Search This Blog

Friday, January 27, 2012

Completely Disputable "Indisputable Abortion Facts," Part III

And in this last part, I will finish with the last four of these alleged "indisputable abortion facts."

IAF 9: Donating to the pro-life cause is a bad investment.

Russell's arguments are getting more desperate. As I have already shown, Russell is using inflated figures, as only 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It's very sad and unfortunate, but it does happen (and more often than it should). However, the pro-life cause is dedicated to helping pregnant women who feel they can't carry their child keep their child, and help give the child the best chance for life. Pro-lifers help women who are already pregnant. Did you catch that? It doesn't matter what percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage because pro-lifers are helping women who are already pregnant. We know that miscarriages, in most cases, can't be stopped. It's an unfortunate natural process (and sometimes unnatural). But we can help women who are desperate and don't think they have any other options.

IAF 10: The US Constitution governs morality.

The 14th Amendment declares when we become citizens. However, as you are no doubt aware, it is not legal to kill illegal immigrants. Being a citizen of the United States does not mean it is legal to kill someone who is not a citizen.

IAF 11: The Pro-Life Movement has failed to stop abortion.

I don't think we can adequately state how old the Pro-Life Movement is. Early Christians were pro-life, sure, but I'm not sure how old the "movement" has been, especially since our country has only been around for over 225 years.

However, we make murder illegal, even though in the thousands of years murder has been considered wrong it has never stopped. Neither should abortion be legal, even though making it illegal would not stop it altogether. It would reduce the instances of abortion, as I believe that most women are law-abiding citizens.

Yes, it is Biblical that we have dominion of the animals (it's in Genesis 1). Anyone who would murder another person is not pro-life, and so Russell's argument about additional deaths by the pro-life movement is irrelevant. People do wrong things, but that doesn't make their arguments bad. It only makes the person bad. Additionally, Russell's figures are arbitrary. He gives no resources to back it up. He is just like most pro-choicers, making up stats and figures to support their cause that have no basis in reality.

IAF 12: There is no "moment of conception."

And now, we realize Russell's extreme ignorance of the pro-life view. Our view is not based upon any "moment of conception" or upon belief in a "soul." There are pro-life atheists (e.g. Atheists for Life) who don't believe in a soul. Christians believe in a soul. We believe that every living human has a soul and since we are alive from fertilization, the soul enters the body then.

But all of that is irrelevant to the pro-life position. We believe that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being, and no pro-choicer, not even Russell, has produced any evidence to subvert the scientific fact that we are living humans from fertilization.

Russell must also not be up on history (especially church history). There has not been any official "decree" from early Christians of just when the soul enters the body. This is because there was no consensus on when life began back in the early centuries A.D. However, the early church fathers held out judgement for when the soul enters the body until such time as we could know for sure. Now that it has been scientifically proven, the question of when the soul enters the body, from a Christian perspective, has been laid to rest. The "moment of conception" was not originally sold as anything. It is simply a misnomer than many well-meaning pro-lifers still use.

Russell has twice mentioned IAF 13, but there is no such IAF. I wonder if he meant IAF 3?

At any rate, this entire article that Russell composed is rife with scientific inaccuracy and just plain bad arguments. There are many pro-choice philosophers who make much better arguments than Russell does. One would wonder why Russell doesn't just abandon this article and use the better arguments his side has to offer?

Completely Disputable "Indisputable Abortion Facts," Part II

Continuing from part one.

IAF 5: The birth rate dropped leading up to Roe v. Wade, then increased after.

On the surface, you would think this supposed "fact" is counterintuitive -- by not killing unborn babies before Roe v. Wade, then killing them afterward, somehow the birth rate has risen (granted there were illegal abortions going on before Roe, but not as many as Planned Parenthood would have you believe -- certainly not nearly as many as after abortion was legalized).

If you would think this supposed "fact" is counterintuitive, you would be correct. In fact, Russell uses blatantly wrong figures to try and support this "fact." I looked at his spreadsheet, and I doubt he actually charted his graph based on the spreadsheet. Unless I'm misreading his spreadsheet (which I don't think I am), then the birthrate has stayed pretty stagnant since 1950. In fact, according to the first column (which is the column for "births"), the highest number of births occurred in a pre-Roe year, 1957, with 4,300,000.

But as I stated, his figures are just blatantly wrong. In fact, according to this website: ( ), which takes its figures from the United Nation's World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database, the world birth rate has been steadily dropping and has never picked up, even when countries like the United States have legalized abortion.

But how about the United States alone? This appears to be the website that Russell may have gotten his information from: . But take a look at the numbers. In fact, for several years after Roe v. Wade, the number of live births was still lower than the years leading up to Roe v. Wade. In 1972, the number of live births was 3,258,411. It took five years for the number of live births in post Roe United States to climb over the number of live births from 1972. Additionally, the birth rate has been steadily dropping and hasn't picked back up.

So as you can see, not only was Russell using inconclusive figures for his "spreadsheet" and creating a graph which really doesn't reflect the information in the spreadsheet, his reasoning is flawed. For example, technology always improves way of life. The reason for more live births has many different explanations, including advances in technology. For example, premature children can be born earlier now than they could in the former half of the 1900's because technology has advanced. Not only that, but as education grows so does our ability to keep and care for our children. For example, the rate of abortions has declined, which surely accounts for more live births. Also, you need to look at how many women are getting pregnant. Less women may be getting pregnant due to advances in birth control or in willing to abstain from sexual intercourse. There are many different factors that go into a birth rate.

We see that Russell has created a false dichotomy, that the only factors resulting in a birth is if a woman has an abortion, or if a woman doesn't have an abortion. There are many more factors that go into the number of live births than just if a woman chooses to abort or not.

But now Russell delves into the paranoid. He claims that our system would have collapsed under "pro-life rule" had "pro-choicers not stepped in and save the day." This is a ridiculous assumption. First of all, it's just that, an assumption. Secondly, being pro-life does not lead to the death of children and it does not affect the birth rate at all. I have already shown that the birth rate has been steadily declining, pro-abortion laws or no pro-abortion laws. But again, in the long run it doesn't matter -- what does matter is that abortions kill living human beings, and that is why they need to be stopped.

Even more ridiculous, now Russell thinks that he has come up with some "magical information" that should cause all pro-lifers everywhere to repent and claims that pro-choicers should stay away from us. There is much more blood on the hands of the pro-choice side than the pro-life side. We are trying to save lives. I have made rational arguments for my position on pro-life and Russell, so far, has not made a single rational argument for his.

It's just simple common sense that if you kill more children, there will be less live births. No amount of skewing the evidence will put Russell in the right.

IAF 6: Pro-Life leaders excommunicate followers despite no evidence to support their claims.

I gave scientific evidence to support our claims in the first part, so this statement is clearly false.

But what does it matter? If pro-life leaders excommunicate people who don't agree with them, does this affect their argument? No. This may show that they're not very nice people or that they're not willing to have discussions on the matter. But it doesn't affect their argument one way or the other. This so-called "law" is a smoke-screen to detract from the real issue.

People like Russell have obviously not taken a very good look at the pro-life side, which is full of young people and women. The only reason "pro-life leaders" tend to be male is because in most religions, women are not allowed to hold high positions in the church (which, as far as Christianity is concerned, is due to a misunderstanding of Scripture, and at any rate, it's only certain denominations as there are many female Christian pastors). And to assert that only males are pro-life is as misogynistic as people claim pro-lifers are.

Now, "murder" is a legal term. It refers to an unlawful killing and abortion, unfortunately, is legal. So abortion is not murder in the legal sense of the word. However, it is unjustified homicide. This is backed up by philosophy and science, the pro-choice position is not.

Russell seems to believe that there are jihads everywhere. I personally don't know a Christian pastor who doesn't allow differing of opinions, so long as it doesn't detract from normal operations of the church. I don't know a single pastor who would excommunicate someone for being pro-choice. Russell has given sites regarding decisions made by the Catholic church, but I'm Protestant. If the Catholic church does it, it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that every religion follows all of their teachings. That's why we have different religions in the first place. Russell seems to think he can speak for everyone.

So again, this "law" just doesn't matter in the long run. It's a smoke-screen to detract from the real issue, the humanity and value of the preborn.

IAF 7: Abortion is not mentioned in the Bible.

You know what else is not mentioned in the discussions of murder? Pushing someone into a shark tank. Or cutting the brakes in someone's car. There does not have to be an exhaustive list in the Bible. Christians are expected to know what is right and wrong. The Bible explains that we are valuable because we are made in God's image, and that we are not to shed innocent blood (which abortion does). The Bible doesn't mention abortion because Christians were no killing their unborn children. In fact, they would rescue Roman babies that were legally left out to die.

I have already explained why the passage in question does not support abortion in an earlier post. But I'll abridge it here: The Bible indicates harm to the fetus. If two people are fighting and hits a pregnant woman, causing her to give birth prematurely, if there is no permanent harm done, then the offender is to pay back what the husband desires. However, if the child is seriously injured or dies, then they are to repay life for life, tooth for tooth, etc.

IAF 8: Christians have believed they've heard directly from God regarding abortion being murder.

Again, this "fact" doesn't matter, Russell is just using it to complain. So what if some Christians believe they heard directly from God on the matter? That doesn't affect the arguments of the pro-life side, that abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a living, valuable human being.

In my next entry, I'll finish with his last four "fact."

Completely Disputable "Indisputable Abortion Facts," Part I

I am writing this trio of articles in response to a website I have stumbled upon, written by Russell C. Crawford (I’m using his real name because his real name appears on the website). I’d encourage you to visit it and read it for yourself first before reading my response to it. In fact, I'm not going to quote it word for word, so I would recommend reading one "law," then reading my response to it. I will, however, summarize these alleged "laws." You can find it here:

I really don’t think very many people will find it convincing. I probably don’t have to write too much to dispute each one of these alleged “indisputable facts” (as you will see, these “facts” are, in fact, quite disputable and even, dare I say, wrong). He does use facts and figures to back up his claims, but as you’ll see he uses them in a very misleading way, as I’ll explain in greater detail where relevant.

In fact, it is quite evident Mr. Crawford knows nothing of the pro-life position, which he constantly bashes, or the Bible, which he bashes, as well. Deep breath. Here we go.

IAF 1: Human life is not created at the moment of conception.

I know some people who would beg to differ. Embryologists, who are the experts on the field, consistently agree that when a human spermatozoan meets a human ovum, a new, unique, living human has been created. To quote from one of the most-used textbooks on embryology, "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte." (Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001, p.8).

Additionally, the law of biogenesis states that every creature reproduces after its own kind. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have humans. When a new, unique human is created at fertilization, they have their own unique DNA. At no point in human develop is anyone, preborn or postborn, anything other than human, and Russell has not offered any evidence to the contrary.

The only "evidence" Russell offers is that you can freeze human embryos and they live, yet you can't free living humans. First, this is somewhat questionable since scientists have been researching ways to freeze humans that are near death in order to try and revive them in the future when a cure for their disease has been found. However, even if you can't freeze humans then that's just one more advantage human embryos have over born humans, that they can survive while frozen (they can also survive without a heart, which doesn't develop until 22 days into gestation). Additionally, the website Russell used to "prove" his case states that only embryos when they are in the "eight cell stage" can be frozen, which would mean that embryos are only "non-human" until they have developed more than eight cells. The earliest surgical abortions are performed well after this point, so his argument regarding the freezing of embryos is moot.

But I think we can trust the experts, the embryologists, over Russell or even myself. They consistently agree that a new, unique living human is created at fertilization.

Russell is also confusing parts with wholes. The scientific fact is that humans are different than "human tissue." Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are living human beings. Hair, skin, blood, etc, that they develop is the parts that make up their body. Cut your hair and you continue to live while the cells may die, but kill the zygote, embryo, or fetus herself and you have killed a living human.

Russell mentions that humans have a "spark of life," but he is not clear on what this "spark" actually is. Is it sentience? Russell may be surprised to learn that newborns are not sentient, either. In fact, pro-choice philosopher Peter Singer believes that it is ethical to kill children up until they are two years old because they are not sentient. The fact of the matter is that humans develop, and zygote, embryo, and fetus are just stages in human development, like toddler, adolescent, teenager, adult, and elderly.

Russell seems to believe that the "spark of life" is the attributes that make up a fully-formed human being, but again, what is fully-formed? Does Russell realize that our brains don't even stop developing until we're adults? Does he realize that toddlers are not "fully-formed" humans? Or if he believes they are, then he should at least believe that fetuses are human beings since they look like fully-formed human beings (we even have ultrasounds to prove this). Russell has no argument here. He is using his own criteria to continue being pro-choice when in fact, the scientific and philosophical evidence supports the pro-life position.

I'm a little confused as to Russell's last point in this "fact." The difference between zygotes and human tissue is that the zygote directs its development from inside itself. It is not merely stagnant, it is a unique human entity that is growing and developing while in its mother's uterus. It's a natural process of life. After all, I have two arms. Tissue cannot actually function on its own. My brain must be in complete working order in order for all of my body parts to function, and my heart must be pumping because I can no longer survive without one. All of my body parts work in tandem to keep me going, as it does with a zygote. And while a zygote develops into an embryo, which develops into a fetus, which develops into a toddler, I, as an adult, am still growing older and while my "growth" stages may be over, I am still developing as a human being.

Russell has made it quite evident that he does not have even a rudimentary understanding of science in general, or biology, specifically. His first "fact" is not indisputable at all. In point of fact, it is simply wrong. It is quite disputable and it is not a law. Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

IAF 2: A forced birth precludes a willing birth.

It is simple common sense that if a woman becomes pregnant with a child, she cannot (except in some extremely rare cases) become pregnant with a second child. Russell's argument is that if she is forced to keep a child she does not want, it prevents her from conceive a child she wants.

Notice how the only case Russell makes in support of this law is for rape, probably because that would be the only case his law may apply to. Rape only accounts for 1% of abortions, according to Guttmacher Institute, so those are extremely rare. But I'll get there in a moment.

Let's take a woman who's in a committed relationship with a guy. They have consensual sex and she winds up pregnant. Now, most abortions are done for some type of convenience, either she doesn't feel she can emotionally support a child, doesn't feel she can financially support a child, it will get in the way of college or some other life goal, etc. So let's say that she decides to have an abortion because she doesn't feel she can raise the child for whatever reason. In the nine months that she will be pregnant with that child, her situation is not likely to change drastically so that she could, then, support a child. So Russell would have a woman abort a child who comes along unplanned, on the off-chance that she may in the next nine months suddenly decide that her life has changed enough that she can now raise a child.

But now let's look at rape. Rape is an extremely traumatic event. In fact, from what I understand, pregnancies resulting from rape are rare because of the extreme emotional trauma she undergoes as a result of the ordeal. However, even if she does become pregnant, she's not likely to get over the rape for a long time, and even if she does, it's not likely she's going to be at the point where she wants to have a child at the time. The pro-choice side makes arguments about the case of rape, but this "indisputable law" that Russell has put forth just doesn't hold water, for any reason. There are much better arguments a pro-choicer can use in this case.

It takes many couples a long time to conceive a child, even longer than a year. If a woman finds herself pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy, even if she decides to try and get pregnant in a few months, there's no guarantee she'll conceive by the end of the original nine months, so Russell would have you kill an unborn child on the off-chance that her situation will drastically change in those nine months, and that she'll definitely be able to conceive once she decides to have a child.

Finally, Russell claims that if a woman carries the unplanned child conceived, she is "risking her life" by carrying the child, and he says that 13 in 100,000 woman die from pregnancy-related deaths. First of all, this is not "risking one's life" if there is only a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying. This comes out to less than 1% of pregnant women die from pregnancy-related causes. Carrying a pregnancy to term is very safe. In fact, it is safer to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to drive a car.

IAF 3: There are more people dying than can be saved.

This is true, on the surface. First of all, people die of natural causes. There's no way to save them, although we can elongate someone's life through medicine and technology. But in the end, we all die. People also die from natural causes. While you can take precautions to prevent as many deaths as possible, there's no way to save everyone from natural disasters.

Honestly, this supposed "fact" doesn't even matter in the long run. What does matter is the living humans are dying from abortion and this is the reason it needs to stop. However, this "law" doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. Saving unborn children from abortion does not "allow another human life to die." I've already proven that human lives are lost in abortion, that is a true indisputable fact. But there are already a large number of people who can't be saved due to natural causes and natural disasters, to say nothing of the fact that many pro-life organizations also donate money to try and feed starving kids and find cures for illnesses.

The money spent towards pro-life organizations is spent largely in educating people (of which apparently Russell missed the boat). Education leads to saving lives. There are pro-life organizations that use the money in helping pregnant women keep their children, which they don't want to lose by abortion but they feel they have no other way out. The pro-life cause is the true pro-woman cause, because we believe in helping the mother as well as the child, whereas a pro-abortion organization like Planned Parenthood will open its doors to a woman seeking abortion, claiming she is making a "choice" when in fact she really feels she has no other choice than to go through with an abortion.

The fact of the matter is that donating to a pro-life cause helps save lives, the unborn child's and the woman's (as abortion has killed women, as well).

IAF 4: It is impossible for a woman to consent to sex without consenting to abortion.

This is untrue. While it is true that sometimes a woman's body will spontaneously abort a child (through miscarriage), it is an unfortunate event that happens when something goes wrong.

Notice how Russell indicates that "pro-choice women cannot be trapped in the Pro-Life Conundrum," so apparently he believes that scientific laws work differently for different people. However, this is no conundrum at all. Miscarriages actually account for about 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies:

So it appears that just like all pro-choicers, Russell is using inflated figures to prove his cause (oh, sorry, to "make the facts indisputable"). Chemical pregnancies account for over 50% of all miscarriages, and this is when the conceived zygote is flushed out of the woman's body. But even if miscarriages were more common, or even with miscarriages as they are, this does not excuse people from aborting human preborn children. People die of natural causes, but this does not excuse murder.

Now Russell, though he has no idea what the pro-life position actually is, claims that he knows the pro-life reaction to his law: that we are "stunned." In actuality, the only thing a pro-lifer would be stunned by is how bad his arguments are and how he, or anyone else, could actually put faith in them to try and refute the pro-life position.

I will end here. In my next part, I will tackle his "indisputable law" numbers 5-8.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Response to a Pro-Choice Critique

I recently had some discussions with Pro-Choicers in a Facebook group. It didn't go so well. Pro-Choicers are usually not interested in discussing abortion, probably because they know that when it comes down to it, their position is the weaker one. Now, I'm an adult. I don't need to resort to childish name-calling when I write on abortion or when I write about pro-choicers. But it seems that the most potent weapon in a pro-choicers' arsenal is misinformation. And this doesn't become any more evident than when they try and claim that the Bible supports the pro-choice position. Here is my response to the note that they wrote, outlining four points which they believe support their position.

Pro-Choicer: "Point 1: The Bible doesn't view an embryo or foetus as a person.

"Exodus 21:22-25, 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take 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.”

"Basically it says if someone accidentally causes a woman to miscarry, then her husband shall determine how much the person will have to pay him to compensate him for the loss of what is essentially thought of as property. BUT if the man accidentally hurts or kills the woman, then he shall endure the same punishment: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life.

In other words, if the woman loses her eye, the attacker loses his. If the woman dies, the attacker also dies. If the woman MISCARRIES, well, the husband can demand repayment if he so chooses. IF they thought of the fetus as a life, they would have said, “If he kills the baby, he dies, too”. You hear that, Bible-thumpers? Your Bible says it's NOT a person. Not. A. Person."

Me: This person obviously copy and pasted this passage. I doubt they actually read it. First of all, nowhere in this passage does the Bible say an embryo or fetus is not a person. They are reading something into it that simply isn’t there in a feeble attempt to prove their point.

Secondly, this passage is not talking about miscarriage, necessarily, but the expulsion of the child from the womb prematurely (in other words, before they are ready to come out -- even if they come out and are able to survive outside the womb). In fact, what it is talking about is premature delivery. If someone abuses a woman, causing her to give birth prematurely, and there is no serious harm to the child or woman, then the husband can ask for whatever compensation he desires. However, if someone abuses her and she or the child is seriously injured or dies (e.g. she miscarries), then you are to repay life for life (or make right what is damaged).

The unborn child here is not thought of as property. If no serious harm is done in the premature birth (to her or the child), then the husband can seek compensation for any harm done. However, if she or the child dies or serious injury occurs, then it must be repaid, up to and including life for life.

PC: "Point 2: The Bible says life begins at first breath, not first f***.

"Genesis 2:7, 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

Life begins when a human draws his or her first breath, according to the Bible."

Me: Actually, respiration does happen in the womb (just not through the nostrils). So if breathing is necessary to be considered “alive,” then a child in the womb certainly qualifies. However, this verse is not saying that life begins at first breath. Adam is a special case. He didn’t undergo natural gestation like other humans, God just breathed into his nostrils breath so that he could live because, surprise, breathing oxygen is necessary for someone to survive on Earth. How else was God going to get Adam to live if He didn’t give him breath? There are plenty of other verses to show that God does consider us alive in the womb (e.g., Luke 1:41, where John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, greets Elizabeth, John’s mother).

PC: "Point 3: The god of the Bible kills lots of children for stupid reasons.

"2 Kings 2:23-24, 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.”

"This story is about a bald man named Elisha and some children who made fun of his shiny-top. Apparently God had a bug up his ass that day, so he decided to punish these children by killing them. But he couldn't just strike them dead quickly. God likes a bloodbath, so he sent out two bears to rip the children limb from limb. Isn't that how anti-choicers describe abortion? They should be all for that method! Their god certainly is!"

Me: This verse has nothing to do with abortion. If anything, it goes to show that God sees no fundamental difference between humans at any stage of development. (Also notice it doesn't say how old these boys are -- they could have even been teenagers.)

Like atheists and pro-choicers love to do, they miss the point of the story entirely and twist it around to try and prove their own position. The fact of the matter is, these children were old enough to know what they were doing.  Prophets were sent from God to personally deliver His message. Insulting His prophets was basically like insulting Him. These children knew this was a serious thing they were doing. However, unlike children in the womb they had a choice as to their actions.

PC: "Point 4: God tells Moses to abort an embryo/foetus created through adultery.

"Numbers 5:11-21, 11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

"16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.”

"If God was really against abortion, why would he command Moses and a priest to induce it on an unwilling woman?"

Me: Again, they’ve missed the point of this entry altogether. First of all, God is the giver of life so He is the only one who should take it away. God has killed people outside the womb, but that doesn’t mean that we can murder each other. If God causes an adulterous woman to miscarry, that’s God’s prerogative. It doesn’t give us the freedom to seek abortions ourselves. However, children was a big deal back then. A woman who had not conceived any children was basically an outcast (i.e. a curse among her people), so for a curse to come upon her so she miscarried and couldn’t conceive was a big deal. As I showed earlier, God sees no fundamental difference between humans at any stage of development. When David raped a married woman (Bathsheba) and had her husband killed, He waited until David’s child was seven days old post-utero before having the child killed as punishment for David’s actions (2 Samuel 12:18).