When we say “pro life” what do we mean? Does the Bible teach that “life” begins at conception? Define “life”, then? Try to define “life” covenantally. Define it in terms of biology. Where does the soul come from?
The Pro Life movement attempts to exegete a few Bible passages like Jeremiah 1:5 “”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” But, wouldn’t we insist that, for Jeremiah this was true, but how do we get to Dick and Jane? Psalm 139.13 is usually invoked as well: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” This, of course, was true for David who wrote the psalm. But how can we get from that to me and you? And, after all, David and Jeremiah were covenant people. Maybe such does not apply to non-covenant, non-regenerate people. Even in the example of John the Baptist “leaping” in his mother’s womb (Lk 1.44), does this mean all babies are as alive as he was? Maybe John, a covenat person, simply had “life” of the covenant in him that recognized the message of the birth of Messiah. If we followed this line of reasoning, the Pro Life movement’s appeal to such Scriptures fall apart.
What would be the objection to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity wherein David wrote, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51.5). Was Dick and Jane conceived in sin, too, from birth? Calvinists use this verse in the same way Pro Lifers use the above. The argument is basically, “if was true for them, it must be true for all.”
Another plank in Pro Life apologetics is called “the sanctity of life.” What life? Covenant life? Biological life? Does God view both as important? The “sanctity of life” doctrine is rooted in another doctrine called, “imago Dei” (image of God). Since all men were “in Adam” and Adam was made “in the image of God”, then it follows that each and every conceived child is connected to such a divine stamp in some way, and thus, “important” and “meaningful.” It is only from this religious conception that Pro Life gets its ammunition from. In Communism, whether Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler (yes, Hitler was a Socialist), or Stalin and Lenin, “life” does not have such a meaning or doctrine, since there is no God. Life can be exterminated for the greater good of the Proletariat. And exterminate they did.
Sanger, founder of the NOW organization, believed in extermination as well. Herbert Spencer, that father of sociology, intellectually defended it. They had no doctrine of image of God, or sanctity of life or any other “religious” appeal.
So – what happens when we strip away the doctrine of the “image of God” as applied to all mankind – every individual – that came from Adam? Clearly, not all are made in God’s image. That only would apply to the “covenant people.” What happens when we seek to rigidly fix what we can infer from biblical passages to the “I” and “me” of the above passages? They apply only to Jeremiah and David. They don’t “apply” to me. I was not “knit together” in my mother’s womb. Now, logically, there is no invalid reason for inferring from “one” to “all.” If we are speaking of the “one” as a class: human beings. David was a human being. Human beings are knit together in their mother’s womb and fearfully and wonderfully made. But, if one did this, one has to accept Psalm 51.5, too. Samuel Frost was born in sin. So was Jason Bradfield.
We do this with Adam. Adam was “made in the image of God” – and some want to limit it to just that. Yet, Genesis 9.6 seems to extend that definition to all. The basis for the ethical stance against murder is just that: image of God. It is here that the Pro Life movement makes its entire case.
Ideas have consequences, and in this case, to sever “spiritual” from “physical” has implications, politically speaking.
Perhaps some may wish to argue that abortion is fine for the unregenerate. Let them slaughter their own children. At least they can do so in a safe environment instead of back alley abortions. At least they are monitored and healthy. After all, God’s people don’t have abortions – so, who are we to say, NO ONE can have abortions because of some “image of God” doctrine? Isn’t that just the regenerate trying to make EVERYONE (the unregenerate) follow some sort of religious doctrine? Is there really a sanctity to HUMAN LIFE? Is there some sort of sanctity to biology? Why? Did God “create” it? How? Does the Bible even say how? Maybe he was just talking about the covenant people and not the universe and all mankind. How could you apply what was meant for a specific people to all people?
Ideas have consequences……
