Is God Pro-Life?

Read Time:11 Minute, 4 Second

While readers can give strong arguments for or against the right to choose an abortion, the usage of the Bible in this argument is folly. When a Christian talks about god being “pro-life” I can’t help but chuckle. Certainly, such a Christian has either gone blind to their own bible’s creed, or they simply haven’t read the Bible at all. God is far from pro-life!

Mass Murder by God

Throughout the Bible, there are stories of god destroying massive amounts of people. Those killed included women and children. This “all powerful god,” that being who “created the heavens and the earth” in all its complexity, couldn’t figure out how to isolate the “bad people” and targeted them for destruction. Instead, this “god” kills indiscriminately. Consider the story of the flood…

Killing the Children

31 The Lord said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

Above, Numbers 31 introduces another war instructed by this “god.” This time he tells Moses to kill the Midianites. but it gets worse, much worse:

 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lordin the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

In Numbers 31, verses 14-18 (above), Moses gets angry when the soldiers refused to kill the women and children. This is where it gets dark. Moses tells the soldiers they must kill all the male children, and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgin girls can be taken by men to become their “wives.”

How is this god pro-life, when he tells his priest to mass murder, and allows the murder of even children and babies?

Noah and the Flood

Almost every culture has a historic flood reference. Christians, however, are believers in a flood that was orchestrated by a deity to wipe out all the “evil doers.” Few Jewish people take the story literally, but to a Christian this is the evidence of the character of god. This god is to be feared, for it is prone to wrath and hate. Look how he killed everyone for the crimes of some.

Not everyone who died was guilty. Archeological evidence shows cultures and societies in every continent. This ethnocentric story, is about god being angry at their culture, yet the is applied to “the whole world.” In other words, god was mad at evildoers in the land of Noah, but killed people in every other continent.

He didn’t just kill the evildoers, he killed mothers, pregnant women, children, infants, toddlers, boys and girls.

This is the same god that christians will tell you, “loves you so much he sent his son to die for you.” At one point he kills hundreds of millions of people, and on the other hand we are expected to believe he’s a sweetheart.

For reference the flood story is found in Genesis, chapters 6-8. The highlights are that god “retreats making people,” and finds only one person he is pleased with… a fellow who conveniently lives in the ethnocentric area of the author’s land. This wasn’t Noah of North America. This was Noah of the Middle East. Isn’t that convenient that the only good person just happens to be of the same culture as the scribe’s?

God regrets making people. We hear from christians that god is “the same yesterday, today and forever.” Meaning that they believe god doesn’t change. So if god doesn’t change, and god knows the future, it logically flows that god regretted you. He regretted me. He regretted everyone from the time of Noah throughout time. He only found one person worthy of his favor, Noah. So how does this god love you, if he regretted making people (knowing you would exist) and almost killed 100% of all of humanity (according to the myth)?

Noah builds an ark and god somehow sends 2 of every animal to come live on the ark. It’s absurd. It’s a myth worthy of the romans or greeks, but certainly not a “real story.” Exactly how did giraffes, penguins and polar bears all travel to Noah in time for this big venture? It’s a fable. My Jewish friends would say that bible stories like this are “metaphorical fables.” Christians however can not digest that. This is real for them. This really happened in their world view. They even created a theme park about Noah’s ark, but not as a fantasy land, but as a real museum honoring a true story. Yet simple reasoning and logic would show this to be false. The only way these animals could get on the ark would be through a miracle. God would have to “blink them there.” As the story goes, however, they all walked on their own accord to find Noah. Come on people, how can you believe that?

Sodom and Gomorrah

Christians love this story. This story gives them a reason to hate gay people. The story is as unreal as the flood story. While some natural disaster may have happened to a city at one time, the idea that god destroyed these cities because of their sins, is absurd.

Once again, this god looks at an area that bothers him. He gets obsessed about these two towns and decides their sins are worth of death. Again, god is willing to kill everyone, including women and children. Every town has kids in it. Even if the town was heavily weighted to same-gender relationships, there are always going to be kids, otherwise the town would simply vanish after a generation. God obviously killed children.

As the story goes, Abraham asks god to reconsider, and god thinks about it. (Genesis 18). The story goes that god says if he finds 10 good people in the towns, he will spare it. God appears to find favor in only one fellow named Lot (evidently children and infants aren’t righteous to this god).

This “righteous fellow” (Lot) is hardly a good guy. At the first sign of a problem, Lot offers his own daughters up to be raped (Genesis 19:5-8) by a mob (to appease their lust).

They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.

Examine this passage and you’ll discover that the men Lot is protecting from the rapists are not men at all. They are angels who only appear to be men. Lot knows this. Lot, knowing these men are angels and as such can handle this on their own, offers up his own daughters to the rapists in their place. Is that a “righteous man?” Evidently to the Bible, it is.


Faced with the reality that god order the killing of children and the rape of women, has raised many an apologist. Consider this dialogue at StackExchange [link]. Rather than take this as it is written, these fellows construct elaborate backstories not mentioned, in order to normalize child murder and rape.

One fool (Pat F.) states:

Moses was ordered to keep alive–perhaps for future use as house servants (cooks, handmaidens, laundrywomen, and the like)–all females who had not yet indulged in sexual activities.

Pat knows what’s going on, but this person won’t face it. They know it, because they end their idea with “all females who had not yet indulged in sexual activities.” Why would a cook, handmaiden or laundrywoman need to be a virgin? Obviously the only reason to specify a woman’s sexual “purity” was over sexual relations with her.

To further understand this, we have to consider the Bible holistically. This wasn’t the first time children were murdered and women taken as sexual slaves. Consider Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautifulwoman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

If this seems confusing, we must define some terms here. A woman could be sold, if she were a virgin. An example of this is a rapist being able to buy his rape victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

This woman has been violated, this was the law. After a battle, soldiers would take “brides” from their victims. They set them aside for a month to mourn all the family that was lost in battle. After which the soldier goes to her as “her husband.” That means, they have sex. She can’t be sold now, because she’s been “dishonored.” She is no longer a virgin and the marriage wasn’t fair. If he doesn’t approve of her, he has to let her go, since she can’t be sold as a virgin.

Catholics on this issue are even more absurd apologists. Consider this question raised on a catholic forum [link]. They really had a poor way of handling this. Some Catholics suggested that the women were unclean, except for the virgins, so that’s why they were killed… but then why were the male infants killed? They too would be sexually clean.

The most common response from apologists here, is that “this is the way things were back then.” Consider this example:

It has to be remembered that what we call western civilization was being born during the events in the OT. Many of the penalties attached to various immoral acts seem extreme to us but we have to consider that the human experiences involved were to become deep seated archetypes of how we think today about them. If we are repulsed by the thought of incest we can thank the extreme measures taken to discover it’s repulsiveness by the law of Moses. It wasn’t so repulsive before. Perhaps the repulsive response to the enslavement of another human being would have been sufficient to prevent the violence done to it’s victims if Joshua had enforced the ban. Perhaps the chronic problem of having to deal with an enemy population within the tribes desensitized the Hebrews damaging their sense of human dignity and in consequence perhaps our sense of human dignity is crippled and underdeveloped.

In various ways, this becomes the standard response. Some offer up that god’s ways are a mystery to mortal man. But the above quote is the most common theme of an answer to “how could this be in the Bible.”

Here’s my response: Don’t you guys believe that god is the same, yesterday, today and forever? Don’t you believe that god is consistent and eternal and doesn’t waiver or change? In other words, this same god had all these stupid rules.. “don’t eat pork, don’t work on the sabbath day, don’t talk back to your parents…” This god micromanaged everything, including whom you could have sex with… but here, not this issue god is mute…

Either god is mute on this, because god is a villain… or because the so-called “will of god” was really the will of men. That means all of this is a crock to begin with.


By the words of the Bible itself, god killed millions upon millions. He killed children, pregnant women, the unborn… they all died. This means, that god is not adverse to killing the unborn. This god is not pro-life.

This bible tells stories of god allowing his armies to rape women captives and murder children, even infants. Again, this god is not pro-life.

For god to be pro-life, god would have to be consistently pro-life. It just simply isn’t that way. This isn’t Buddhism, where there is a consistent pro-life aspect to their ideology. This is a mix of killing children and protecting them. The choice of killing or protecting depends on the convenience of it.

0 0
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Post

Ignorance & Christianity

Recently, the hypocrite Franklin Graham posted a piece against Dr. Anthony Fauci. If you read it face on, it may seem like an odd piece. It talks against science, but that isn’t the intention. The intention is to discredit Dr. Anthony Fauci. My guess is that Trump Team reached out […]