Recently I came across several times the pro-abortion argument that, according to the Bible, life begins with the first breath. In other words, it is argued that life does not begin at conception or at some later stage of the pregnancy period. This line of reasoning is used to argue for late-term abortion, namely, life is considered life only once the child is born and starts to breathe; before that it is somehow not really life (what is it?). The basis of the argument is, of course, that the woman has the choice when to abort her child. No government, they say, should impose laws on the reasons or timing of an abortion, and certainly no religious views or interpretations should be forced on others.
In what follows, I wish to briefly elaborate on the so-called biblical argument that life begins with the first breath, and, therefore, not at conception or during pregnancy as pro-lifers would argue. Since it is usually religious people, specifically of the Christian faith (and others, of course!), who defend the unborn life and since with this argument pro-abortion advocates try to use the Bible to make their case, it is in order to evaluate this claim and the conclusion it is based on. For this evaluation and argument used in the abortion debate, it does not really matter whether or not one believes that the biblical account is true, valid, or only symbolic or even wrong. It doesn't even matter if it is scientifically accurate. What matters here is how an interpretation of the Bible is used to argue for abortion from the very Book people of faith use to argue for life (and therefore against abortion). Let’s take a look.
According to the creation story in the Bible, the first human being was ‘formed’ by God ‘of dust [adama] from the ground,’ and ‘man [Adam] became a living being’ (or soul) after God had ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’ (Genesis 2:7). Hence, the breath/Spirit/wind (Hebrew ruah) of God made that ‘formed dust’ into a living soul/being (Hebrew nefesh). In the Bible God is portrayed as the Creator, Origin of and Giver of life. Without His breath there is no life. The Bible does not explain the biological details as it seeks to communicate not a science account of the origin of life, but a theological one that ascribes infinite value to human life created the image of God.
According to the biblical account of man’s origin, life began with the breath of God, and implicitly, man also began to breath. Hence, it appears, it proves the claim that ‘life begins with the first breath’! It seems clear and simple, based on the very Book Christians use to argue for the sanctity of life and against abortion (which is consider taking a life). Did pro-abortionists find a clever way in trying to prove to Christians that their own holy Book should allow for abortion since ‘life begins with the first breath’? The biblical creation account continues as follows.
The second human being God created, the first woman, was formed not from the dust like man (Genesis 2:7) or like the animals (2:19), but from one of the man’s ribs (2:21–23). Here we do not read that God breathed into the formed body to make her a living being/soul, but it might as well be implied. God created male and female in His image, co-equal (Genesis 1:26-27), no discrimination! Adam (man) and adama (ground/soil) are an obvious play on words in Hebrew, pointing to the origin of man or the material he was made of. This speaks both of humble origins (and to dust we shall return), yet crowned with divinity created in God's image. The woman, Eve (meaning ‘living’ or ‘life’), is the life giver to her offspring, or, as the Bible describes her, ‘the mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20). She is to give birth to their children and offspring, a biological process that would be repeated throughout human history. Just like God placed the seed in the plants and fruits for their multiplication, so God installed a brilliant 'procreation mechanism' (if you excuse the technical language here) in man and woman (as well as in animals): the male gives the seed, the female received it, carries it and finally gives birth to new life.
Without going into any detail of the biological processes of insemination and fertile eggs in the womb out of which comes forth life, the biblical account simply affirms two things: (1) the first two human beings were created by God’s very hands (Adam from the dust, Eve from a rib), and (2) every other human being thereafter would be conceived by the physical intimacy, aka sex, between a man and a woman, where seed and eggs in the womb create new life!
So, if God is not, presumably (or is He?), breathing his Breath (Spirit) on each ‘fertilised egg’ or ‘embryo,’ or ‘fetus,’ or ‘unborn child,’ how can we establish when life starts? When exactly is the soul (the non-material part of human beings) formed? Can we at all establish this from the Bible? There are many interesting questions one could pursue. What this short text seeks to respond to is the pro-abortion argument from the Bible, or rather, from a certain biblical interpretation. Ironically, one person making this argument for abortion actually also claims that no religious interpretation should govern over a woman’s right to have an abortion according to her decision based on her circumstances (nobody considers the unborn child's rights or respects a choice; as Ronald Reagan has noted, everyone for abortion has already been born...) As true as one part of the argument is, namely, that in a free world not any one religious or philosophical or political viewpoint should rule over others, as wrong it is to make a philosophical argument (in this case based on a wrong interpretation of the Bible!) in favour of abortion! It’s also ironic that a person advocating abortion calls it a difficult decision to make. This is misleading and even deceptive, because at the heart of this argument is clear-cut death for the unborn—a cruel and inhumane act!
So, does life begin with the first breath? No, it doesn’t, not according to the Bible it doesn't. Here is why: First, using the creation of the first human being as the prototype of how all other human beings come into existence (become 'life'), is simply wrong, illogical and unbiblical. And second, the biblical account shows that after the first set of humans were created, one man and one woman with the necessary 'mechanisms' in place for procreation, all the rest of humanity would come into existence in a different way, namely, through the fertilisation of the female eggs by the male sperm that brings forth new life in the womb. Whatever we think or make of the biblical account—accept it as the norm or reject it as something else—it is fake and rather offensive to argue from the Bible for something the Bible itself rejects.
Life beings in the womb, not with the first breath of a born child. According to the Bible, two unborn babies (John and Jesus) responded to each other when their mothers (Elizabeth and Mary) met (Luke 1). Hence, they were very much alive and conscious! Samson was chosen by God from his mother’s womb (Judges 13:7), and so were Isaiah the prophet (49:5) and Paul the great teacher and apostle (Gal 1:15–16). Hence, God ascribes value and dignity to human life before birth! Jeremiah the prophet was known by God even before He formed him in his mother’s womb (Jeremiah 1:5). Hence, life has even pre-conception worth! So, if we take the Bible as a guide to establish the origin of life, let's not twist its meaning to contradict it in its very core: for the God of the Bible life is valuable, before and after birth, and murder is the worst kind of sin specifically because humans were created in His own image (Genesis 5:1-2; 9:6). Life is sacred and should therefore not be killed but protected (Exodus 20:13). Even if one doesn't accept the Bible as a moral guide or source or truth, using it to prove a pro-abortion stance is rather absurd and totally unacceptable.
Hence, when it comes to the question of conception and procreation of life, the place of the creation of a human being after Adam and Eve is no longer the garden of Eden as in the creation story, but the mother’s womb, which should be the most protected place on earth, but has become the most dangerous place on earth for the defenceless depending on respective state legislation. Hence, it is a fake argument to claim no religious interpretation should rule over others, when they themselves us biblical interpretation to support their view of life and abortion, and when abortion itself is legalised by state legislation and thus enforced on others. True, there is a difference between religious conviction and state legislation, the former applying to individuals, the latter to everyone under its jusristdiction, yet there is no neutral ground on this issue. Life is either life from conception to natural death, or it is not. But, and this is relevant for the present evaluation, even if life began with the first breath it would still be wrong to argue from that interpretation that abortion was okay biblically—it is not, because it is murder, plain and simple. Life begins at conception in the womb. Life is sacred—before and after birth. It’s that simple.
Comments