Are the Unborn REALLY Human Beings?
My Dad and I continue to be blessed by your magazine. Thank you so much for your much-needed ministry!
Can you also tell Gwen [Billington] how much we appreciate the efforts she’s putting into transcribing the podcasts? I’ve been missing out because, when I listen only (with nothing to affix my eyes upon), my mind wanders, so podcasts don’t work for me. But I’m an avid reader, and reading is my #1 best (and favorite way) to assimilate information. So THANK YOU GWEN!!!
I am also writing with a question.
The Roe vs Wade decision has caused a lot of people to revisit the question of when life begins, myself included.
Since I only started in Adventism at the age of 51 and left after seven years (once God revealed the unbiblical nature of Adventist doctrines to me), I don’t have a “natural” reaction one way or the other the way Colleen expressed she does [in last week’s article, What Is A Life?].
However, I find myself very confused on this issue. Here’s why.
We know that fetuses in the womb react to sound, pain, and so forth, a fact which leads me, in my gut, to believe that fetuses are human beings.
On the hand, in the Old Testament, if someone injured a pregnant woman and caused her to lose the unborn child, that person was penalized the same way as if they had stolen something (and not as if they had committed murder). This makes me wonder if, in God’s eyes, the fetus is a human body but isn’t a “human being” yet. (This also makes me wonder what, in God’s definition, makes a human body into a human being. Is it the soul, the spirit, both, or something else?)
I’d really love someone to do a deep dive on what the Bible says about this issue, if possible. We can feel one way in our gut, but still not have God’s TRUTH unless we take it back to the Bible. (After all, isn’t that how the Adventists got so off track, accepting a human’s word over God’s Word?)
It’s God’s TRUTH (and not my own gut feelings) I’m seeking, as I’m sure you are too.
—VIA EMAIL
Response: You have reminded me that this very argument used to be my biblical “proof text” for supporting my thoughts about abortion. I realize that Adventism, formally or informally, taught this Exodus law as the biblical support for the unborn not being fully human.
First, I want to share the Exodus passage in a slightly larger context:
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:20–25).
The rule about a pregnant woman being struck and thus having a premature birth triggered is not defining “personhood” or the life of the unborn. First, the law immediately preceding the pregnant woman law is the law that a man can mortally wound his own slave, but if the slave doesn’t die right away but rather dies a day or two later, that slave-owner is not to be treated as having taken a life. The slave is his property, or his means of income, and the monetary structure of Israel’s economy allowed for Israelites to have slaves who would work off their debts. Obviously this law did not address the slave’s humanity! This was purely a legal and economic decision. Thus, a slave owner could injure his slave, but if that injury did not result in immediate death, he couldn’t be accused of killing a man or woman—even if that injury DID cause death later. Only if he directly killed the slave could he be held accountable for murder.
In that same context, the law about striking a pregnant woman, causing that child to be born prematurely, did not result in a direct death of a human. A premature birth could be a live birth. It could be a live birth that resulted in a later death. The text doesn’t define the nature of the premature birth. The one who struck the mother has to pay whatever the husband or the judge determines. Each case could be different. But the one who struck was not trying to strike the baby. The baby’s delivery was an unintended consequence and was not the object of the striking.
Furthermore, in verse 23, the law states that if there is any further injury, the law of retaliation would apply. That “further injury”, in context, applies to either the mother or the child.
This law was not making a statement about the LIFE or HUMANITY or PERSONHOOD of the baby. It was defining the law of retaliation. As the NASB study notes on these verses say, “The so-called law of retaliation, as its contexts show, was meant to limit the punishment to fit the crime.” When Jesus came and described the law of love, however, He expanded the law to show that intent and unintended consequences make a person just as guilty as did the literal taking of a life (see Mt. 5:38–42). Israel, however, lived by the law of “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”. (This law is repeated in Leviticus 24:20 and in Deuteronomy 19:21.)
Significantly, those same study notes say this about the words “any further injury” in verse 23: “either to mother or to child”.
This law was given not because a slave or an unborn child was less alive or less human than other people. Rather, it was given so that the offender would not be charged with unreasonable consequences. Depraved people could demand exorbitant revenge. This law was given to contain consequences to the literal, actual act and to the immediate consequences. The hitting of a pregnant woman which did not injure the woman but which resulted in a premature birth could not be defined as murder of the unborn. If there was further harm to the woman or to the child, the offender was to be judged accordingly. In a similar way, the consequence for mortally wounding a slave was limited to the literal, immediate result of the act, not to the longer-term outcome of the act.
Yet we both realize that these laws did not define the victims’ humanity or life. Furthermore, we can be so thankful that the Lord Jesus came and gave us the Law of Christ, His new law that governs us because He fulfilled the Mosaic law and took the curse of sin and death. Now we are held accountable for internal sins against people, born and unborn, and only in Him do we find redemption and forgiveness.
Adventism has taken this passage and has misapplied it to define whether or not an unborn baby is fully human. In fact, they have even misrepresented if not outright misinterpreted this verse. In fact, this verse DOES define the unborn as a human life.
The story in Luke 1 about the unborn John being filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:15) and then leaping when Mary and the unborn Jesus came into the house (Lk. 1:41) lets us know that the unborn are truly human. In fact, God chose an unborn baby to be one of the first witnesses to the identity of the Lord Jesus!
Just by the way, in our current laws in the USA, if a person has an auto accident and kills a pregnant woman, the accident is reported as two lives being lost.
I hope this helps. I am going to give you an article to read that might be helpful in understanding the biblical nature of humanity: Are Humans More Than Living Bodies?
Podcasts Make Scripture Personal
I am sitting here unable to hold back the tears. So much of what Colleen and Nikki discussed in today’s podcast exposed emotions of real and painful experiences I had so long forgotten. I identified in several areas, and it was difficult but wonderful as I focused on gratitude for God’s leading. He is faithful. He never forsook me and used each experience of my sin and/or the sins of others to draw me to Himself.
It is always…But God!
I love the way you delve into Scripture and bring it into practical living. You bring me into your conversation between two sisters in Christ just reading and understanding the clarity of Scripture. Some podcasts are hard to bear because of the emotions they resurrect, and I have to deal with them again, but they are always rewarding as they make Scripture real and personal to the one who is born again.
I just want to let you both know how much I appreciate your podcasts and thank you as well as all who make them possible. I pray for you regularly even as I give thanks for your faithful ministry.
—VIA EMAIL
Labor In the Lord Not In Vain
I was reminded once again on July 4th of how very important evangelism is as I watched the T.V. coverage of the shooting that took place at the parade in Highland Park, Illinois. (The city is approximately 35 miles from where I live.)
None of those people who died knew that Monday would be their last day on this earth. Hopefully at least some of the survivors of this tragedy will be moved to consider what will happen to them after they die if they have never thought of it before.
My prayer is that the purpose of God in having the survivors live be that they would seek God and find Him, as Paul explained to the people at Mar’s Hill in Acts 17:27.
My prayer for all of you at Life Assurance Ministries is that you would be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58).
—VIA EMAIL
- November 23–29, 2024 - November 21, 2024
- We Got Mail - November 21, 2024
- How can I be born again? - November 14, 2024