BACK
Luke chapter 1 verses 41 to 44

"And it came to pass, as Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with [the] Holy Spirit, and...said... for behold, as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the babe leaped with joy in my womb".

Some see in this passage support for the idea that an unborn babe can experience joy. Others take the view that the case of John the Baptist is special (i.e. miraculous) because it was said: "He shall be filled with [the] Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). However, neither view is likely to be right for the following reasons:-

(1) It was not the babe, but Elizabeth, hearing Mary's salutation that led the babe to leap in her womb.

(2) It was Elizabeth that was filled with the Holy Spirit, not the babe.

(3) The fact that the leap of the babe was one of joy is not ground for thinking that the babe knew Mary and was thrilled on that account. It is rather that the joy of Elizabeth was reflected in the babe leaping in her womb. It was a leap caused by joy not shock. This all tends to emphasise that the unborn child is in fact part of its Mother.

(4) The babe was to be filled with the Holy Spirit from his Mother's womb, not whilst still in her womb.The womb was the point of departure. As soon as he left the womb he was to be filled with the Spirit. (The Greek preposition translated from indicates the time from when it would take place.)

Regarding the last point mentioned above, the passage which reads: "The wicked go astray from the womb; they err as soon as they are born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3) confirms it. The parallel statement to "from the womb" is "as soon as they are born". The passage does not mean that they go astray in the womb or before they are born. In the case of Christ it is said: " I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou art my God from my mother's belly" (Psalm 22:10). Christ trusted when he was on his Mother's breasts (Psalm 22:9), not in the womb.

Abortion

Paul speaks of himself as a kind of abortion, but there he means one born out of due time; in his case late rather than early, as he says that Christ appeared to him last of all (1 Corinthians 15:8). He does not mean one stillborn. Job 3:16 is more what we mean by an abortion where Job says: "Or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants that have not seen the light". However, Job was probably thinking more of a miscarriage or still born child rather than an induced abortion. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 is similar where it speaks of an untimely or stillborn birth. In practice it may in some cases be difficult to determine whether a child has really lived and we may have to say in such cases that God is the only one that knows whether the child has ever been a living soul.

However, what is normally meant today by an abortion is that a healthy foetus is destroyed because the parents do not, or one parent does not, want to have the child. This may be simply selfishness on their part. However, there are certain things that need to be considered:-

(1) A foetus is a potential human being and God given. In destroying it we would not be helping nature but violating it.

(2) There may well be unsuspected psychological damage done to the Mother by destroying her unborn child. It is not natural for a parent to want to destroy its own offspring whether born or unborn.

(3) Scripture (the law of Moses) forbad self mutilation (Leviticus 19:27 & 28; 21:5 ). Destroying a foetus is a formof mutilation. Circumcision which was enjoined, as well as being a sign of the covenant, probably also had a beneficial effect in preventing certain diseases. Helping nature is acceptable, but not damaging it.

(Taking medicine for maladies is good (e.g. Ezekiel 47:12), but taking strong drugs not required for that purpose can only do harm, as is well known.)

(4) Scripture (our Lord) does indicate that if the choice is between hell or limited damage to ones body the limited damage is is to be preferred (Matthew 5:29 & 30). Losing a hand or an eye is better than losing ones life. Similarly losing a foetus is better than losing the life of the Mother. Destroying the foetus in such circumstances is not wrong; no murder has been committed for the unborn child is not a human being. If however, the child has been born alive it is a human being with the same right to life as its Mother. Generally man made laws recognise the difference.

(5) The reason why anyone should want to abort a foetus may have many answers, but probably the main one is that the pregnancy is the result of fornication or adultery so that a child is not wanted. Instead of accepting the consequences of the sin, abortion would appear to such as a way out of a predicament. Had Joseph and Mary taken that route to avoid the situation in which they found themselves, that is, a child conceived out of wedlock, what would we have thought of them !