Without any question, the Bible is overwhelminly pro-choice.
Although the Hebrews were influenced by many of the laws of their Assyrian, Sumerian, and Babylonian neighbors, all of which forbade abortion, the Hebrew scriptures had no laws forbidding abortion, not a single one. This was chiefly because the Hebrews placed a higher value on women than did their neighbors. There are, however, some references to the termination of pregnancy. Exod. 21:22-25 says that if a pregnant woman has a miscarriage as a result of injuries she receives during a fight between two men, the penalty for the loss of the fetus is a fine; if the woman is killed, the penalty is “life for life.” It is obvious from this passage that men whose fighting had caused a woman to miscarry were not regarded as murderers because they had not killed the woman. The woman, undeniably, had greater moral and religious worth than did the fetus, which was nothing more than a worthless glob of tissue, a meaningless, lifeless conglomeration of cells – contrary to antichoice people who consider it “human life.”
There is also reference in the Mosaic law to what is now called “abortion on request” Num. 5:11-31 indicates that if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant by another man, the “husband shall bring his wife to the priest,” who shall mix a drink intended to make her confess or be threatened with termination of her pregnancy if she has been unfaithful to her husband. In other words, the Jewish Church was directly involved in bringing about abortions for those countless Hebrew women who fell into this category referred to above. Yes, the Jewish priests actually performed the abortion on the women. The Bible is undeniably specific on this point. Of course, there are less intelligent biblical exegetes who interpret this in various other obviously erroneous ways. It is best not to consider their ignorant opinions in this matter.
Voluntary Abortion or Compulsory Sterilization?
Voluntary Abortion or Compulsory Sterilization?
Starting in the mid-1960s, some erosion of the anti-abortion laws began to take place. But these efforts have not been supported by many of the more vocal groups who are trying to do something about excess population growth; to them, compulsory birth control and compulsory sterilization are apparently more palatable than voluntary abortion.
The result is legal chaos–which has been the situation with reference to abortion since it was first made illegal in this country. Contrary to popular belief, the legal strictures against abortion are of comparatively recent origin. Until the early nineteenth century–at common law both in England and in the United States–abortion before quickening was not illegal at all. It became so only in the early 1800s. And according to Professor Cyril Means and others who have studied the problem, the reason for the enactment of the laws was not protection of morals or of the “soul” of the fetus, but rather a reflection of the fact that at the time all surgical procedures were highly risky because of the probability of infection (this was before Lister). Abortions were made illegal for this reason except where they were necessary to save the life of the mother; that is, where the great risk of infection which every operation involved was outweighed by the risk of carrying that particular pregnancy to term. The situation is today reversed; abortion under modern hospital conditions is safer than childbirth.
Nor is there any evidence that abortion involves psychological health hazards. A poll of the American Psychiatric Association in the mid-1960s revealed overwhelming support for more easily available abortions and a conviction that adverse psychological sequelae from abortion are negligible both on an absolute standard and as compared with such sequelae from childbirth and unwanted children.
Though the population experts have not yet aligned themselves on the side of abortion-law reform, something is beginning to happen. Seven states–Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina–have amended their laws to permit abortion not only to save life but also to protect the health, mental and physical, of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and to avert the birth of defective offspring (Governor Reagan forced the omission of this ground in the California law). Many other states have been and are now considering abortion reform or repeal bills but usually without the support of the powerful groups who are backing other forms of population control.