The Bible on Stages of Gestation:
are the babies in the womb protected human beings at any stage of gestation?

This article discusses whether there is any Biblical support for the relatively modern religious idea that the fully fledged legally protected human life begins since the moment of conception, and there must be no distinction in stages of maturity of babies in the womb. According to this religious idea, any attempt at any stage to abort the baby is no different than a murder of a naturally delivered full term baby.  Even application of the "Next day after" pills is considered by them a murder.

It must be noted, that in time of the Founders both in America and Britain the distinction of the stages of gestation did exist. It was the stage of quickening which was considered a threshold between the phase of not yet human being and a soulful human being protected by laws. In the time of the Founders therefore abortions in the stage before quickening were legal.

The religious concept that the fully fledged human life begins since the moment of conception emerged in the late 19th century, and number of people adhering to this idea now is even growing: they try to impose an absolute and unconditional ban on abortions (up to the ban on the "Next day after" pills).

However, is there any support in the Bible for the claim that fully fledged human life begins since conception? Let's see.

Sure enough, there are many directions of a general nature in the Bible toward choosing life (rather than death), and the direction to fruit and multiply. There is nothing however which states that human value of the baby in the womb is the same at any stage of gestation beginning from the conception.

On the contrary, in one place there are the verses which actually differentiate the stages of pregnancy, rather than equate them all:

Exodus, 21, 22-25

22 When men fight, an one of them pushes pregnant woman, and a miscarriage results, but no other damage [ason] ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according with the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.

23 But if other damage [ason] ensues, the penalty shell be life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burn for burn,  wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

The problem with these verses is that they are differently understood and differently translated. A Bible scholar Dennis Prager addressed this problem in his Bible comments in the book

Dennis Prager, the Rational Bible, Exodus, Chapter 21, p. 294.

Here is the understanding that he suggests based on the ancient Greek translation of the Bible called  the Septuagint:



This distinction in the value of the content of the womb based on whether or not it has a form well agrees with the criterion of the quickening applied in the time of the Founders.

Therefore, people believing that the soulful human life in legal and moral senses begins with the conception do not express the Scripture view on this issue, though they can surely live up to their belief themselves. However ... not only do the adherents of this idea want to live up to this idea on their own: they want it to be accepted by the entire nation, so that abortions be unconditionally banned at all stages of gestation, no exceptions.

When these people insist at such a draconian ban, they claim that they defend the lives of the unborn which cannot stand for themselves. Such a sanctimonious claim however is bordering with stupidity. Why? Because they neither can enforce the responsible conception and bearing of those potential babies, nor can they take responsibility for the terrible consequences of that  irresponsible conception and bearing. If they insist that babies are fully fledged human beings since the conception, then any kind of irresponsible conception and irresponsible bearing is a terrible child abuse, but it's impossible to prevent and prosecute it. For example, Mr. Brown in his article eloquently mentioned some of terrible effects of such irresponsibility, but then he sanctimoniously advises the women to swallow it all and be happy.

Indeed, abortions are evil, and the world would be better if there were no need for them. However the world is not good at all: it is rather evil. Sure enough, abortions must be regulated (rather than being merely a kind of a contraception technique used at a whim). Let's specialist and morally responsible people (rather than ideologically charged and nearly fanatical individuals) decide how late it may be allowed.

Alexander Gofen