Pro-life Answers to Pro-choice Myths: Part II

Recently, the House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” which would permanently extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, introduce new deductions for tips and overtime pay, and impose Medicaid work requirements beginning in 2026. Notably, the bill also includes a provision that would prohibit federal funding for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood. Although this measure initially received little media attention due to the bill’s sweeping scope, its inclusion in the final legislation would represent one of the most significant pro-life policy victories in recent memory.

As noted in the first installment of this two-part series, a group of progressive Christians continues to advance biblical and theological arguments aimed at undermining the Bible’s pro-life ethic. Many of these arguments center on the interpretation of specific passages. In particular, two texts—Exodus 21 and Numbers 5—are frequently cited as evidence that the Bible either does not condemn abortion or does not view the unborn as fully human. How should pro-life Christians respond to these claims? What do these passages actually teach? Let’s examine them in turn.

Claim #3: Exodus 21 Demonstrates That the Unborn Are Not Fully Human

Both sides of the abortion debate recognize Exodus 21 as a relevant text. In context, the passage is found in a portion of the Torah that scholars refer to as the book of the covenant, which includes legal judgments, moral precepts, and other instructions for the Israelites. Exodus 21:22–25 describes a scene in which an out-of-control fight breaks out between men. Tragically, during the fight, a pregnant bystander is injured: “When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound” (Exod. 21:22–25).

Although progressive theologians argue that Exodus 21 “demonstrates that causing the death of a fetus did not constitute a major crime at that time,” a closer look at the passage reveals that the law provided justice for whoever was injured, whether the mother or her unborn children.

Although Old Testament scholars debate how best to translate the Hebrew grammar and syntax in these verses, a plain reading of the text demonstrates that the law’s provision covers both mothers and their unborn children. According to the law, if a woman was hit and premature birth resulted but no harm occurred to the woman or her child, the man at fault would incur a fine (as determined by the woman’s husband and the community elders). But if there was harm to either the woman or child, the penalty was the application of the law of retaliation (lex talionis), whereby the punishment resembled the offense committed in kind and degree.

Notably, the application of lex talionis is unique in this situation. Under similar circumstances—where someone unintentionally caused the death of another person—the penalty was not “life for life.” Rather, the person at fault could flee to a city of refuge, where he had to wait until the high priest’s death. But in a situation where the mother or child was harmed, the irresponsible brawler received an exacting punishment. Thus, contrary to progressive interpretations, the text indicates that Israel’s law pursued justice for unborn children whose lives were unintentionally taken. As Philip Ryken observes, “Another implication of this case is that a fetus is a person who deserves special protection. The law of God imposed strict penalties on anyone who harmed an unborn child. It treated the injury of an unborn child the same way it treated the injury of any other human being. By this standard, performing an abortion is an act of murder, for which the proper penalty is ‘life for life’ (v. 23).

Finally, it should be obvious that Exodus 21 does not justify elective abortion. Even if the interpretation is granted that the penalty for injuring an unborn child is less severe than for injuring the mother, it does not follow that someone can deliberately terminate a pregnancy. As stipulated in the passage, any injury suffered by the unborn child resulted in arbitration and a penalty imposed on the negligent man.

Claim #4: Numbers 5 Describes a God-Sanctioned Abortion

In conversations about the Bible and abortion, Numbers 5:11–31 is sometimes cited as proof that God condones abortion.16 However, a careful look at the admittedly enigmatic passage demonstrates that it does not justify abortion.

According to Numbers 5, if a husband suspected his wife of infidelity, he could take her to the priest for what most commentators call a “trial by ordeal.” The ritual, led by the priest, included multiple steps, the most important of which was putting the woman under a vow and having her drink water mixed with dust from the floor of the tabernacle. If the woman was innocent, “she will be unaffected and will be able to conceive children” (Num. 5:28). But if she was guilty, “the water that brings a curse will enter her to cause bitter suffering; her belly will swell, and her womb will shrivel” (5:27).

As noted, some commentators have suggested that the punishment described in verses 21 and 22 is evidence that God endorses abortion. Others have argued that miscarriage was the punishment for the guilty woman. However, there are compelling reasons for why neither abortion nor miscarriage are in view. First, the focus of the passage is infidelity. In many cases, a woman would not have become pregnant from an illicit affair; if miscarriage or spontaneous abortion were the punishment, it is unclear how the ordeal punished nonpregnant, adulterous women.

Second, the translation “miscarriage” by some English versions (e.g., NIV, NEB) in verses 21, 22, and 27 is suspect. In fact, most English translations (including the CSB, ESV, NASB, and NKJV) indicate that bodily disfigurement, not miscarriage, was the punishment for

guilt. On this point, a closer analysis of the text is illuminating. Whereas the NIV says the guilty woman’s “womb” would “miscarry,” the CSB translates the relevant Hebrew phrase to say that the woman’s “womb” would “shrivel.” For its part, the ESV translates the phrase to read that the woman’s “thigh” would “fall away.” Thus, although scholars debate the best way to translate and interpret the text, the fact that the innocent woman’s ability to conceive children was contrasted with the bodily disfigurement of the guilty woman suggests that sterility, not abortion or miscarriage, was the guilty woman’s punishment.

Finally, even if abortion or miscarriage were included in the punishment of the adulterous woman, Numbers 5 does not justify abortion performed by human agents. Notably, it was the Lord—not the priest or the husband— who brought about the punishment or acquittal. Nothing in the passage delegates God’s prerogative over life and death to the couple, and nowhere are conditions provided that allow for a morally permissible abortion.

Conclusion

In closing, the Bible is explicit in its affirmation of the personhood of the unborn. The Bible’s pro-life ethic does not derive from proof-texting or a misreading of an isolated text. From verses that portray God’s creative power in the womb (Ps. 139:13–16) to passages where prophets and apostles were called and set apart for ministry while still in utero (e.g., Jeremiah, the Servant of the Lord, and Paul), the Bible sees all human life as precious and possessing inherent worth and dignity.

This excerpt is from Life After Roe: Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today. Copyright (c) 2025 by David Closson. Used with permission of the author and publisher, B&H Academic.