to understand Happy and blessed to be is he who dashes the little ones against the rock. But when God tells them to take over a people, he says keep the virgins who have never known a man for yourselves, since lineage only ran through males, this is a good strategy to quickly, populate the world with Jews. This is what be fruitful and multiply is all about ( filling the world with Jews/christians) cause the last part of that verse says to fill the earth and subdue it. In other words the Bible says it wants forced childbirth on jew/christians and forced abortions on everyone else. Sorry but I can not accept this doctrine to be legalized. Christians need to accept that forcing the Bible on people is unethical. Life beginning with breath clearly states the women’s life is more important than the babies, which makes sense because the baby is a parasite to the mother and if the host/women dies so does the baby dies too, this fact just pisses the blank out of some pro lifers, as their true agenda is to oppress and punish women like religion has not done that well enough. Obviously I am having serious problem associating with christians that can not understand how revolutionary Jesus actually was, with treating women as equals. Religious men fail to interpret the Bible with understanding how hard it was for men to write God’s scripture without letting their man being superior ideas in, that is probably why they rejected the gospel of Mary Madeline. Look how Jonah acted when God wanted the prophet to convert the Nineveh, the Jews known to be very racist. It is even in scripture that we are Gods, women are equal, and the Bible (even though birth control and exposure is common in bible time) is suspiously silent on abortion being moral, life begins with breath and infants are not counted until one month old (Jews respect this and do not require funerals on babies under a month). I also find it strange how religions changed their view on abortion after the religious right came into being. Before only Catholics were all gun ho on reproduction. Pray for me that I get understanding how christians seem to have zero brain cells, reason and logic is beyond their comprehension. I mean if we make birth control and abortions extremely difficult to obtain, being the world is already filled,and now when a women has 6 children 6 live instead of only 2 living till adulthood within 20 years we may very well be looking into having government forced abortions. Now forced abortions are Truely evil to me, but NOT in 20 years down the line circumstance. We must accept that circumstances can make areas gray. But beyond reason the real reason I am pro choice is that I had a miscarriage in a catholic hospital (enough to make anyone pro choice) they look you straight in the eye say your baby has zero chance, and refuse to give you any care until the baby dies or you are on death’s door. Anyway they send you home and refuse to suggest you go to a secular hospital, after a few days I cannot stand without feeling extremely dizzy, so then they give me a couple units of blood, anyway the experience made me feel as though I was subhuman in their eyes, as that clump of cells had more rights than me in their eyes. Should of told them to bill that clump of cells instead of me. This should not matter but secular hospitals are harder and harder to find, and somehow republicans have allowed institutions to get protective rights instead of individuals like religious rights were meant to be, in other words, Catholics refuse to treat women as human beings and often you have NO choice but to go to a catholic hospital. This is republican backdoor to force women to do nothing but have children. I confess I pray to God everyday, to make republicans see how wrong they are. They have ruined my faith, by twisting truth even more than it was previously twisted. Oh well I have 100 percent faith in that God is pro choice and I will help my sisters anyway I can.

  4. Debra

    No I do not like people telling me how to interpret plan English. I do read on my own, and attend BSF bible study. Organized religion has motives as a business often backseat to your salvation and happiness. The Bible says you only need Jesus! The Bible also says to pray in silence not on the streets like the Pharisees going on and on for recognition, rather you should go into a private room and pray in silience, the relationship is totally personal. I also had a bad stroke in 2002, so the music gives me a headache, so I just like to read.

  5. Debra

    The Bible teaches God’s people are the Jews descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (whose name was later changed to Israel), then after Jesus came the Bible started to include the Greeks, romans and gentiles, or all whom believed in Jesus.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      Since Christians are a people, specifically Christ’s people, should they gather together and have community together?

      Or is it, as you say, “all you need is Jesus” and no church?

      1. Debra

        I did not say you need no church, I said I am not going to blindly believe other people’s interpretations. That is why I go to bible study to attempt to be a little social, but all the perverted beliefs make it imposiable to want to be social. Why talk to people who can’t think for their selves? Everyone knows religion has been used over and over through the years to manipulate and control people, often for power, even Hitler whom grew up catholic, tried to use religion, he invented ” positive Christianity” saying Jesus was an ayrean. The Bible says many wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing will try to lead you,astray (you are to be able to recognize Jesus’s voice) that is why you must know the Bible for yourself or how will you recognize the wolves trying to lead you astray? I literally seen a Christian post that rape was not all over the Bible, can you believe that?

      2. sethdunn88 Post author

        Yes, I can beleive a lot of things.

        One part of church is learning from teachers (the Bible says that God has given the church teachers) and another part is holding on another accountable (which the Bible also commands us to do).

        So, if you have errant views, you currently have no church to bounce them against and no pastor to shepherd you.

        Think about what the Bible says about pastors, deacons, gathering with the local body, and holding one another accountable.

        You aren’t a part of that (despite attending a bible study, which is not a church).

        If you were, maybe you’d see that a biblical worldview is one that conflicts with abortion.

  6. Debra

    The Bible clearly states life is sacred then says life begins with breath gen2:7 & job 33:4. I am still waiting for a logical explaination other than your gut feeling to substantiate that point of view. Verses about Jesus and John the Baptist in the womb do not count, they are the main chatacters, and of course God knew you before you were the twinkle in your father’s eye, obviously means God knew you before conception, so it has nothing to do with when life begins. Tell me why Jews and many other religions based on the Bible have so much more respect for women than that cult Catholic belief? Going to church is often for show, the morality of christians is so inferior that you always hear how everyone loves Jesus, it’s just christians they can’t stand, actually I would suffer around others and go to church, if they would either keep politics out or give more to poor like the nonprofits. Please, please show me where in the Bible it talks about abortion except numbers5:11-31 giving instructions to a priest to have God perform an abortion on a women suspected of cheating without witnesses so they can’t stone her and the baby. I have with seriousness looked for this in the Bible, Not there means NOT God’s law but a perversion for men to control women.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      I think I’ve addressed those concerns in this article, without “gut feeling” but proper application of scripture.

      All those other people in church you disdain are being obedient to gather but not you. What will God honor?

      Let’s talk about choice. When God ordered the Jews to purge the Cananites, was God being pro choice or giving a binding order?

      1. Debra

        God ordered them to kill them all except the young virgins and livestock, so they could quickly repopulate the earth, you can not make moral law out of this time stuff, because the purpose of this order, it neither lets you say no genicide or abortion or that we have to be fruitful and multiply, the purpose no longer applies. Why do christians refuse to require reason? At least Methodist respect science. Geeks like me do not like to be around people much. God made each of us with our own special gifts, do not judge, at least admit there is no moral law against abortion in the Bible, or that at least sometimes the law is very gray, some christians refuse to look deeply into their faith, other’s love science and sometimes wrestle with their faith like Jacob. My God honors and loves women, an idea you struggle with, or your idea that women are sub human would vanish. Jewish law says that if a women’s life is in danger that not only is abortion allowed, but REQUIED.

      2. sethdunn88 Post author

        They were ordered to kill them to cleanse the Holy Land of syncretism, so the Jews would be Holy. They didn’t have a population problem, it was a holiness problem.

        Science or no, you don’t go to a Methodist church. You are in disobedience and are making excuses. It’s not a gift to not want to be around the others in the body. You’re not serving the body with any gift as a “lone ranger” Christian.

        The moral law in the Bible is against abortion. Abortion takes an innocent life. It’s murder.

        I hardly struggle with honoring or loving women. They are made in the image of God. But perhaps you’ve made honoring women an idol over honoring God.

  7. Debra

    The pastors and teachers are instructed that they our held to a higher standard to teach scripture correctly, but either they don’t care, don’t believe in truth, or sadly mistaken, must not meditate with the Holy Spirit. Are you implying teachers to be infailiable! like God or the supposed pope? Many are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    1. Debra

      Life begins with breath stated gen 2:7& job33:4. Abortion is not a spiritual life A baby is not a spiritual life until 30 days old. Read your bible, arguement are meaningless without scripture.

      1. sethdunn88 Post author

        I’ve adressed that argument here.

        Abortion procedures would be totally foreign to the authors of those very ancient texts.

        Furthermore, it seems strange to say that “spiritual life” is dependent on the length of physical life.

        “Spiritual life” seems to be something you’ve contrived. Man is essentially physical and spiritual.

    2. sethdunn88 Post author

      No, I’m not implying that.

      However you seem to imply that you know better than all of them.

      You aren’t a pastor or teacher and you don’t have either. You seem rudderless.

      Just because there are wolves doesn’t mean everyone is a wolf.

  8. Debra

    Wrong, exposure was common where they just left children in woods, so it was not active but passive killing. Also they had birth control and abortions with plant poisons. Point is embryos are alive but not human special status until 30 days after birth for Jewish law. Infant mortality was so high they did not confidently count children till that old. You base your belief on someone’s else’s belief, You can not find it in scripture, Jesus is the word. You are teaching heresy.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      You’re moving categories. If they had abortions (and we know they didn’t have the technology) then they wouldn’t have had to do exposure for unwanted babies l.

      What Jewish law determines that embryos are only “human” after 30 days? Is that law as authoritative as scripture?

      Somehow they are alive but not human? That’s arbitrary. What species is the life?

      I made the point in my article about infant mortality, what of it?

      What scholarly sources about ancient near eastern culture, specifically Hebrew culture, do you have on plant based abortifacients? (And how in the world would they, ancient Jews, know to use them before 30 days given that they didn’t have pregnancy tests and ultrasounds).

      What heresy am I teaching, that murder is wrong?

      And your accusation comes from a person with no church, no pastor, no teachers, and no local accountability. Why should anyone listen to you about scripture? You respect it so little, you’ve forsaken the body. You don’t even sit under sermons to learn. Of course you’re going to he making these misinformed proclamations.

      1. Debra

        First 30 days is after birth, you know Jews do not require a burial for infants under a month old. I’ve had teaching at Methodist and Presbyterian churches. As far as abortificants and stuff look it up Egyptian women used crocodile pessesary. Actually I heard Jewish women rarely practiced exposure like the other cultures around them. Why can you not answer that the practices around were common, why is it not in scripture? Insult my faith all you want, but I know that I am correct. Why did evangelist churches change there position in 1980’s? Because like Billy Gram warned the religious right will be manipulated by the politicians did studies and people got emotional over this, even though it lacks truth. The father of lies knows perception is more important than reality i.e. truth. I pray sincerely that you can see truth before things get too late, so God can pull you out of the mouth of the lion. I am too tried to argue anymore, you won’t let reason perminate, it must be in scripture, and different churches have different positions, I have to make absolutely sure before helping many troubled souls, I will never understand why christians like you have no respect for the word which is Jesus and scripture. Twisting scripture is what Satin is famous for. How can you possess such a position? Murder requires it to have born human rights, but scripture gives babies that right at one month old? I love knowledge and debate while you refuse to give any evidence of sin.Mostly I am mad you crazy religious right people elected the father of lies Trump, I only hope my taxes go up like his plan indicates our taxes will, though of corse his website denies it but I used to taxes professionally so I know the truth, but that assumes my husband still working after Trump destroys international trade, I have never seen my husband so scared before he says 70 percent of airplane sales are international 1300 layoffs again in April. Why is lying OK? This lying is absolutely a sin one of 10 commandments do not bear false witness, yet we have laws that require doctors to lie to their patients to try to manipulate women. For me the Bible clearly teaches the end never justifies the means, and lying shows a lack of faith, shows a lack of trust in God.

      2. sethdunn88 Post author

        Now you’re off on some tangent talking about Trump.

        Jews, if you didn’t notice from the Bible, weren’t supposed to be like Egyptians. In fact Egyptians were killing Jewish babies.

        Abortion is murder. You should repent for contending otherwise.

  9. Debra

    Spiritual life is talked about in John, you know having to be born twice and all to Nicodemis. I have common sense and reason, faith does not mean denying all reason in interpreting scripture and facts need to be considered. My personal salvation requires facts, scripture would not be silent about this when birth control, and infantcide was so common. Why can you not accept scripture? Why do you want women to feel guilty (wait women rarely feel guilty) and we did eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so if it was a sin we would feel guilty, if it is not a sin you are trying too hard to make someone feel guilty for what? If you don’t have spiritual life, you don’t have eternal life. But most believe soul does not firmly attach to a newborn till 30days old.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      But Nicodemus was already alive wasn’t he? And being “born of the spirit” isn’t being “spiritually alive” in the same way you were talking about before. You’re creating categories and then confusing them.

      How do you know scripture wouldn’t be “silent”. It doesn’t say anything about money laundering but that’s a form of stealing and lying. Just like abortion is a form of murder even though they couldn’t vacuum out babies from the womb when the Bible was being written.

      Your personal salvation? Why should I consider you a Christian? You don’t even have a church.

      I do accept scripture, that’s how I can apply it in regards to abortion.

      Plenty of women feel guilty about abortion and other sins. I want them to repent and feel forgiven. I want that for all lost sinners.

      If you don’t have spiritual life, you don’t have eternal life? We’re talking about being human, not being saved. Are you making the absurd argument that people who aren’t born again aren’t human and don’t have a spirit or the absurd argument that a newborn baby is saved after 29 days when he gets a soul?

      Your points are all over the place, they are incoherent.

      “Most” believe? Most of whom? Did you take a survey?

      And what about your breath argument? Do newborns not breathe for their first 29 days?

      What is a newborn for 29 days if he’s not human?

      You’re full of absurd philosophy. You sound lost.


      1. Debra

        The soul is not firmly attached till 30 days. Anyone can do a simple abortion on themselves if early enough simple put salt water into your uterus through your cervix, half the time I can’t figure out why some one would be so stupid to pay a doctor hundreds of dollars, but for some reason people are afraid of death or hurting themselves. If you are a true Christian you do not fear death. I don’t, Please STOP trying to make young women feel guilty for no reason. They are Gods, they created the so called baby and if they want to destroy it they have every right to in the end. The Bible always tells you, who are you to question God. Does the pot have a right to question the potter? Christian weasels just have a need to control women, that is fine just. STOP lying you do not have a biblical leg to stand on. Quit inventing things like no birth control then. In genesis they even talk about using mandates to enhance fertilization (plant pharmacology) Infants are alive for 30 days with no special status of being human, they are alive like your dog. Basically the Bible says infantcide is acceptable for the first 30 days. This is why the Bible should not be used for moral law. Do not blame me if the Bible is so flawed, can not find your made up law in the Bible not there. Of course it is not the women’s property but the man’s, biblically you must have your husband’ permission. Constitutionally my religion Methodist has just as much legal right than yours. I will pray for your soul, I always do. I have never aborted but wanted to but my husband said no so I didn’t, but fought being pissed off for years, but she is a great blessing to me. I honestly believe you are blessed when you follow God’s law. That sounds contradictory but its’s not, children can be blessings, but they are not required, and there is a time and season for everything. Do not add to God’s law.

      2. sethdunn88 Post author


        You’re all over the place. You’ve been posting in the middle of the night (at least by my time zone). Have you been sober this whole time?

        I hope you can focus in and see that you are making an idol out of gender. You seem to hate men and you even wanted to murder your own daughter in the womb.

        I strongly advise you to get pastoral care in a church from a bible believing pastor.

        You need to turn to Christ to deal with your sin and murderous thoughts.

  10. Debra

    First like I said before the 30 days counting in exodus probably had more to do with high infant mortality, so when they did the count, it makes it more accurate, my point is that looking how other bible religions interpret brings light, Really that is Jewish which I only read as why are a lot of christians so much more hateful to women than Jewish law? But with a lot of babies dying early, it probably was too much a burden to be required to bury always? Just speculating really don’t know. The Bible does not require I go to church Again not in scripture. Jesus warned about Pharisees making law that is not scriptural just to burden the people and elevate their status you sound like an evangelist putting church attendance above any belief. At least I make sense out of scripture you probably rarely read.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      I read the scripture almost every day.

      In fact, I have a daily podcast in which I review a passage of scripture. Why make such an assumption (that I don’t read it)?

      Hebrews 11 says not to forsake the gathering together of the bretheren. Jesus said to observe the Lord’s supper (that’s a church ordinance). The Bible absolutely tells us to attend church…and you don’t do it.

      I covered the reasons for waiting 30 days to count in this very article.

      Since it’s a matter of a child’s life, it doesn’t seem right to justify a abortion on these 30 day grounds.

      1. Debra

        I don’t make assumptions you don’t read but can’t understand or see. About gender Gala3:28 There is no Jew or Greek ,there is no free or slave, there is no male or female, we are all one in Christ. My bible clearly says there is no inequality after Jesus came. What what happened is religious evil men could not stand for women to exert their potential. If I was drunk I still could reason circles around you. You have not a biblical scripture to stand on.

  11. Debra

    You did not cover 30 days after birth that no one would support against the nations law. You handle breath of life but saying scripture is false.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      “The Jews went by a lunar calendar and a lunar month is 29.5 days. In ancient Israelite culture, a woman was ceremonially unclean for forty days after giving birth to a male child. She was unclean even longer if she bore a female child. It wouldn’t be proper for a census taker to approach an unclean woman to count her infant and check the baby’s gender. Furthermore, infant mortality rates were much higher in the ancient Middle Eastern wilderness than they are today. “

    2. Debra

      Women still legally have the right to abortion, that is not in your control that just burns you up, women have rights over the clump of cells.

  12. Debra

    Women are beginning to see through your radical hereical views and leaving for better churches that have a better interpretations of scripture. God allows women to see thru your lies.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s