To say that there's some hypocrisy surrounding abortion rights is perhaps an understatement. While women have the right to make the decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term, men essentially have no comparable choice in the matter. And before anyone misunderstands my position, I am pro-abortion, as opposed to being just pro-choice. However, I do think there's a legitimate argument to be made that men should have some say in whether they become fathers, particularly when DNA testing can establish paternity.
If a woman chooses to give birth despite the man's objections and his expressed desire not to become a father, then at the very least, he should have the right to immediately relinquish his parental rights and any financial obligations toward both the woman and the child. This shouldn't require an expensive legal process or lawyers getting involved. After all, if the decision ultimately rests with the woman, why should the man automatically be obligated to assume the financial responsibilities of a decision he had no say in making? There is an obvious imbalance here that deserves a more serious discussion.
Of course, men and women don't experience pregnancy in the same way. The physical demands, risks, and responsibilities of carrying a pregnancy fall on women, and that's an important distinction that shouldn't be overlooked.
⚖️
As for whether abortion constitutes murder from a Biblical perspective, the answer isn't quite as straightforward as some would have us believe. The Bible doesn't explicitly use the word abortion, nor does it contain a verse that directly declares abortion to be murder. There are, however, passages that people on both sides of the argument frequently reference to support their respective positions.
For example, those who believe abortion is equivalent to taking an innocent human life often point to Exodus 20:13, which states, "You shall not murder." They also cite Jeremiah 1:5, where God says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," and Psalm 139:13–15, which describes God forming an individual in the mother's womb. Luke 1:41–44, describing John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb upon hearing Mary's greeting, is another passage frequently used to suggest that unborn life has a recognized human identity and significance. Proverbs 6:16–17, which condemns the shedding of innocent blood, is also brought into the discussion.
On the other hand, there are passages that complicate the argument that the Bible necessarily considers the unborn equivalent to a fully born person under every circumstance. One of the most frequently discussed is Exodus 21:22–25, which describes a situation in which a pregnant woman is struck during a fight between men. Depending on the translation and interpretation, the passage addresses a premature birth or pregnancy loss and distinguishes between a monetary penalty and more serious injury, for which the familiar principle of "life for life, eye for eye" applies. Some interpret this distinction as evidence that the loss of an unborn child was not treated in precisely the same way as the death of an already-born person.
Then there is Numbers 5:11–31, commonly referred to as the ordeal of bitter water. This passage describes a ritual involving a woman suspected of adultery, with consequences if she is found guilty. Some interpretations suggest that the ritual could result in the loss of a pregnancy, although others argue that the passage is describing a supernatural judgment rather than an intentional abortion or medical procedure. The interpretation remains disputed.
Even Genesis 2:7, which describes God breathing the breath of life into Adam, is sometimes brought into the discussion by those who believe that the beginning of human life, in the spiritual or theological sense, is associated with breath rather than conception.
My point isn't necessarily to suggest that one interpretation is correct and the other is wrong. Rather, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are different ways of interpreting these passages, and that the Bible doesn't provide the kind of direct, unambiguous statement on abortion that some religious arguments would have us believe. There is a difference between what Scripture explicitly says and what people interpret it to mean.
Ultimately, personal beliefs about when human life begins are not necessarily the same thing as what can be established directly from Scripture.
📖
Not only abortion, but even birth control was once considered a controversial subject. One historical figure who comes to mind is none other than Margaret Sanger. She advocated for birth control at a time when providing information about contraception could lead to arrest. Her work helped make birth control more widely available to women, but her legacy is also complicated by her association with the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century.
Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics Movement
Sanger embraced aspects of what was then known as negative eugenics, a philosophy that sought to discourage or prevent reproduction among people considered genetically or socially unfit. This included individuals described at the time as "feeble-minded" or mentally defective, as well as people with certain inherited disabilities and medical conditions. These were common, though deeply troubling, ideas among many academics, physicians, and social reformers during the 1920s and 1930s.
In her writings, Sanger argued that people with severe cognitive disabilities and certain hereditary conditions should be discouraged from having children. She also supported policies involving sterilization and segregation for individuals she believed were incapable of making responsible reproductive decisions. Some of her statements went beyond advocating voluntary birth control and reflected support for coercive measures that would be considered unacceptable today. Her views on these matters are among the most troubling aspects of her legacy.
It is worth remembering that the broader eugenics movement was deeply intertwined with racism, class discrimination, and white supremacist thinking. Sanger's own views on race and the extent to which they influenced her work have been debated by historians. There's evidence that she opposed some forms of racial stereotyping and believed reproductive decisions should be based on individuals rather than entire racial groups. At the same time, she associated herself with eugenic ideas and organizations, and her willingness to work within that movement brings criticism in this day and age. I don't think either side of this historical discussion should be ignored simply because it makes the subject uncomfortable.
One example that frequently comes up is the Negro Project, which Sanger helped initiate in 1939. Its purpose was to expand access to birth control and reproductive education among impoverished Black communities, particularly in the rural South. Prominent Black leaders, including W.E.B. Du Bois and Mary McLeod Bethune, were associated with or supportive of the effort. Sanger also believed that trusted Black physicians, community leaders, and ministers should be involved in order to build confidence and reassure people who might understandably distrust outside organizations. The project had humanitarian and public-health objectives, but it also operated within a society deeply affected by racial discrimination and unequal medical treatment. Its history, like Sanger's broader legacy, is not without controversy.
So judge for yourself. I certainly don't agree with everything Margaret Sanger believed, and some of her views are difficult to defend by many as far as today's standards go. Nevertheless, I think her contributions to making birth control available and giving women greater control over their reproductive lives were significant. In my opinion, she did far more good than any supposed harm, even if aspects of her personal beliefs and political associations are deemed politically incorrect.
Questions of morality, personal beliefs, and individual choices are not always as straightforward as some would have us believe.
🗽
I realize that some of my views on these subjects aren't likely to be considered politically acceptable by either the political right or the political left. But then again, that's nothing particularly new. I've never been especially comfortable with the conventional Left-Right political paradigm, which I believe creates more division than it resolves. Just because someone agrees with certain positions traditionally associated with one side doesn't mean they must automatically embrace everything else that comes with it. Likewise, disagreeing with one political camp doesn't mean you have to identify with the other. I think it's perfectly reasonable to arrive at your own conclusions, even when those conclusions don't fit neatly into either political category.
Ultimately, I think both the question of abortion rights and the question of Biblical morality deserve a more thoughtful discussion than simply labeling anyone who disagrees with us as either immoral or hypocritical. If we're going to talk about personal responsibility, individual rights, and the value of human life, then those considerations shouldn't conveniently apply to one sex while being dismissed when it comes to the other.
