Answer:
The Creation mandate God gave in Genesis is where he called humans to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:27). Some believe this command teaches us that sex should only serve the cause of procreation and thus any expression of sex that doesn’t lead to children must be fundamentally wrong somehow. But Scripture has much more to say about sex than that one command. In 1 Corinthians 7 for example, the apostle Paul talks to married couples about sexual intimacy. And he calls them to not deny sexual intimacy from one another and to be mindful the other’s needs in that area, especially as the culture is so loose in it’s sexual mores and provides constant temptation to unfaithfulness. The point is, that in that whole discussion of sex, children are not brought up. The Song of Solomon also is a celebration of married sex which is enjoyed for the sheer joy of increased oneness, intimacy and the mutual pleasure it brings. When Hannah is depressed because she can’t have children, in 1 Sam 1:8, her husband Elkanah tells her that their love and union should be more important the children that may or may not come from it.
So sex in Scripture plays a vital role in marital health beyond the utilitarian function of procreation. Sex is a gift for intimacy and bonding between husband and wife with children as the glorious byproduct of the union rather than the specific goal of it. Therefore, it seems clear that God grants couples the freedom to determine the size of their families.
The specific subject of birth control is not really considered in Scripture, probably since in the ancient agrarian cultures when it written, a large family was often your retirement fund. It would be a rare Jewish couple who would wish to limit the size of their family. Nevertheless, we know many cultures in history have practiced cruel forms of birth control to deal with unwanted children who could not be afforded or who were born the “wrong” gender. Sometimes through infant sacrifice, or child abandonment. If we needed proof that it would preferable to have no children than to have children that you let die or kill, the Biblical imperative to provide for one’s offspring is very clear indeed (1 Tim 5:8). If you have limited resources (which most of us do) birth control is simply a part of being a shrewd manager of your life. If birth control is evil because of the command to fill the earth, then is it not true that each couple ought to have as many children as they possibly can? Yet almost no couples do this, which means even the most prolific practice a form of birth control at least sometimes: abstinence. If birth control is evil, then so is any reduction in procreativity for any reason.
If Scripture is clear that sex is for other purposes than procreation and that responsible stewardship implies that limits to child bearing are God honoring, then we mustn’t condemn birth control based on the creation mandate alone. Especially when the population of the earth tells us “job done!” when it comes to God’s original command to “fill the earth”! With this freedom, some couples will and should use birth control to not have children based on their own pasts, their stage of life, their resources, or their calling from God for other ministry.
However, if the choice becomes universal (in Germany and Russia childlessness is reaching crisis proportions) out of pure self interest to maintain more self-indulgent lifestyles, I would be concerned. Countries where secular governments are paying for couples to have babies because it’s threatening their societies, show that there is an enduring wisdom and moral precept inside God’s creation mandate to have kids.
About your second question: I’m convinced that women should have complete autonomy over their bodies except in two situations. The first is marriage. In marriage, my spouse’s sexual needs come before my own (1 Cor 7:4) whether I’m a man or a woman. The second area that I feel a woman surrenders some control of her body is when she has another body growing inside it. Besides being in keeping with the value and personhood God places on in-uteri babies throughout Scripture (Deut 21:22-25; Ps 139:13-17; Jer 1:5; Lk 1:41-44), this is also follows logically from the general rule of corporeal autonomy. If a woman should have control over her body, then it stands to reason that a woman (or a man for that matter) should not have a right to usurp control over someone else’s body.
Of course, pregnancy is this amazing state of being where the autonomy of two individuals may come into direct conflict with each other. Until we find a way to incubate life outside of wombs, this conflict is inevitable and I suspect God would always want it so. Why? Because it puts upon us the opportunity to make selfless and wise decisions about others, and decisions that build love. Love is less about feelings and more about actions. If I love someone, I will act to show support, kindness, care, nurture, help. And this quality of Love, defines God (1 John 4:16) and God wants it to define us (Matt 22:39).
So my view of abortion comes down to this: You have two individuals with the right to life and liberty because they’ve both been made in the image of God. The less powerful life may be inconvenient to the more powerful life and so their rights are in conflict. As in all life, the more powerful is in position to be the “oppressor” of the weak, but love calls us to care for the weak, to defend the cause of the fatherless. In short, love and moral law calls for the one in power to sacrifice for the one who has no voice and no power (Ps 82:3,4). If it should be like this in life, I can’t see why it should be another way in the womb. Freedom for others isn’t convenient to me. Love isn’t easy. Here’s what love is however: 1 Cor 13:4-8, “Love is patient, love is kind. …it is not self-seeking, …It always protects, …Love never fails.” And so I think abortion is a horrible failure to love.
The only argument against this is to deny the rights of life and liberty to individuals if they’re inside a womb; to think of a fetus as not human. But all these arguments fail every test of morality and logic. When does “humanity” fall on an individual? Conception is the only logical choice. Every OTHER line we might draw is deeply arbitrary: when brain waves are present? Heart beat? Finger prints? Oxygen in the lungs? A spinal column? Looks? Age of Viability (which is changing and getting younger)? These arbitrary lines are nothing less than the line between life and death because they are the line between constitutional protections and no protections; between murder and a surgical procedure. But the unalterable biological fact is so obvious it gets missed: human life begins at conception and continues until death. It’s not a dolphin in there! This is how humans start: small, helpless, from one single cell. There is no moment post-conception where “God’s Image” (and thus human rights) falls on them after the fact – at least none that any of us are qualified to judge.
I watched the controversial short film, “Silent Scream” while in college and I saw ultrasound video of a 10 week old fetus being aborted. It was heart breaking to watch. That fetus, by the way, was a “woman”; that is, a female who had no say in the control of her body. It was being poked and pulled apart and the tiny girl had no power stop it. She did protest however. At 10 weeks along, that fetus struggled to get away from the equipment sent in to take her out, and at one point in the film, her little mouth clearly opened in what was unmistakable agony. Thus the title of the film.
This is a hard answer to a controversial question. But it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Christians today oppose abortion. Christians have felt strongly about abortion since there have been Christians. Abortion was pandemic in ancient Rome and the Christians brought a completely counter cultural attitude toward the problem. Christ said, “if you have done it to the least of these brothers of mine, you have done it to me.” With that ethic of love as our guiding value, Christians ought to still be first in line to defend the cause of the fatherless and the innocent and to sacrifice for them – and to support women who are pregnant in harsh circumstances who are called upon to sacrifice the most to love the best.
