Naturally,
Anglicans tend not to be lulled into fundamentalism, preferring in-depth study
to simplistic proof-texting, taking into account a perspective gained by
consideration of the Canon of Scripture as a whole rather than as a collection
of isolated chapters and verses. Proof-texting is nothing like “rightly
dividing the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15).” Nonetheless, it is necessary to set
straight their three favorite attempts to proof-text their way into offering
apologetics for abortion from biblical sources. These three involve the
creation narrative, specifically of Man, and then two passages from the laws in
the Torah (or Pentateuch). Let us look at each of them in order.
1. The
Creation of Adam
“And the
LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7)."
In
simplistic fundamentalist style, their argument is that this verse proves that
“ensoulment” takes place after birth when a newborn takes its first breath into
its own lungs. Never mind that the modern science of prenatal medicine treats
the unborn baby as a patient, monitors its heartbeat, keeps track of its growth
and development, and in every way affirms that this human being is completely
alive within the mother’s womb. The idea that it suddenly becomes alive by
breathing without her aid, once it has emerged from her womb, is not science,
but, as I said above, superstition. It is nonsense that has no place in the
modern world. Furthermore, their fundamentalism is mixed with this strange
belief in magic as they distort the biblical text into something it was never
intended to be.
The purpose of the creation narrative, in this case the
second creation narrative, is two-fold: We see that everything in creation is
God’s work, and that it is good, and together it is very good.
But this passage is about creation as a first cause, something that cannot be
repeated. Indeed, as modern people we have no reason to be overly concerned
about the obvious fact that the first two chapters of Genesis are not even read
as history by most modern people, just as they were not taken as literal
history by the earliest readers. Chapter one is a poem, with such poetic
license that God makes the light of day before He is said to have created the
sun. Along with the second chapter detailing Eden as the source for four rivers
that actually never connect, we can see that the ancient people who gave us
these accounts were not trying to pass them off as literal historical fact. In
fact, they would be surprised, if they came into our time, that anyone ever did
so regard them.
So,
what do we learn from Genesis 2:7? First that God is the creator of the species
called Man, or Adam, or homo-sapiens. Adam, in the story, is not
even born, but rather formed as a complete and even adult male. It is here that
we first learn of the consistent biblical teaching that we each have a body and
a spirit, and that these taken together make each of us into a living soul. In
both Greek and Hebrew the words for soul and spirit are not only different, but
set alongside each other as separate parts of a human being. In the New
Testament this takes on great importance in St. Paul’s First Epistle to the
Corinthians, especially chapters two and fifteen, where the difference between
soul and spirit is essential to making sense of the text. The body comes from
the earth, and in this sense Adam, in the narrative, is born from the earth
figuratively. But he is not born literally, and is not an infant.
The passage is telling us simply that life, along with
consciousness, comes from God. Also, in both Greek and Hebrew the words
translated as “spirit” also mean wind or breath. This is about the creation of
the human species, and even taken on its own terms, within the narrative, the
story is that this first man was not formed in the womb at all, and not alive
until God imparted his own Spirit into him. The breath of God into Adam is the
Holy Spirit imparting life into a body that has not been conceived, has never
been growing and developing in a mother’s womb, and that had no prior vitality,
no heartbeat, nothing. In no way is this creation story anything like pregnancy
and childbirth, and in no way is the initial gift of life to the human species
repeated by gestation and birth.
In short, to treat Gen.2:7 as a proof-text to justify
abortion, by reading into it that breath going into the lungs unassisted by the
mother turns morally insignificant tissue into a person, is to defy science in
fundamentalist style, complete with a Bible verse. But, after reflection, it is
obvious that the text is not about a baby growing and developing in the womb,
and is not about birth. Frankly, if we really want to be very biblical about
ensoulment, we need to look another passage.
“For the life of the
flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
an atonement for your souls (Leviticus
17:11).”
The Hebrew word translated “life” is nefesh;
so it is correct to translate it as “The soul of the flesh is in the
blood.” Inasmuch as our prospective interlocutors are waxing very
fundamentalist, let us look at what actual appeal to biblical authority
reveals. Certainly no one can argue that the unborn baby has no blood, so
playing the match by their own rules, in this first game we say “checkmate.”
But the rules of the game are disingenuous on their part; they have to know
that modern prenatal medicine is the science that makes their attempt to return
to the Dark Ages most repugnant.
2. A
Matter of Premeditation
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from
her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the
woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges
determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou
shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus
21:22-25).”
Our interlocutors will have quoted an unfortunate
mistranslation from the Hebrew, rendering the phrase translated quite literally
in the King James Bible (above), “so that her fruit depart from her,” as
“causing her to have a miscarriage,” or words to that effect. Their argument is
that the child is not treated automatically as a murder victim, ergo,
the fetus is of less moral significance than a person who has been born and
taken that magical first unassisted breath.
The first mistake is to
assume that the baby has necessarily died. It is not absolutely clear, inasmuch
as premature births at late stages of pregnancy have been a regular feature of
human experience all throughout history. Granted, today the prematurely born
child is even safer, and its life can be sustained at earlier and earlier
stages of development (itself a relevant moral fact to the whole subject of
abortion). If indeed the baby were to survive, then the child, as well as the
injured mother, is to be avenged “if any mischief follow.” The words “Life for
life” are, as in Leviticus above, “Soul (nefesh) for soul (nefesh).”
The obvious implications do not support our interlocutors’ position.
More to the point
however, whether the child has died or not, the passage cannot be used to make
their argument. Let us assume that the child has died, as is most likely, and
that the “mischief” is strictly the injuries sustained by the mother. That does
seem to be the more reasonable way to interpret the meaning of the ancient
text. But it does not follow that this would mean that the child in the womb is
of less moral significance; for in the Torah the penalty for murder was not to
be carried out on someone who caused an accidental death. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When
ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then
ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may
flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares (Numbers 35:10,11).” In the
verses that follow it was commanded that no one could be punished for murder
unless the actual killing was, in our legal language, premeditated. The men who
strove together deserve a punishment; but the entire episode would be an
accident. It is likely then that the litany of penalties was not literally
meant in this case, “soul for soul,” but was included because this was probably
a recognized and oft repeated refrain; for it appears elsewhere.
However the text was
intended, by the rules of the match, we again say “checkmate.”
3. A
Matter of Clumsy Eisegesis.
“Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife
go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from
the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no
witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of
jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or
if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she
be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall
bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall
pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of
jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the
priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the
priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in
the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the
water: And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and
uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which
is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter
water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and
say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone
aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from
this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to
another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain
with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an
oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a
curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot,
and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy
bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall
say, Amen, amen. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he
shall blot them out with the bitter water: And he shall cause the woman to drink
the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse
shall enter into her, and become bitter. Then the priest shall take the
jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before
the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: And the priest shall take an handful of
the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and
afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. And when he hath made her
to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and
have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse
shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her
thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman
be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of
her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him,
and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and
the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless
from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity
(Numbers 5 :12-31).”
I
have saved the most ridiculous argument for last. What can I say? Eisegesis is
always wrong, whether you are reading an alien meaning into the Bible, or
Shakespeare, or lyrics of The Beatles. The eisegesis they commit when they
invoke this rather strange passage is that they read into this text pregnancy,
whereas in fact there is no mention of an existing pregnancy at all. The
passage ends with the promise that she may conceive, which potential pregnancy
would follow later. Worse, they imagine that the potion mixed by the priest
will cause a miscarriage, and that it is, therefore, abortion performed by the
priest. But there is no miscarriage caused by the potion. There is no
pregnancy, no miscarriage, in short, no abortion, anywhere in this very unusual
ancient passage.
Indeed,
if the potion really were to make a woman’s belly swell, and her thigh to rot,
it would stand to reason that her belly is normal size when she drinks it.
Frankly, discussing this at all seriously is difficult to do. Not only is the
passage very strange indeed, but if this ritual had ever been practiced it
could have had only one result: A woman in danger of being abused or divorced
would be vindicated and cleared, because there is no magic potion then, and
none today either, that could cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot;
and certainly not one that would have this terrible effect only if she had
cheated on her husband. By the rules of the match, our interlocutors’ ironic
appeal to proof-texts, we again say “checkmate,” only this time
straining to keep a straight face.
Science
and Superstition
So,
in closing, we should wonder how any modern person can so easily set aside the
advances of science in the field of prenatal medicine, as to argue “first
breath ensoulment,” and how anyone wanting to distance himself from belief in
the supernatural would treat that first breath as the beginning of life when
that life has already reached an undeniably complex stage of development. They
like to think we are the backwards and superstitious lot. But with all their
talk about ensoulment and their fundamentalist abuse of scripture, the very
opposite is exposed.
Indeed,
it is we who are believers in science. And a very real warning must be added.
Ensoulment, as they use the word, is about defining personhood. After all of
the bloody history, especially of the last five hundred years, with everything
from genocidal colonialism, and race-based chattel slavery, to the Holocaust,
everyone should back away from defining personhood. For the real purpose in
defining personhood is always about exclusion and the attempt to justify
atrocities. It is to designate others as non-persons. It is
about dehumanizing them. Prenatal medicine is not about defining personhood,
and must not be perverted into providing such a definition. Properly
understood, ensoulment is a mystery, and for those who actually take religious
belief seriously, the work of God and his Spirit.
Postscript
Regarding the situation in the United States: Before
leaping for joy at the overturning of Roe vs. Wade (and Casey vs. Planned
Parenthood), let us be sober enough to admit that we, who stand for the
sanctity of life, have actually lost ground in recent years. The younger
generations had, once upon a time not long ago, become less adamant in fighting
for unrestricted access to abortion for any cause beginning in the last decade
of the twentieth century. Fewer and fewer new doctors have been willing to do
abortions simply because they learned the latest advances in medical knowledge,
and have been unwilling to kill their patients (for every obstetrician treats
at least two patients in every pregnancy). The number of abortions decreased
dramatically. This was not legislative progress, nor was it political progress.
But it was a trend based on appreciation for more medical knowledge about the
development of life within the womb. We were making progress
Observably,
much of that ground has been lost in the last few years, even though the
greater scientific knowledge remains and even advances yet more. The problem is
politicians. The reactionary nature of American politics has caused a sharp
division of causes-lumped-together for which the average
person feels compelled to go along with one complete party line or the other.
Instead of any discussion in which the developing infant has moral significance
as a being, the only topic discussed is personal freedom “to choose.” We are
allowed only to mention the woman’s body, as if a pregnant woman has two heads,
two hearts, two sets of fingerprints, and two separate DNA patterns until that
magic moment of separation; of course this is a completely unscientific
fairytale. Instead of debate about when the fetus should be protected by law, a
discussion that led to the federal ban of partial birth abortion in 2003, the
new demand is for absolute freedom of choice by the mother
through all nine months of pregnancy; a position so extreme
that even a majority of the self-proclaimed pro-choice advocates were opposed
to it before 2016.
Unfortunately,
most Americans have become increasingly unable to distinguish between issues.
And most politicians have also become less and less resistant to pressure from
the respective National Committees of the two major American parties to take
any position other than the complete Party Line. This is why
lumping together various causes is such an abomination to free thinking minds.
The self-contradiction of advocating in favor of healthcare for all, yet
advocating the murder of any unborn child who is simply an inconvenience,
contrasted against the equally absurd and self-contradictory picture of those
who oppose healthcare for all, but claim to be “pro-life,” or pro-gun and
“pro-life,” is what makes party politics obscene, fueled by the legal bribery
unique to the United States, that gives powerful corporations the ability to
purchase your representation in Congress, taking it away from
you. Those who are willing to let the poor die by neglect and injustice are not
really “pro-life” just because they are right about the abortion issue. Those
who advocate for the poor and for refugees do not have the moral high ground
either when they argue against the life of the most helpless who cannot speak
for themselves, hidden from sight in the womb. The self-contradictions and
inconsistencies lumped together as party platforms makes absolute loyalty to
either party, and the party line, a betrayal of Christ.
Now,
for those who really want to stand for innocent life, because they know that
how we treat “the least of these” is taken personally by Jesus Christ, and that
in the judgment we will account for how we treated him in how we treated them
in their hour of need (Matt. 25:31-46), fierce loyalty to either of these two
parties is simply impossible. Both of them persecute “the least of these,”
whether it is the helpless unborn child, or the poor, the sick and imprisoned,
or the stranger, and in fact persecute these innocents to the death whether
before or after birth (yes, “to the death.” I am considering writing an entire
book about cases known to me personally in which modern Americans have died
from poverty – yes, many modern Americans are dying quite preventively and
needlessly from poverty).
Whatever
happens in the legal realm, our most important focus must be on preaching the
Gospel, and “teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded
you (Matthew 28:20).” Laws made by legislatures come and go. Power structures
do not endure. Congresses and Presidencies flip back and forth between party
majorities. Probably, even the Supreme Court will flip between parties more and
more in the future. It is unlikely that advances made in those venues will have
anything even remotely resembling permanence. Roe vs. Wade has been overturned;
but this does not place barriers between state lines. The battle we must win is
the battle for persuasion, to change hearts and minds. This requires the truth,
and it requires credibility.
Of
course, as a priest I am mostly concerned about saving souls. It is quite
disturbing that more and more people who claim to be Christians have become
more and more willing to engage in sexual relations before marriage, as if
“changing times” has rendered any of God’s commandments obsolete. The real
danger in the current setback, that young people are once again becoming more
ready to advocate for convenience abortion as a “woman’s right” in order to
establish worldly equality (i.e. equal opportunities to serve Mammon), is that
people who are in the Church and call themselves Christians will be willing in
greater number to accept this consequence of sexual “freedom,” and endanger
their own souls by adding to it the shedding of innocent blood. Indeed,
whatever happens in the culture dominated by unbelievers along with merely
nominal believers, we have to resist pressure from without for the sake of our
own people. They, especially while young, need sound teaching as their only
protection. This brings me back to where I began this essay.
In
recent years I have seen these three major attempts to posit arguments
supposedly drawn from the Bible, designed to argue that abortion is not even a
sin, and that it is perfectly legitimate. These same three arguments continue
to appear, and have been made by a large circle of advocates ranging from
ordained ministers and rabbis to professed atheists. As we have seen, these
three arguments contradict science, rely on superstition even when made by
atheists who delude themselves that they are believers in science, and are also
strangely fundamentalist in method though those who have repeated these gotcha arguments
from “proof-texts” would never admit to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment