6. Abortion (Remastered)

Abortion

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Exodus 21:22-25. Exodus 21:22-25. The subject, ‘Abortion.’

Exodus 21:22-25.

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follows, 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, stripe7 for stripe.^”

The subject of abortion is not a pleasant one. But if we were only to deal from the pulpit and from Scripture with that which is pleasant, we would very quickly abdicate our Christian state. We are to deal with what God requires, rather than that which pleases us. 

Now, abortion, the destruction of the human embryo or foetus has long been regarded by Biblical standards as murder, but it is significant that in recent years this stance has been radically altered. We are very thoroughly familiar with the fact that the liberals both within Protestantism and the Roman Catholic church have very extensively compromised on the subject and are ready to grant the so-called ‘right’ to abortion. The sad fact is that even within so-called ‘evangelical’ circles the compromise is very deep. For example, Christianity Today, a major evangelical publication which represent the Billy Graham perspective, in fact one of the moving forces behind it is Graham’s father-in-law, had an article in the November 8, 1968, issue. This article was written, again very significantly, by Waltke of the Dallas Theological Seminary. 

This man’s perspective is antinomian, premillennial, dispensationalist. In this article he declares that abortion is permissible in terms of Scripture. Now, this is in plain defiance of our text and of the Sixth Commandment. The historic grounds from the days of the Old Testament to the present has been the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” and the text which we read. Let us look at that text again as given in a very modern, legally precise translation, by Cassuto.

“When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurt her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life.” ⁱ

It should be noted that ‘children’ are given in the plural because this is a legal statement to cover not only a child, but multiple births as well.

Now let us analyze this law, remembering that this is case law under the general principle, “Thou shalt not kill.” Remembering further that case law gives a minimal case and declares that from this minimal case if it is true here, it is certainly true elsewhere. Thus this has legal implications which, from the days of Moses through the Early Church to the present, have been realized. Now, first of all, in this case cited, we do not have deliberate abortion, it is accidental. Two men are fighting and they fall against the woman who is pregnant and she aborts or delivers later prematurely. 

This, then, is a minimal case, it covers any type of case that might ensue from an accident. This entered into legal statutes all over the world. For example, in Boston just very recently there was a case in which a child was born prematurely as the result of an accident when a truck struck a car in which Mrs. Zaven Torigian was a passenger, and she won a case against the trucking company because of that, in terms of this principle which has entered into our law. Thus, even in the event of an accidental abortion, there is liability, it is still a crime, a legal offense. 

Second, this means that if there is a penalty for even accidental abortion and the penalty is death if the child be born dead, how much more is this true without possibility of exception in an induced abortion? This is, of course, the principle of the minimal case illustrating everything in an area. 

Now third, a point that is very obvious here is that even if there be no injury to the woman or the foetus, still the man is liable to a fine and must be fined. It’s stipulated as mandatory. Now again this sets forth something of considerable importance. The law clearly protects pregnant women and the embryo so that every pregnant woman has, in terms of Biblical Law, a strong hedge of law around her. 

Fourth, since even a mother bird with eggs or young is covered by the law, according to Deuteronomy 22:6,7, it is clear that any tampering with the fact of birth is forbidden, except where required or permitted by God’s Law. 

Now, this legislation against abortion is unique in world history. There is nothing to compare with it outside of Scripture and those legal codes which have been influenced by the Bible. It is true that occasionally you do find, in some cultures, laws against abortion, but they are not against abortion in principle. For example, in the Roman Empire there were laws against abortion, but it was not that abortion was bad, it was only a crime if and when a woman defrauded her husband of an heir by means of abortion, only then. 

Perhaps most revealing of the attitude outside of Scripture are the statements that we find in Plato and in Aristotle. These are so typical of the attitude of all pagan antiquity and of the modern world that it is well worth reading what Socrates says in Plato’s Republic:

“I should make it a rule for a woman to bear children to the state from her twentieth year to her fortieth year: and a man, after getting over the sharpest burst in the race of life, thenceforward to beget children to the state until he is fifty-five years old.…

If then a man who is either above or under this age shall meddle with the business of begetting children for the commonwealth, we shall declare his act to be an offense against religion and justice; inasmuch as he is raising up a child for the state, who, should detection be avoided, instead of having been begotten under the sanction of those sacrifices and prayers, which are to be offered up at every marriage ceremonial, by priests and priestesses, and the whole city, to the effect that the children to be born may ever be more virtuous and more useful than their virtuous and useful parents, will have been conceived under cover of darkness by the aid of dire incontinence.…

The same law will hold should a man, who is still of an age to be a father, meddle with a woman, who is also of the proper age, without the introduction of the magistrate: for we shall accuse him of raising up to the state an illegitimate, unsponsored, and unhallowed child.…

But as soon as the women and the men are past the prescribed age, we shall allow the latter, I imagine, to associate freely with whomsoever they please, so that it be not a daughter, or mother, or daughter’s child, or grandmother: and in like manner we shall permit the women to associate with any man, except a son or a father, or one of their relations in the direct line, ascending or descending; but only after giving them strict orders to do their best, if possible, to prevent any child, haply so conceived, from seeing the light, but if that cannot sometimes be helped, to dispose of the infant on the understanding that the fruit of such a union is not to be reared.

That too is a reasonable plan; but how are they to distinguish fathers, and daughters, and the relations you described just now?

Not at all, I replied; only, all the children that are born between the seventh and tenth month from the day on which one of their number was married, are to be called by him, if male, his sons, if female, his daughters; and they shall call him father, and their children he shall call his grandchildren; these again shall call him and his fellow-bridegrooms and brides, grandfathers and grandmothers; likewise all shall regard as brothers and sisters those that were born in the same period during which their own fathers and mothers were bringing them into the world; and as we said just now, all these shall refrain from touching one another. But the law will allow intercourse between brothers and sisters, if the lot chances to fall that way, and if the Delphian priestess also gives it her sanction.” ⁱⁱ

Now, this is substantially what Aristotle said. This is substantially also what many of the modern so-called ‘reformers’ have in mind. What is the principle here? There is much reference here to religion and to marriage ceremonies, sacrifices and prayers. The principle, of course, is that the state is God, it is the ultimate order, it is the working god of the system. Therefore, the state can order abortion, infanticide, and incest whenever it so deems advisable. There is no law beyond the state, and whatever the state decrees is therefore, ipso facto, morally right; total statism. 

This was the world into which the Early Church moved. On all sides there was this total permissibility in so far as the state decreed it was advisable. But the church condemns abortion from the very beginning! From its earliest days. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions declared:

“Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged as being unjustly destroyed, Ex. 21:23.”

Apostolic Constitutions (VII, iii).

Tertullian for example declared that:

“To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Thus, very early, the church took a stand, in fact it would take a sizable volume just to quote the various statements of the Early Church fathers and of the various church councils against abortion, it was declared to be murder. 

This attitude prevailed until recent years. But the modern attitude has been increasingly permissive. Beginning in the latter half of the last century, some scholars began to say that there was nothing ultimately wrong with abortion, that in fact the main reason for it was not sin or murder, but it was poverty. In fact, A.E. Crawley, a distinguished anthropologist of the last century and the beginning of this century, maintained:

“…as often as not … the sole reason is poverty.” ^iv

Havelock Ellis saw civilization as leading to a decrease in abortion as life became more rational and scientific, and he declared that it was not a sin, but just a primitive remedy for economic distress and for reckless sexual behavior. But abortions have not decreased, but they have increased with the spread of rationalism and science. 

As a matter of fact, in 1946 there was the very startling Inez Burns abortion case in San Francisco, and the records that there were seized at that time indicated a very startling fact. The annual birth at that time in San Francisco were approximately 16,000, the annual abortions, 18,000. Since then, the ratio has increased markedly in favor of abortions. And the various States that have liberalized abortion laws have not found any decrease, as has been admitted within the past two or three weeks in the number of illegal abortions. With the 1960’s, an extensive program was begun to gain the so-called ‘woman’s right to abortion’ with the U.S. Public Health Association leading the way in the campaign. It was pointed out that in the Soviet Union it was legal and that much needs to done to bring us up to the times. 

The courts themselves had been leading the way in recognizing this so-called ‘right.’ Just recently, in New York, Mrs. Rosalyn Stewart won a case against a hospital when they refused her an abortion after she had had measles and the child was born defective. She won a very sizable award against the hospital which demonstrates the direction the law is taking. 

And yet, it is interesting that at the same time studies in primitive societies and abortion in these societies has been most telling against abortion. Even though the scholars like Dr. George Devereaux, who report these findings, are not particularly favorable to the Christian perspective. According to Dr. Devereaux, for example, in these primitive societies the purpose of abortion seems to be revenge against the father, hatred of responsibility. He quotes the Papuans as saying:

“‘Children are a burden and we get tired of them. They destroy us.’” ^v

[Abortion is thought of] as an analogue to suicide, a hatred of life, and a hatred of men. And the motivation in very many cases, he said, is:

“1. The preservation of beauty. 

2. The continued enjoyment of freedom and irresponsibility.” ^vi

And yet, interestingly enough, Dr. Devereaux has a chapter in this report on these primitive societies titled, “The Eschatology of the Fetus.”

In other words, even these primitive societies believe that they are committing murder, and so they have various stories about the afterlife of these murdered ones. The situation today then is very, very critical, and very little attention is being paid to the objections that are being raised by some outstanding doctors. For example, a very important article, which gains too little attention, was written by Dr. A.C. Mietus of the UCLA medical school, together with his brother, and published in the American Bar Association journal. Here is the resume of that article. They, the brothers, said: 

‘They said those who deplore the loss of 5,000 to 10,000 mothers annually in illegal abortions ignore the 1 million or more unborn children “sacrificed in the process of this massive assault on human life.’

The Mietus brothers said some persons would justify abortion in the case of unborn infants that would be born crippled or defective.

‘Would any reputable doctor propose to try LIVING cripples, or mental or physical defectives, in comparable ex parte proceedings? Start by eliminating senile parents; then the millions of blind persons?

‘Move on to all who are bed-ridden—then those confined to wheel chairs—and finally those who use crutches? Proceed gradually with the disposition of the millions who wear spectacles, use hearing aids, are equipped with false teeth, are too stout or too thin.

‘Where draw the line between acceptable and the unacceptable level of fitness?’ the Mietus brothers asked. “No human being is perfect. Would the world, moreover, really be a better place after the destruction of the millions of defective individuals? Has the world gained or lost from the services of the epileptic Michaelangelo, of the deaf Edison, of the hunchbacked Steinmetz, of the Roosevelts—both the asthmatic Theodore and the polioparalyzed Franklin?

‘It must be recognized that liberalized abortion laws would logically be followed by pressures for legalized euthanasia. The attack on life is essentially the same,’ they said.”^vii

And that of course, is an excellent statement from a medical perspective of the Christian stance. Abortion places life under man and the state rather than under God, and the demand for abortion is antinomian to the core. 

It was very revealing that just this past week in New York, when a legislative committee was holding hearings on the subject, the meeting was broken up by a mob of young women. They entered, screeching and declaring they were tired of listening to men debate something that was a primary concern to women. And they shouted, “What right to you men have to tell us whether we can or cannot have a child!?” Now, that states the issue very, very tellingly.

What right? In other words, what these women were saying was that unless you could experience childbirth, you have no right to legislate. Law is then derived from experience. And if you follow this to its logical conclusion then you must say no one who has not committed a murder has the right to legislate about murder, and those of us who have never thought of murder are disqualified then from legislating in this area. Only those who’ve experienced something, then, can legislate according to this perspective. Can anything be more deadly to law? In other words, the modern humanistic position says that the only ground for any law is experience. 

We began by citing someone writing in Christianity Today, which is the Billy Graham voice more or less, who came from Dallas Theological Seminary, a premillennial, dispensationalist school, saying that abortion is permissible, and why not? Their perspective, again, is experience, experiential religion; you have to have a revival experience or you’re not a Christian. In other words, the test is again experience, not the work, not the act, not the Law of God. And wherever you shift things from the Law-Word of God to experience, you become antinomian and you destroy everything.

So, whether you are an open atheist like these women and leftist, or whether you are someone from Dallas Theological Seminary or Christianity Today, when you shift the ground to experience, you are anti-God. We must say, therefore, that men who cannot bear children can legislate concerning childbirth because the principle of law is not our experience, but the Law-Word of God; in this and in every realm.

Let us pray.

* * *

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee for our Law-Word. And we pray, our Father, that in these days as men make an assault on thee and on the life of man in every domain, thou wouldst make us strong in thee and in thy Word that we may once again establish godly law and order. Confound, we beseech thee, these wicked ones, and frustrate their endeavors and use us mightily unto the end that we may reestablish this land on the foundation of thy Word. Bless us to this purpose. In Jesus' name. Amen.

* * *

Are there any questions now? With respect to our lesson first of all.

Yes?

[Audience member] What happens if it’s the woman who’s responsible, accidentally or otherwise for an abortion? Is she then guilty of murder too? ^viii

[Rushdoony] She is. She is guilty of murder. You see, this says that even where it is an accident there is guilt. If it is deliberate, whether it is on the part of the woman or someone else, the guilt is all the more inescapable.

Yes?

[Audience member] Question about, I surmise, the legitimacy of abortion when the life of the mother is at stake.

[Rushdoony] This is a question that has been extensively debated in Catholic theological circles. I hesitate to legislate in such an area because, first of all, I don’t have the confidence. And second, I think this is an area where Christian doctors should do some thinking and exploring in terms of the principle here. First of all, I think we greatly exaggerate such cases, I think they rarely, if ever, occur and I think too often these cases are brought up as a toe-hold to try to break down the fundamental principle in the law. 

Yes?

[Audience member] I have heard it said that these case laws about abortion don’t really remain in force in our era, in the ‘church age.’ Is that a legitimate opinion? ^ix

[Rushdoony] Well, if the Ten Commandments remain, these remain. Unless they can find some statement in the New Testament that clearly alters or reinterprets something, there is no grounds in Scripture for eliminating them. And the most obvious fact is that, if this were true, what these people say, then why did the church through the centuries move in terms of this? 

Now, you can go back to the lifetime of some of the Apostles like John, and you find them speaking along these lines, some of the earliest church fathers. Now, if it had been taught that all this was done away with, and there was no more law, there was something wrong with them that they didn’t know it. After all, they walked and talked with John and Paul and Peter and the others, and yet they never mentioned the fact that these laws were gone. 

[Audience member] So what is the argument of those who say that these and such like case laws are not for our day?  ^x

[Rushdoony] They hinge it on the statement that we are “dead unto the law” when we die in Christ, but they forget to say that we are also made alive in Christ, no longer to be law breakers, but to be alive unto the law as the righteousness of God. And it was St. Paul who spoke about being “dead to the law” when we die with Christ in Romans 7. And then, in Romans 8, when he speaks of us “being made alive” he says, “Why? That the righteousness of God may be fulfilled in us.” So, they are obviously perverting Scripture. It is the heresy that was called at the Reformation ‘antinomianism,’ but now no one even thinks of this as a heresy any longer.

Our time is rather limited. There are just a few things I’d like to pass on to you, first with respect to our study last week. A very interesting point was made afterwards by Dr. Sandy with respect to dacron. It is very useful in surgery in supplying new veins, that while it sets up a reaction of allergy when it is used outside the body against the skin, this is not true when used internally. This takes us back to the principle that I cited last week which deserves further exploration. 

That barley and wheat cannot be planted together, they are too close, but barley or wheat can be planted in an orchard; they are not similar, they are dissimilar, therefore they can be combined. So this is an area to be explored. 

Then, Miss Walker pointed out that her father had a feedlot in the Middle-West and found that the hybrid corns were rejected by the cows; they would not take them. The only way he could get them to take it was to mix it with the regular corn. 

Now, I’d like to call your attention to something of importance that came over the Dow Jones' news service just this week, I believe on Thursday. 

“The Treasury is exploring a possible request that Congress remodel instead of simply raise what department officials deem an outmoded ceiling on the national debt. While the precise plan isn’t yet, the basic idea is to exempt from the ceiling limitation all or part of the government debt that is held by government trust funds. If the authority seeks the maximum amount of relief possible on this basis, it could mean that the statisticians could stop counting as public debt securities amounting to some $80 billion as currently defined. The debt subject to the limit is about $363 billion…”

Now the significance of this is this; that the debt ceiling is $365 billion, unless Congress raises it, in which case we are bankrupt. It is now apparently only $800 million from that limit, and is bound to reach it within a matter of weeks. 

Now, this ‘remodeling’ the public debt means canceling, in effect, some $80 billion that the government owes to various government agencies, namely Social Security. The first step will be to say that all of this is not a debt, we owe it to ourselves. The next, to wipe it out entirely so that Social Security savings will have disappeared. In other words, they’re already spent, but they’re counted as a debt by the Treasury to social security. This is the first step towards canceling entirely that obligation. The next step after that would be to cancel that which has been borrowed from insurance companies and other financial agencies. 

Then this very interesting item which was handed to me from The Forecaster, a weekly service by a consulting economist. And his reckoning on inflation is very modest, but he says:

“From 1967 through the year 1968 Currency in Circulation, CIC, has increased over ten percent. Therefore, CIC is ten percent less scarce in ‘68 then in ‘67. CIC increased from $46 billion to $50.5 billion. Let us take a fictitious stock in XYZ corporation, which earned a $1.30 per share in 1967 and repeated its performance in 1968, again earning $1.30 per share. Ahh but, the childish would say, ‘Earnings were the same in both years and I did not take a beating.’ But if you measure 1968 earnings against 1967 money, the true and real ’68 earnings were 13¢ less, or $1.17 per share.

Why is this so? Simple, the unit of account has been changed. It was ten percent less scarce in 68. Earning reports are made up in units of account. A sophisticated investor takes this into consideration just as a technician would take a change in measuring units into consideration. For example, from troy ounces to avoirdupois.”

So, as he points out, there is no true reckoning of the situation without a knowledge of the CIC, currency in circulation. 

Now from that to a happier note. I was very amused to read this last week of an old New England epitaph; I ran across this some years ago and forgot about it. I across it in a history book just the other day. It’s an epitaph set up by a young widow. 

“Sacred to the memory of Mr. Jared Bates, who died August the 6^th, 1800. His widow, aged twenty-four, who mourns as one who can be comforted, lives at 7 Elms Street this village, and suffices every qualification for a good wife.”

This is from the Ozarks some time ago, from a very plain-spoken Missouri preacher who was called upon professionally when a young man was bitten by a rattlesnake. The parson offered up the following petition: 

“We thank Thee, Almighty God, for Thy watchful care over us and for Thy goodness and tender mercy, and especially we thank Thee for rattlesnakes. Thou hast sent one to bite John Weaver. We pray Thee to send one to bite Jim, one to bite Henry, one to bite Sam, one to bite Bill; and we pray Thee to send the biggest kind of a rattlesnake to bite the old man, for nothing but rattlesnakes will ever bring the Weaver family to repentance. There are others in Missouri just as bad as the Weavers. We pray Thee to stir up Missouri, and, if nothing else will bring the people to repentance, we pray Thee to shower down more rattlesnakes. Amen !” ^xi

And with that, we are adjourned. 

i. Cited by John Warwick Montgomery in a letter to Christianity Today, vol. XIII, no. 5 (December 6, 1968), p. 28, from Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1967).

ii. John Llewelyn Davies and David James Vaughan, translators, The Republic of Plato (New York: Macmillan, 1935), V, 461; p. 170f.

iii. See also Minucius Felix, Oct., XXX; Basil, epist. c/xxxviii, 2 and 8; Jerome, epist. XXII, 13; John Chrysostom, ip epist. ad. Rom. XXIV, 4; Augustine, de nupt. et concup. 1, 15; Concilium Ancyronum XXI.

iv. A. E. Crawley, “Foeticide,” in Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, VI, 54–57.

v. George Devereaux: A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies (New York: Julian Press, 1955), p. 307.

vi. George Devereaux: A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies (New York: Julian Press, 1955), p. 126.

vii. “First Abortion, Then Euthanasia,” in the Oakland, California, Tribune (Monday, October 11, 1965), p. 7.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xi. Walter B. Stevens. Centennial History of Missouri (The Center State) One Hundred Years in the Union 1820-1921. Vol. 1. St. Louis, Chicago: The S.J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1921, p. 175.