The Abortion Epidemic: America’s Silent Holocaust

By J. Carl Laney

[J. Carl Laney, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon]

Abortions last year terminated one-third of all pregnancies in America. Since the Supreme Court’s decision of 1973 (Roe vs. Wade), the annual number of abortions performed in the United States has risen from 744,600 to 1.5 million.[1] Nontherapeutic abortion is in fact a 20th-century form of birth control. It has become the second most common surgical procedure, circumcision being the first. Abortion on demand is without question the greatest moral issue facing America today. No other contemporary moral problem in this country results in the deaths of over a million innocent, unborn children each year. Since 1973, eight million unborn babies have died in hospitals and abortion clinics throughout America.

Many Christians today are not sufficiently informed about abortion to form a scripturally based opinion on this issue. Others would like to remain neutral. They do not advocate abortion, but would not prohibit a woman from having one. In an interview on abortion, a California physician stated, “I feel I have the obligation to take care of patients. I don’t feel I should enforce my own personal views, especially since I’m not so convinced that [abortion] is ungodly or unbiblical.”[2] Still others would identify with the “Pro-Choice” crusaders who contend that abortion is a right that women must have. They would argue that all other rights—social, economic, political—depend on the fundamental right of a woman to control her own body.[3]

Abortion is a contemporary moral problem which must be addressed scripturally. The purpose of this article is to provide sufficient biblical truth and factual data to enable the reader to formulate not only a scriptural view on the abortion issue, but also a plan of action to help end the silent holocaust.

What Is an Abortion?

Abortion is the act of bringing forth young prematurely.[4] A spontaneous abortion is one which takes place naturally—a situation over which the mother has no control. This is usually referred to as a miscarriage. An induced abortion is one which is brought about by medical means. In the hospitals and abortion clinics in America the term is used to refer to the destruction of the unborn child in the womb or the extraction of the immature child from the womb in order to end its life. Induced abortion is a violent act that not only destroys the life of the child but also endangers the life of the mother.[5] The methods of abortion include the following:

Suction Aspiration

This procedure is used in 80 percent of the abortions up to the twelfth week of pregnancy. The mouth of the cervix is dilated. A hollow tube with a knifelike edged tip is inserted into the womb. A suction force 28 times stronger than a vacuum cleaner literally tears the developing baby to pieces and sucks the remains into a container.

Dilation and Curettage

Dilation and curettage (commonly called D&C) is a procedure which involves dilating the cervix with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette—a loop-shaped knife—into the womb. The instrument is used to scrape the placenta from the uterus and then cut the baby apart. The pieces are then drawn through the cervix. The tiny body must then be reassembled by an attending nurse to make sure no parts remain in the womb to cause infection.

Saline Injection

Saline injection, also known as “salt-poisoning,” is an abortion procedure which involves removing some of the amniotic fluid surrounding the baby and replacing it with a toxic, saline solution. The baby then breathes and swallows the solution. In one or two hours the unborn child dies from salt poisoning, dehydration, and hemorrhaging. The mother goes into labor about 24 hours later and delivers a dead (or dying) baby.

Hysterotomy

During the last three months of pregnancy, abortions are performed by hysterotomy, which involves opening the womb surgically and removing the baby as in a Caesarean section. However, the purpose of this procedure is to end the infant’s life. Instead of being cared for, the baby is wrapped in a blanket, set aside, and allowed to die.

Prostaglandin

This newest abortion procedure involves the use of chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company. Prostaglandin hormones, injected into the womb or released in a vaginal suppository, cause the uterus to contract and deliver the child prematurely—too young to survive. A saline solution is sometimes injected first, killing the baby before birth, in order to make the procedure less distressful for the mother and medical staff.

The abortion procedures described above are not pleasant. But Christians need to know that when someone exercises “freedom of choice” with regard to abortion, these are the choices involved. It is remarkable that the law protects animals from cruel deaths. A person can kill his dog or cat, but he cannot kill it with cruelty. He would be subject to arrest if he cut off his pet’s limbs, dissolved its skin in acid, or starved it to death. Yet the law allows for these kinds of atrocities to be carried out against the most defenseless members of the human family.

Do the unborn feel pain during these abortion procedures? Yes, they do. Dr. A. W. Liley, world-renowned professor of Fetal Physiology at the National Women’s Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, has shown that the unborn child can feel pain and is sensitive to touch, light, heat, and noise as early as eleven weeks after conception.[6] Using closed-circuit TV cameras, he has shown that if the unborn child is pricked with a needle, the infant will recoil in pain. But if a beep sounds before the prick, and this is repeated several times, the tiny baby will begin to recoil at the beep in anticipation of the pain he knows will come.

In addition to ending the life of the child, abortion endangers the life of the mother. The popular opinion that abortion is safer than childbirth is absolutely false. Published reports of deaths resulting from legal abortions range from 1.2 to 75 deaths per 100,000 abortions.[7] In the late stages of pregnancy, abortion is far more dangerous than childbirth. Death can result from uterine infection, peritonitis, hemorrhage, perforated uterus, or later tubal pregnancy.[8] Other complications relate to damage done to the cervix, injury to the lining of the womb, and blockage of the Fallopian tubes. These include prematurity in subsequent pregnancy, increased miscarriages, and sterility.[9]

What Is the Legal Situation Today?

On January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court made a seven-to-two decision on the Roe vs. Wade case which virtually established abortion as a constitutional right. The Court granted an absolute right to abortion on demand during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, and an almost unqualified right to abortion for “health reasons” during the third trimester. Such “health reasons” as defined in the Doe vs. Bolton case include the psychological, social, and economic well-being of the mother. Harold O. J. Brown, chairman of Christian Action Council, has pointed out:

This places the United States alone among all the civilized nations of the world in permitting abortions at such a late point in pregnancy that the fetus, if born prematurely or by normal Caesarean section at that time, would live. Such late abortions are considered in most nations of the world to be infanticide.[10]

The Supreme Court’s decision invalidated the existing regulations in all 50 states, and now state governments can do little if anything to protect human life developing within the womb. If a woman wants an abortion, even her husband—the father of the child—cannot prevent her from having one. A minor daughter must have her parent’s signature to have her appendix out, but she can have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent.

Amazingly, in dealing with the Roe vs. Wade case the Court was unwilling to decide whether or not an unborn child is fully human, yet they were willing to open the abortion floodgates.[11] Eight million babies have been aborted since 1973 and the Supreme Court is unsure whether or not they are human beings.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court has been wrong in its decisions before. In the famous Dred Scott decision of 1857 the Court ruled that blacks were mere chattel and did not have the rights of personhood. It took a civil war and a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery and reverse the effects of the Court’s decision. If the Supreme Court was wrong before, could it be wrong again?

What Does the Word of God Say?

What does the Bible have to say about abortion? Does Scripture attribute equal value to the life of an adult and the life of an unborn child? From God’s perspective is an unborn baby a human being? These are questions that every Christian must wrestle with in formulating an opinion on the issue of abortion.

The Absence of a Prohibition against Abortion

Since Scripture has no command, “Thou shalt not have an abortion,” some Christians have concluded that an induced abortion is not morally wrong or unbiblical. In response to such thinking Cline states, “The most significant thing about abortion legislation in Biblical law is that there is none. It was so unthinkable that an Israelite woman should desire an abortion that there was no need to mention this offense in the criminal code.”[12] Why was abortion an unthinkable act for the ancient Israelites? First, children were recognized as a gift or heritage from the Lord (Gen 33:5; Pss. 113:9; 127:3). Second, God was seen to be the One who opens the womb and allows conception (Gen 29:33; 30:22; 1 Sam 1:19–20). Third, childlessness was thought to be a curse, for the husband’s family name could not be carried on (Deut 25:6; Ruth 4:5). Barrenness meant the extinction of the family name (cf. Jer 11:19). Induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition to deal with it in the Law. Sufficient was the command, “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:13).

Interestingly ancient Assyrian laws attest to the abhorrence of abortion even by the heathen nations that surrounded Israel. According to those laws a woman guilty of an abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she lost her life in the abortion procedure, she was still to be impaled as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abominable practice.[13] What a commentary on the moral decay of the United States. While pagan Assyrians condemned abortion, enlightened, “Christian” America has condoned it.

The Misinterpretation of Exodus 21:22-25

Some Christians have concluded from Exodus 21:22–25 that the fetus is merely potential human life. They understand the passage to refer to a case of accidental miscarriage. According to this view, a mere fine is levied in the case of an accidental miscarriage, whereas the law of retaliation (lex talionis) is applied if the mother is injured or dies. It is concluded that since the punishment for accidentally killing an unborn child is less severe than the punishment for killing an adult, the unborn baby must be considered less than human.[14] Abortion, therefore, does not constitute the termination of “human” life and is not to be viewed as unscriptural.

This approach has two major difficulties—one in the interpretation of the text and the other in the application of the text. The usual Hebrew, word for “miscarry” (שָׁכֹל; Gen 31:38; Exod 23:26; Job 2:10; Hos 9:14) is not used in Exodus 21:22. The verb which the NASB translates “she has a miscarriage” (literally, “her children come out”) is יָעָא and customarily refers in the Old Testament to live births (cf. Gen 25:26; 38:28–30; Job 3:11; 10:18; Jer 1:5; 20:18). On the basis of careful exegesis Jackson concludes that “Exodus 21:22 must refer to live birth.”[15] It must also be noted that the text itself makes no distinction between harm done to the child and harm done to the mother.[16] In verse 22 two possible situations are contemplated—an accident in which no harm comes to the mother or child and an accident in which the mother or child is injured. The accident without injury results in a mere fine, probably imposed because of the danger to which the mother and child are exposed. In the case of an accident with some injury—to the mother, her child, or both—the law of retaliation is to be applied.

With the late German commentators Keil and Delitzsch, it is better to take Exodus 21:22 as referring not to accidental miscarriage but to premature birth.[17] The renowned Jewish scholar, Umberto Cassuto, translates the text as meaning premature birth: “But if any mischief happen, that is if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye….”[18] Frame provides a helpful paraphrase of the text under consideration:

And if men fight together and hurt a pregnant woman so that her child is born prematurely, yet neither mother or child is harmed, he shall surely be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if either mother or child is harmed, 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.[19]

A second difficulty with the “miscarriage” approach to Exodus 21:22–25 is the application of the passage to the abortion issue. Even if it could be successfully demonstrated that the text refers to accidental miscarriage rather than premature birth, it still could not be used to justify abortion. First, the injury is accidental, not intentional as would be the case in abortion. Second, though unintentional, the action was considered wrongdoing and punishable by law. Third, while the text may not expressly prohibit abortion, neither does it grant authority to perform abortion.[20]

The Divine Involvement in the Formation of the Unborn

Not only is God active in the event of conception itself (cf. Gen 29:31–35; 30:17–24; Ruth 4:13; 1 Sam 1:19–20), but also He is personally involved in the formation and development of the human baby in the mother’s womb. God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…” (Jer 1:5). The word “formed” (יָצַר) is used of God’s special creation of Adam (Gen 2:7–8). When used in its secular sense, יָצַר occurs most frequently in the participial form meaning “potter”—one who forms and fashions a piece of clay into a useful vessel.[21] God fashioned Jeremiah in the womb and also set him apart for his prophetic ministry before his birth. God was actively involved in the life of Jeremiah in his prenatal state.

In the third movement of Psalm 139 David joyfully acknowledges that the Lord intricately wove him together in his mother’s womb. Here David speaks of God’s relationship with him while he was growing and developing before birth. The significance of this psalm is highlighted by Allen:

The Bible never speaks of fetal life as mere chemical activity, cellular growth or vague force. Rather, the fetus in the mother’s womb is described by the psalmist in vivid pictorial language as being shaped, fashioned, molded and woven together by the personal activity of God. That is, as God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, so He is actively involved in fashioning the fetus in the womb.[22]

Verse 13 reveals that God, the Master Craftsman, fashioned David into a living person while he was still in his mother’s womb. “Yes! You created my inmost self, you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139:13).[23] The unborn child is not just a piece of tissue, but is a human being with potential for human experience.

In verse 14 David reflects on the fact that he is the product of God’s creative actions. “I give public acknowledgment to you that I am awesomely wonderful; full of wonder are Your works, and my soul knows it very well” (Ps 139:14). David reflects on the fact that while he was in the womb hidden from the eyes of men, he was never hidden from God: “My bones were never hidden from you when I was being made in secret, and skillfully wrought (as) in the depths of the earth” (v. 15). The term “skillfully wrought” is used in the participial form in Exodus 26:36 of the one who wove or embroidered the beautifully colored fabric used to screen the doorway of the tabernacle. As this special fabric was intricately and skillfully woven, so David was exquisitely fashioned24 by God “in the depths of the earth”—a metaphorical reference to his mother’s womb.

David then refers to God’s watchcare over his “unformed substance” (NASB), that is, his “embryo” (גֹּלֶם).25 Allen translates, “My embryo—your eyes saw! And in your Book all (my unformed parts) were written; daily they were being fashioned when as yet the whole was not (complete)” (Ps 139:16). The word “embryo” is a key term in the abortion controversy. In man it refers to the “prefetal product of conception up to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy.”26 David acknowledges that his embryo from the moment of conception—is under the personal watchcare of God. Concerning the significance of Psalm 139 Ryrie comments, “Even if life in the womb is not the same as it is after birth, it is human life in a certain form. And it is life which God is intimately concerned about.[”27] Psalm 139:13–16 is a strong biblical polemic against abortion, for it clearly demonstrates God’s personal involvement in the creation, formation, and development of the human baby.[28]

The Humanness of the Unborn according to Scripture

According to the Bible, what uniquely distinguishes man from animals is man’s creation in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26–27; 5:1; 9:6). Bearing the image of God is the essence of humanness. And though God’s image in man was marred at the Fall, it was not erased (cf. 1 Cor 11:7; James 3:9). If the Bible reveals that the unborn baby is made in the image of God, then it must be concluded that the unborn child is fully human in God’s sight.[29] The Protestant Reformers regarded the “image of God” in man as referring to man’s immaterial nature as fashioned for rational, moral, and spiritual fellowship with God.[30] Does Scripture reveal that the unborn child possesses these characteristics?

David traces the origin of his sin with Bathsheba to his own conception: “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5). The “iniquity” and “sin” referred to here are David’s.[31] David is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of his life—before birth. This indicates that the moral law of God was already present and operative in David in his prenatal state. Since Scripture attributes moral guilt to David as an unborn child, a strong likelihood exists that he was human before birth.

Luke 1:41, 44 also point to the humanness of the unborn child. John the Baptist is said to have “leaped” in Elizabeth’s womb “for joy” when Mary’s greeting was heard. John’s prenatal recognition of the presence of Mary, the mother of the divine Messiah, points to his spiritual and rational capacity in the unborn state. Appropriately, the term used to describe John in his prenatal state is βρέφος (“baby”), the Greek term used for a child before and after birth (cf. Luke 2:12, 16; 18:15; 2 Tim 3:15). Psalm 51:5 and Luke 1:41, 44 reflect the scriptural view that unborn children are spiritual, rational, moral beings. A baby, then, is “in the image of God” in the unborn state. Frame remarks, “There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely suggests that the unborn child is anything less than a human person from the moment of conception.”[32]

One other argument which lends support to the humanness of the unborn baby is the traducian view of the origin of the soul. According to the creation theory of the origin of the soul, the soul of each human being is created by God and joined to the body at conception, birth, or sometime between. The major objection to this view is that sin must be imputed to each soul after its creation, or else God is creating a sinful being. According to the traducian (from the Latin traduco, “to transfer”) view, the soul as well as the material part of man is “transferred” by human generation. Thus the whole human race was potentially in Adam. This position is consistent with the scriptural view of the human race as a corporate unity (cf. Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12). The human race was seminally present in Adam and participated in his original sin (Rom 5:12; cf. Heb 7:9–10). The point here is that the soul is present in the unborn child. Since there is moral accountability in the prenatal state, the unborn child must be fully human.

Some feminists have suggested that a distinction between abortion and contraception is inappropriate, for the goal of both is the prevention of an unwanted birth.[33] However, there is a considerable difference between contraception and abortion. Contraception tends to prevent the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm, neither of which alone can generate human life. Abortion, on the other hand, destroys what has already been conceived. In abortion a third party is involved—a unique individual whom God has made. Abortion is an insult to the creative work of God and a transgression against the very image of God in man.

Is Abortion Ever Justifiable?

Is abortion justifiable in the case of rape, incest, or deformity of the unborn child? While these are volatile and emotionally charged issues, they do not focus on the major problem facing America. Abortions in the United States for rape, incest, protection of the mother’s life, or voiding of a deformed fetus comprise less than 5 percent of all abortions.[34] The rest of the abortions being done today are performed mainly for convenience—for purposes of birth control. While the real moral problem facing America is abortion “on demand,” these other difficult issues must be considered.

Rape

Surprisingly rape rarely results in pregnancy. A ten-year study in Minnesota showed that no pregnancies resulted from 3,500 cases of forcible rape.[35] Conception can be prevented if the rape victim will seek treatment at a hospital immediately. But what if a pregnancy should occur? It is a strange sort of justice that allows an innocent child to be killed for the crime of its father. The baby would still be the mother’s own flesh and blood no matter who the father was. Aborting the baby does not end the trauma of the rape; it compounds the sin. One should consider this probing question, “If you found out today that you were the product of a rape, would you wish that your mother had aborted you?”

Incest

As in the case of rape, special counsel and care is essential for a pregnant victim of incest. But aborting the baby would further jeopardize the physical and emotional well-being of the victim. Abortions performed on young girls are unusually hazardous, and studies show that sterility is as high as 30 percent among women 15 to 17 years of age.[36] As with rape, the child conceived by incest is a family member and should be cared for as such.

Protection

In the abortion controversy, most people think that “protecting the life of the mother” has to do with her physical well-being. Legally, however, the “protection of the mother” may include psychological, social, and economic considerations as well. C. Everett Koop, the present Surgeon General of the United States and a leading pediatric surgeon, has stated, “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.”[37] In the rare case where a pregnancy must be abbreviated to protect the life of the mother, the proper procedure would be to give the child extraordinary care with the hopes of bringing it to maturity.[38]

Deformity

By examining a sample of the amniotic fluid in the womb (a process called “amniocentesis”), it is possible for a physician to determine if some deformity or defect is in the unborn child. If this test indicates that the child is deformed, should the child be aborted? When Moses questioned his own ability to speak to Pharaoh, God said, “Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exod 4:11). A sovereign God has the rightful authority to make some children “imperfect.” These children are special because, as with the man born blind (John 9:3), God can use these handicaps to His glory.

Christians must not minimize the gravity of rape, incest, possible deformity, or danger to the life of the mother due to pregnancy. These infrequent and rather unique situations must be handled with scriptural counsel and loving concern. But situationalism must not govern decision-making in the area of Christian ethics. God is the One who creates life in the womb, and only He has the right to take it (Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6).

What Can Christians Do about Abortion?

Christians have a moral and ethical responsibility to do something about abortion (cf. Prov 24:11–14). Like the prophets of old, evangelical believers must cry out against social and moral injustices so prevalent today (cf. Isa 10:1–2; Jer 2:34–35; Ezek 22:3; Mic 3:9–10). Specifically, what can and should believers do about abortion?

Information

One of the biggest problems in the abortion issue is that most people do not know the facts about abortion. Thus the first thing that believers should do is become more informed on this important issue. Literature on abortion from a Christian perspective is available from the Christian Action Council (788 National Press Bldg., Washington, DC 20045). Most informed Christians will make a decision to be morally opposed to abortion.

Prayer

Concerned Christians should be praying that Congress will pass the Human Life Bill which would permit pro-life states to outlaw abortion. Many believers are praying for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution so that unborn children can receive the same protection as other Americans. Prayer can influence state and national leaders to take a pro-life stand on the abortion issue.

Support

Christians should know the positions of their political candidates regarding abortion, and should support those who share their convictions regarding the value of unborn human life. At the same time, they should not support candidates who favor abortions or institutions that provide abortion services (e.g., health plans, charity funds, hospitals).

Counsel

In counseling someone with an untimely pregnancy, one may help save the life of an unborn baby. Many pregnant mothers need counseling, housing, and help in finding adoptive parents for their babies.

Compassion

The more one learns about abortion, the more he may become angry. But he must be compassionate in dealing with those who have had abortions. Christians should hate the sin, but share Christ’s love for the sinner (cf. Rom 5:8). Many women who have abortions are the victims of exploitation. They are exploited first by men who want sex without responsibility, and then by physicians who are primarily interested in profiting from the lucrative abortion industry. Often those who have had an abortion later become the most actively involved advocates for the unborn.

Notes

1. Walter Isaacson, “The Battle over Abortion,” Time, April 6, 1981, p. 21.
2. Bill Horlacher, “Abortion: What Does the Bible Say?” Worldwide Challenge, July 1978, p. 6.
3. Susan T. Foh, “Abortion and Women’s Lib” in Thou Shalt Not Kill, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), p. 51.
4. New Practical Standard Dictionary, ed. Charles Earle Funk, 1964 ed., s.v. “Abortion,” p. 5.
5. John Lippis, The Challenge to Be “Pro Life” (Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Pro Life Education, 1978), pp. 5-7; C. Everett Koop, “A Physician Looks at Abortion” in Thou Shalt Not Kill, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), pp. 10-12.
6. J. C. Willke, Abortion: How It Is (Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 6-7.
7. John Willke, Handbook on Abortion (Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Company, 1975), p. 83. One reason for the great range in figures reported is that the majority of abortion-caused deaths do not occur during the procedure, but only afterward due to complications.
8. Lippis, The Challenge to Be “Pro Life,” p. 7.
9. Ibid., p. 8. See also C. Everett Koop, “A Physician Looks at Abortion,” pp. 12-18, for a full disclosure.
10. Harold O. J. Brown, Death before Life (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977), p. 74.
11. Ibid., pp. 83-84.
12. Meredith G. Kline, “Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (September 1977): 193.
13. Ibid., pp. 200-201.
14. Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Texts Bearing on Abortion,” Christianity Today, November 8, 1968, pp. 99-105; and Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Texts Bearing on the Issues” in Birth Control and the Christian, eds. W. O. Spitzer and Carlyle L. Saylor (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1969), pp. 10-11. Waltke has since conceded that the support for this position is less than conclusive.
15. Bernard S. Jackson, “The Problem of Exod XXI:22.5 (Lex Talionis),” Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 292.
16. Jack W. Cottrell, “Abortion and the Mosaic Law,” Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, p. 8.
17. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Exodus,” in vol. 2: The Pentateuch, 3 vols., trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), pp. 134-35.
18. Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), p. 275.
19. John M. Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective” in Thou Shalt Not Kill, ed. Richard L. Ganz (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), p. 56.
20. Brown, Death before Life, p. 126.
21. Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, 2 vols., s.v. “יָצַר,” by T. E. McComiskey, 1:396.
22. Ronald Barclay Allen, “In Celebrating Love of Life” (Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1977), p. 6.
23. This translation of verse 13 is provided by Allen, ibid. His accurate and forceful translation of Psalm 139 is used throughout this consideration of the psalm.
24. A. Cohen suggests that this is possibly an allusion to the veins and arteries which are woven through the body like colored threads (The Psalms, Soncino Books of the Bible [London: Soncino Press, 1945], p. 453).
25. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1967), s.v. “גֹלֶם,” p. 166.
26. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. William Morris, 1969 ed., s.v. “embryo,” p. 426.
27. Charles C. Ryrie, “The Question of Abortion” in You Mean the Bible Teaches That…? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), p. 89.
28. For a well-illustrated presentation of the week-by-week development of the unborn baby in the womb, see A Child Is Born: The Drama of Life before Birth, by Axel Ingelman-Sundberg (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 11-156.
29. See Bruce K. Waltke, “Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (Winter 1976): 10-13.
30. Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, 1960 ed., s.v. “Man,” by Carl F. H. Henry, p. 340.
31. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), p. 403.
32. Frame, “Abortion from a Biblical Perspective,” pp. 50-51.
33. Lucina Cisler, “Unfinished Business: Birth Control and Women’s Liberation” in Sisterhood Is Powerful, ed. Robin Morgan (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. 299.
34. C. Everett Koop, “Deception-on-Demand,” Moody Monthly, May 1980, p. 24.
35. Lippis, The Challenge to Be “Pro Life,” p. 9.
36. Koop, “Deception-on-Demand,” p. 24.
37. Ibid., p. 26.
38. A word about ectopic pregnancy is in order. Ectopic (from ἐκ, “out of” and τόπος, “place”) pregnancy refers to the implantation of the fertilized ovum somewhere outside the uterus. Tubal pregnancy is the most frequent of all ectopic pregnancies. This condition is usually detected by hemorrhaging and requires immediate medical attention. Major abdominal surgery is mandatory to remove the embryo before it ruptures the Fallopian tube. Neglecting treatment will allow the tube to burst, resulting in uncontrollable hemorrhaging and usually the death of the mother. This surgery is not considered “abortion” for its purpose is to prevent the death of the mother, not prevent the birth of the child. Perhaps with medical advances, physicians will eventually be able to relocate and preserve the living embryo (cf. Brown, Death before Life, pp. 22-23).