xcsl,
really.
When one looks towards, e.g, to biblical backing for an austere anti-choice platform the support is remarkably absent. Abortifactants were in wide use, broadly understood, pretty much the stuff Jesus was likely bumping into on a regular basis in his ministry. And yet, the Bible is largely silent.
There is the well cited in both the pro and anti-choice communities (Exodus 21:22-24) which t some seem to indicate that a fetus is not being given the same value as a whole live person, but worthy of a fine, as in this instance the miscarriage was involuntary and a consequence of violence. Keeping in mind of course that during this time voluntary abortifactants were common place, and no biblical direction is given ... it seems the best case scenario for the anti-chocie crowd is that for some reason, Jesus, the church and everybody else chose to go silent on the matter. Anti-choice folks argue that the Exodus passage refers to a live premature delivery, and as long as one doesn't then further assault the just delivered/miscarried fetus/child. It seems a stretch, ICU/premie facilities at the time were, I would imagine, in their infancy. So for a couple few thousand years all scholars have interpreted this as the notion that miscarriage as a consequence of violence is a misdemeanor wit the clear assumption that such things did not result in viable offspring.
It is the case that the bible calls for forced abortions in the case of infidelity (Numbers 5) (again reinforcing the notion over and over that the rights of the adults, in this case the husband, far outweigh the rights of the fetus/child/unborn).
The only real solid biblical anti-choice position is the simple phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill" which, of course, is being broadly re-translated into "Thou shalt not Murder" as very shortly after the whole thous shalt not kill bits are the bits not only permitting killing, but requiring it.
| 