Does the Bible Condone Abortion?

JoAnna Wahlund - Abortion and Protestants

A few weeks ago, I was participating in a discussion on Abby Johnson’s Facebook page. I can’t remember the exact topic, but I believe Abby had made a comment among the lines of how more Christian churches needed to stand up for the unborn. One of the commenters (apparently there for the purpose of supporting abortion) posted an article from “The Christian Left Blog” titled “The Bible Tells Us When A Fetus Becomes A Living Being.” The gist of the article is that the Bible clearly states that human beings aren’t alive until they take their first breath; ergo, abortion is okay with God.

Addressing all of the author’s fallacies and baseless assumptions would make this post entirely too long, so I’ll stick with refuting four of his arguments (or lack thereof).

1. In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine;it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

False. The translation which was linked (The Amplified Bible, produced by the same translators of the New American Standard Bible, the Lockman Foundation) is the only one I can find that uses the word “miscarriage” in this context. (The Amplified Bible was the first version of the Bible produced by the Lockman Foundation, and a later translation, the NASB, does not contain the same translation.)

All other translations I’ve found use the term “premature birth” instead of “miscarriage.” This is no doubt because the standard Hebrew word for miscarriage, used in other Old Testament verses such as Exodus 23:26, is not used in Exodus 21:22. Rather, the word used is one that means “to bring forth life.”

The blog author also makes the assumption that the verse says if only the woman dies, the offender shall be put to death. However, neither the Amplified Bible translation nor any other translation specifically say that it is only if the woman dies, capital punishment is incurred. The verses actually say “if no further harm occurs,” without specifying to whom the harm is directed; i.e., if neither the baby nor the woman die, the offender is let off with a fine, but the offender is put to death if either the child or the woman dies as a result of the attack.

It’s clear that God places an equal value on the life of the mother and the life of the child, and the unborn child is indeed considered “a living human being” since the penalty for causing its death is death for the attacker.

2. Numbers 5 describes “the Lord” ordering an abortion. Many argue that this is a misinterpretation. It is clearly stated in verse 22, “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

The blog author has a funny definition of “clearly stated,” because, once again, no other translation of this verse matches their version. The post links to another post at the same blog which provides a few verses from Numbers 5, but gives no indication of what translation is being used. Perhaps it’s one that was made up by the author, because seventeen other translations do not contain the word “miscarries” but rather say something similar to, “May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away” (NIV). There is no evidence in the preceding or following verses to indicate that it in any way refers to spontaneous or induced abortion, nor does the original Hebrew carry that connotation.

3. The Visitation. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this article is what is not included. The blog author makes no mention at all of the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-57). The absence is notable because the blog author’s logic, that a child is not a living human being until he or she takes his/her first breath, means that neither Jesus Christ nor John the Baptist were alive at the time of the Visitation. Does the blog author believe that John the Baptist was not alive when he leaped for joy, or that Elizabeth referred to Mary as the “Mother of my potential Lord” or said “Blessed is the non-living fruit of thy womb”? Or is his belief that the Word became a blob of cells and oppressed Mary?

Also absent in the article is any explanation of what an unborn human child actually is, if not a living human being. If a child is not alive, then is he or she dead? Does he believe women are pregnant with dead babies until they give birth, at which time the child becomes magically alive? How many other beings that are not alive have heartbeats, brain waves, and memories? If the unborn child is not a human being, then what species is it? Is the blog author aware that it is biologically and genetically impossible for two human beings to reproduce non-human offspring?

I realize that the blog author is looking at the issue from a purely Biblical perspective, but surely he doesn’t expect Christians to be ignorant of current scientific evidence and data pertaining to human reproduction and embryonic development.

4. Argument from Silence. The last argument offered is one that has been refuted countless times by Protestant and Catholic apologists, yet still persists among those who seek to justify evil.

In the end, if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it. He said nothing.”

By the author’s logic, the following are also morally acceptable, given that Jesus “said nothing” about them as well.

  • Pedophilia
  • Drunk driving
  • Elder abuse
  • Cyberstalking

I’ll give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he is generally against everything on this list – but that would go against his own logic, given that Jesus must have approved of all of them given that He didn’t “mention” them, specifically by name, in the Bible.

It’s very easy to refute this argument from a Catholic perspective, given that we believe Jesus established the Church as His teaching authority (the same Church that has unilaterally condemned abortion for over 2,000 years). Even from a more generic Protestant perspective, however, his argument is flawed. Jesus did speak out strongly against hurting children (Matthew 18:2-6), as well as the precarious spiritual position of those who perpetrated harm against them. He also instructed His followers to follow the Commandments (Matthew 19:17), among which is “Thou shall not kill.” Therefore, Jesus did speak out against both unjust killing and harming children, and abortion is the unjust killing of a child.

It’s evident from this article that the “Christian case for abortion” is built on sand, easily blown over by the winds of Logic and the rain of Reason (cf. Matthew 7:27), not to mention the hurricane of scientific fact.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

58 thoughts on “Does the Bible Condone Abortion?”

  1. I am disturbed by this one argument you make.

    “By the author’s logic, the following are also morally acceptable, given that Jesus “said nothing” about them as well.


    Drunk driving

    Elder abuse


    Jesus did say something about all these. One of his two Commandments:


    When I hear ministers use the well Jesus didn’t specifically address [insert anything loveless here]. I get annoyed, Its like they overlooked the whole point of Jesus’ ministry. He did address it with a broad and yet accurate brush.

    As far as the abortion issue I think you’re right… its
    likely God was not inducing abortion. Why would he need a priest for
    that anyway?

    I read the same article by the
    christian left. I more often see eye to eye with them than churches that
    don’t focus on God’s love and mercy. But I instantly thought of John
    leaping in the belly and thought the same thing. If john was not John
    then a soulless fetus leaped for the presence of another soulless womb
    dwelling shell. That’s seems kinda not worth mentioning.

    article also mentioned god breathing life into all kinds of things,
    including an undead army in a dream.. but nothing about those breathing
    in said breath. For all we know the act of breathing is the sign of
    life, and Fetuses begin breathing amniotic fluid at around 9 weeks.

    if the argument is life begins at the first breath then the debate
    should be first breath of what? Air?? So a baby born to a vacuum has no
    soul? The soul requires a nitrogen and oxygen medium to imbue flesh
    with divinity? hmm… But if its the first breath alone then at 9 week
    you fetus is a person.

    1. Jeremiah, in Chapter 1 Verse 5, goes farther than that. He tells how the Lord said to him:
      “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”

      So…before our mothers and fathers share the marital embrace that would bring about our conception at fertilization, God knows us.

  2. “The Didache,” or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” condemned abortion, homosexual activity and other sins very clearly. Respected scholars have traced the origins of this early Church manual to near the end of the first century (AD 80). It also discusses the liturgy, early rite of baptism, and the hierarchical constitution of the Church through bishops and priests. It is a brief document but provides insight into the worship and doctrine of the early Church and illustrates that even in the midst of persecution the Church was concerned with preserving and transmitting the apostolic faith. So much for Kai Marks’ assertion that the Church wasn’t established until centuries later!

  3. Jesus did not establish any church. No Christian “church” was established until after 325 A.D.. In fact, there were over 100 very different variations of his teachings and life taught up until that point.

    1. Incorrect. “Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.” (source:

  4. What makes you think your understanding of the Bible is complete and accurate? Why do you believe your spiritual teacher’s interpretation is complete and with out fault? Who has given you the right to say someone else’s translation and interpretation are wrong? Your God is too small. My God bears the name Love and does not care to continue these squabbles over which human is right and which human is wrong. As long as we are pointing our fingers at each other and screaming demeaning words and stating opinions as if fact, He is crying. If you are right, then in am glad for you. If I am right then you should be glad for me. Either way we should both be praying that Hod will LOVINGLY bring us together in peace to fulfill His ultimate commandment of LOVE.

    1. Jesus did, when He established the Catholic Church. He gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture, and to bind and loose. He gave us a Church for a reason (if He wanted us to be sola scriptura Christians, He would have given us an already compiled Bible prior to His ascension, but He did not).

    2. I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Jesus did not give you the authority to pronounce views and interpretations that are different from the Catholic Church as wrong! Jesus said to love each other and to seek Him for guidance. Blindly following a religion, any religion, just because the interpreter told you to is doing an injustice to the brain and soul with which God blessed you. He said be still and listen. That was an instruction to listen to Him for truth, not you preacher, minister, pastor, etc.

    3. Please read the following (from my personal blog) which disproves your assertion that I (or any other Catholic) “blindly follows” the teachings of our church:

      Furthermore, by what authority do you claim that my interpretation of Scripture (or the Church’s interpretation of Scripture) is wrong?

      Here is the problem with your theory. There are thousands upon thousands of different Christian denominations out there. All of them claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. All have different teachings on key issues (for example, infant baptism, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc). How do we know who is right if they all claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

      In the Bible, Jesus clearly tells Christians to listen to the Church when something is in dispute: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18

    4. JoAnna: Why do you waste your time debating with people who’s sole purpose in posting here is to spread discord and falsehood? We both know that Jesus built His church on Peter and the apostles, so why argue with people who either don’t know history or simply want to irritate you?

      Karl Marx could care less what your evidence is because finding truth is of no interest.. Jesus said he would be a sign of contradiction, pitting family against one another because people are looking for teachings that will tickle their ears.

      I appreciate your attempts at honest discussion, but you won’t find it here.

    5. Excuse me, but I would like to ask how you found my posts to be of discord and lacking in honest discussion? My comments are honest for me, obviously different from yours, but no less important than yours on this thread. We are here to share our beliefs and interpretations, why do you attack me because mine are slightly different than yours? You are right, Jesus did say we would be pitted one against the other in discord, but it seems your words have more discord than mine. I am rational and kind in my discussion, why are you dismissive and abrasive?

    6. Because there are a lot of lurkers out there who don’t know how to respond to these types of arguments. I respond for their benefit, not necessarily for the benefit of the commenter.

    7. But don’t you see, you just proved my point. And I did not intend to say that your interpretation is wrong, perhaps my wording was bad. What I meant was that your assertion that yours is the only correct interpretation is wrong. As you said, there are many different religions and many different subjects within those religions. I assert that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all of it and we, as individuals, must look to Christ for explanation of what we do not understand. While you may believe the bible word for word, and that is right for you, I do not and that is right for me. I believe in the bible as a guide through eloquent parables and the gospel as the historical story of Jesus. If we all strive to love one another then the details aren’t so important. When we act and speak out of love we have answered the base call of God, let Him sort the rest out with each individual.

    8. I do look to Christ for an interpretation. He said to look to the Church that He established. So, I follow His command and look to His Church.

      “If we all strive to love one another then the details aren’t so important.” Um… pretty sure Jesus never said anything of the kind. Would you say the same to a pedophile who claims to sincerely love his victims, for example?

      “When we act and speak out of love we have answered the base call of God, let Him sort the rest out with each individual.” What do you mean by “sort out the rest”?

  5. There is a basic flaw in the argument made in this essay: By asking if the Bible “condones” abortion, the assumption is already made that abortion is immoral. The implication of the question is whether the Bible promotes an immoral action. But that’s not the point of The Christian Left’s essay. The point of The Christian Left’s essay isn’t that the Bible condones abortion, it’s that the Bible does not clearly state that life begins at conception (though there are certainly passages that can be interpreted to suggest it), while it does, in at least one place, clearly draw a line between “living person” and “fetus.”

    Now, as everybody is furiously pounding on their keyboards, ready to call me out on being pro-abortion, I’m not (very few people are pro-abortion). My argument here is for neither side of the argument. It’s merely pointing out a logical fallacy in the point made in this essay.

  6. People can interpret any verse in any of the over 1,000 versions of the Bible to suit their own wants/desires and then ignore what they want. Are you married? How much did your husband’s family pay for you? Can I purchase a wife I desire if it is an appropriate price and also purchase her slaves?

    The bible was written by men with only one purpose, to control people and create “laws”. It belongs no where near laws and should apply to people on a personal level. A personal relationship with God is the only one that matters. Not a relationship with what some person says from a pulpit is how to interpret a terrible translation of a translation of a translation of a group of writings written by scribes who were told what to write by people who were told stories by another person about person that lived 200 years before the first text about that person was written.

  7. Pingback: Planned Parenthood's Pastoral Letter - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand

  8. Rusty Shackleford

    Can you explain what it means when a woman’s thighs waste away. That seems life threatening to a child inside the womb. You make a statement saying there is no way any mention of miscarriage, but provide no discussion on how the passage is referring to something that is not related to miscarriage.
    Also, can you discuss what the true translation of the bible means when it talks about the worth of life? In numbers, I think it mentions that people are not “counted” if they are before 1 month old. And in Leviticus, only children are worth a certain amount of silver after 1 month old (not to mention boys are worth more than girls).

    Is there a well translated and annotated bible that can provide clear interpretations of the bible that are not contradictory in today’s language? It seems there is too much cherry picking from actual catholic officials as much as non-believers. This makes it so hard to trust the bible completely, not to mention trusting someone’s interpretation of the bible.

    Disclaimer: I think that it is reasonable to believe that abortion is murder considering the fetus has brain activity at a certain point (i.e. even non-religious people could agree on that). Also, that if we believe there is a soul implanted at conception, then abortion of such an early stage of pregnancy can still be considered murder. However, I also think that pro-choice people do actually believe there is no soul at conception and it is reasonable for them to want to allow abortion of a “growth of cells”, when something so far from sacred (in their view) is capable of causing emotional, financial, and perhaps physical pain and suffering (presumably more than an abortion would).
    Like it or not, we live in a society with varying beliefs. We believe some things are so sacred that we cannot accept any other opinion as valid. Are we really so right that we have to force every person to obey our law? Maybe we do have the right, but unless we make a 100% christian state, we will lose that battle all the while ignoring issues that could help many people who have already been born.

    1. Rusty: as Catholics, we trust interpretation of the Bible to the Catholic Church, since they were the ones who compiled it and determined the canon of Scripture. Catholic theologians have studied the scriptures for 2,000 years, and they have determined that it speaks against abortion.

      Ensoulment is irrelevant to the issue of abortion from a secular standpoint (see, for example). From a Christian perspective, abortion was still considered evil if it took place prior to ensoulment.

    2. “Catholic theologians have studied the scriptures for 2,000 years”
      Quite impressive since they have not yet been around that long.

      I also seem to remember that it was a gathering amongst ALL the churches of that time, not just the Catholic Church, which compiled the documents they could agree on into what became known as the Holy Bible.

    3. The New Testament was authored by Catholics (St. Paul, St. Peter, et al) so the Church has been studying those Scriptures — both oral and written — as long as they have been in existence, and some were written mere decades after Jesus ascended (hundreds of years before the Church closed the canon and compiled the Scriptures into what is now the Bible). The Scriptures also include the books of the Old Testament, which have been around for far longer than 2,000 years.

  9. CatholicsForChoice

    Yes, it does, but then then Israelites went and slaughtered all those in Jericho. So, maybe not so much

    1. So you’re arguing that, not only have the unborn sinned, but, like the Amorites, their sin has reached its full measure, such that God Himself has commanded you to reach out and destroy them?

      Because the two situations are so radically different, I can’t see any other reason to mention one to justify the other.

    2. CatholicsForChoice

      Really, the two are different?? All the Amorites, the old men and women to the infants, needed to be killed?
      Well, maybe God is telling women to have an abortion? Just because YOU didn’t get the memo doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    3. Well, clearly, that’s the most logical explanation — God has spoken 30M+ times in the US alone, but hasn’t once bothered to tell a Pope, a bishop, or a priest “psst, hey guys, this is okay”.

      Pro tip: if you’re going to go to the trouble to troll, at least put a little effort into it. (And spend more than five seconds picking your name.) This has been quite a poor showing.

    4. Crazy, no. Imaginary, yes. (Look up “risk compensation” sometime; it’ll give you an idea why none of those studies actually exist.)

      And, interestingly enough, the actual “catholycs for choice” website doesn’t even make that claim. So now you’re claiming that fictitious studies support a made-up argument that the group you’re supposedly an integral member of doesn’t even make. Not a good sign.

      As I said, poor showing.

    5. Am I safe in assuming you haven’t actually read the Peipert study? Here’s a quick summary: he selected a group significantly more likely to have abortions and pressured them into accepting free IUDs. Unsurprisingly, their abortion rate dropped. (In related news, if you’re hitting yourself in the head with a hammer, and I pay you to stop, your risk of traumatic brain injury goes down dramatically.)

      Unfortunately, nothing in that study can be generalized to the population at large. The only way that would work is if you sterilized the female population, en masse, at government expense…but golly, you’re not giving women much of a “choice”, then, are you? (To say nothing of the health consequences of IUDs, or their total lack of protection from STDs. It sounds anti-choice *and* anti-woman, actually.)

      …and now you’re trotting out that old “life jacket” poster? LOL! Only a pro-abort would equate having a baby with death by drowning. (Or be unable to grasp the difference between swimming and screwing.)

    6. CatholicsForChoice

      Wow. you contract yourself in the first paragraph, that is impressive. “their abortion rate dropped”.
      And that study can be generalized to the larger population. If you haven’t noticed lately, we still have poor in every corner of the world. Well, maybe not the bubble you live in.

    7. I’ll take that as a “no, I haven’t bothered to read the study, but the headline sounds good, so it must be right”, then.

      I’m glad to hear that poor women are so interchangeable to you. (Almost as if they’re not really people, created in the image and likeness of God…but nah, because if you didn’t believe that, you couldn’t call yourself Catholic.) And that, being interchangeable, the solution to all their problems is to jam a foreign device into them. I’m guessing the women your magical IUDs kill and maim are acceptable losses for your cause, right?

      And all this in the name of “choice”. Got it.

    8. CatholicsForChoice

      Yes, I have read the study. The suggestion that you don’t want to apply it to help the poor and needy is sad. It is almost as if you believe telling them, ‘just don’t have sex’ is going work.

    9. And here I am this whole time, thinking that your approach of “helping” the poor and needy by dehumanizing and maiming them is sad. Gee, you’ve really opened my eyes!

    10. CatholicsForChoice

      Oh yes, we think of ‘dehumanizing’ them as taking away medial procures from them and letting politicians make medial the choices from them.

    11. CatholicsForChoice

      Here, let me work just a bit harder, though I know you are never pleased …should ban life jackets & other flotation devices? They only encourage risky behavior, according to your risk compensation theory.
      The only 100% effective way to prevent drowning is total abstinence from going in the water. And if you do, by chance, find yourself struggling with drowning, then no life-saving or otherwise procedure or act should be allowed to be administered. You got yourself into this mess, you have to live with the consequences.

  10. Pingback: Famous Bible Verses Quotes Blog

  11. Here’s a thought…if you’re against abortion, DON’T GET ONE! And quit trying to force your personal religious beliefs on the rest of us!

    1. Hi Susan,

      I’m afraid I don’t see the logic in your argument. For example, I could also say,

      “Don’t like adultery? Don’t cheat on your spouse!”
      “Don’t like gun ownership? Don’t own a gun!”
      “Don’t like child abuse? Don’t abuse a child!”
      “Don’t like rape? Don’t rape!”

      And so on.

      Also, abortion is a human rights issue, not solely a religious issue. You don’t have to be religious to believe that all human beings have human rights and should be treated accordingly. Please see, for example.

      I did not use secular arguments in my piece because I was directly rebutting another article that tried to justify Biblical support for abortion. However, if you visit the site I reference above, you will find a plethora of secular arguments against abortion, none of which invoke religion. Therefore, the assertion that standing up for human rights amounts to “forc[ing] personal religious beliefs” on anyone is false.

    2. You analogies actualy makes sense when you look at them as guides to living a christian life. This was not a debate about secular law, but of beliefs.

    1. Please see the Hebrew word for kill in the sixth commandment is “rasach” which more accurately means “murder” or illegal killing judged harmful by the community. You argue that abortion is murder but Jewish law apparently did not as fetuses were not considered persons. You do realize that the world population would currently be over 9 billion if there were no abortions (assuming that the world could actually support that number currently). I guess you are advocating for more childhood suffering from world overpopulation or do you have some plan to take care of 2 billion more people. If so please let us know as it would be useful since we cannot take care of the over 7 billion we already have.

    2. Please point me to the passage where the socalled Ten Commandments are writen. Somehow that passage eludes me constantly.

      Migth also point out that the Bible is filled with “… unless a b c d or e” all for various reasons.

      But then again, using the Old Testament to guide your christian behaviour is kind of silly, since the whole point of the Saviour was to set forth a New testament to replace it.

  12. Sounds like the leftist “Christian” went to the same school of theology as Nancy Pelosi and some others who frequently distort the bible and Catholic teaching. Pelosi made the incredible and public claim that it was only recent Catholic teaching that abortion was wrong, going even further to misquote St. Thomas Aquinas. Her bishop and others had to correct her that abortion has been condemned even in the Didache, the earliest known church teaching.

    “When I formed you in the womb, I knew you,” God told Jeremiah. In the Psalms God talks about how He knit us together and that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” God commands us to respect the dignity of each person He has made, born and unborn. That’s His revealed truth–and it’s in the bible!

  13. Pingback: Seven Reasons to Go to Weekly Confession During Lent

  14. More to the point, it’s like the “Christian” left actually cares about what the Bible says about homosexuality, the right of anyone to the profit of their labors, or anything else that they have a special interest in? It only becomes “Biblical” when they want to try to fool the faithful into accepting evil.

  15. Dear JoAnna,

    To say nothing of the versus such as:

    1. Matthew 18: 1-6 – At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And He called a child to Himself and set him before them,and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.4“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    2. Matthew 25: 44 – 46 – “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

    And the statements from early Christians:

    A. The Letter to Diognetus (2nd – 3rd Cent.) – “They live in their own countries, but only as aliens; they participate in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is foreign. They marry like everyone else, and have children, but they do not expose their offspring. They share their food but not their wives. They are `in the flesh,’ but do not live `according to the flesh.’ They live on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws; indeed in their private lives they transcend the laws.”

    B. The Epistle of Barnabas @ 19:5 (80 – 120 AD) – Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born. Thou shalt not withhold thy hand from thy son or daughter, but from their youth thou shalt teach them the fear of God.

    C. The Didache @ Chapter 2 (50 – 120 AD) – And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

    The early Christians certainly seemed to think that the life of a Christian excluded abortion and exposing the born child. This was quite a change from the earlier pagan beliefs and actions.

  16. Pingback: Does the Bible Condone Abortion? | CATHOLIC FEAST

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.