Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.  (Gen 9.6)

 
Under Moses, further conditions are clarified whereby death is also the penalty, e.g. adultery, slavery, cursing parents (Ex 21:12-17).  But this is God’s just decree, not an arbitrary decision to take another’s life.  Not to murder is established in the very core of human obligation under the old covenant
(Ex 20:13).  Unintentionality in murder finds a place of refuge (Ex 21:13).  But for premeditated scheming there is no mercy.
 
Of note to this paper from this very section on covenantal ethics is that if a pregnant woman is accidentally hit in a fight between men resulting in premature birth the penalty, if there is no harm, is a fine, but if there is harm, the penalty is life for life, eye for eye, bruise for bruise (Ex 21:22).  There has been a long running controversy over correct interpretation of this scripture particularly as to whether the harm inflicted applied to both mother and child.  Durham presumes that it does¹. Jackson argues that v.22 sets out payment for the loss of the foetus, v.23 the bodily harm done to the mother, i.e. the remedy for a lost unborn child is substitution².  Hyatt draws out parallels with Hittite Law and the Code of Hammurapi that reinforces this position.³ Labar in his paper comments that Calvin believed that “if death should follow” must be applied to the prematurely born as well as to the mother.⁴ Saunders gives a good overview on these perspectives.⁵ It is unwise to read too much into a controversial text with obscure construction and therefore this text will be left to one side on the issue of life and its beginnings.
 
Finally under Moses, God is revealed as reserving to himself sole responsibility for life and death.

See now that I myself am He!
There is no God besides me.
I put to death and I bring life,
I have wounded and I will heal,
And no one can deliver out of my hand.  (Deut 32:39)

 
This understanding is restated in Job (Job 12:10), and by Paul preaching to the Athenians (Acts 17:25,26).  Hannah understands it from direct personal grief at barrenness and then experiencing the blessing of God in giving birth to Samuel.  She sings of God’s sovereign power:

The Lord brings death and makes alive.
He brings down to the grave and raises up.  (1 Sam 2:6)

 
Hays argues that there is no right to life.  God gives it and God takes it away.  The Christian prohibition against taking life is not about the value of human life but that it is not ours to take.⁶
 
The new covenant established by Christ greatly expands the definition of murder.  To murder now includes not merely causing death but also motives of anger towards and despising of others (Matt 5:21,22).  The expectations of grace greatly exceed the law although, thankfully, so does God’s mercy in diverting punishment and providing both refuge and salvation (2 Cor 5:21)
 
The full weight of Scripture confirms that the taking of life is seriously bad.  Pro-life and pro-choice people are both protective of others.  They agree that the life of others needs to be safeguarded.  The key point of separation is what constitutes a person worthy of protection.  The status of the mother as person is not in dispute.  But what of the unborn child?  When does life and personhood begin?  Before that question can be addressed another deeper question requires examination.  What is a person?
 

What is a person?

Describing a person through a set of attributes (e.g. speech, thought, memory, awareness of self and emotional responses) has difficulties. It over-emphasises the separation of body from person so that each are seen as distinct entities. This creates the theoretical possibility of having a living body without personhood, and is therefore philosophically suspect. Of greater importance is that the approach of attributes focuses on functionality. Who I am is defined by what I can do. This opens the door wide for the quality of life position. A person with a reduced function is a reduced person. If I lose my speech, or my memory, or my mobility I am losing not just function but life and personhood. It is then just a small step for others to be given authority over the life of the “lesser person” and the individual is encouraged to end life, since it has been lost beyond acceptable limits. Major makes the point of how far this quality of life thinking has permeated our society.⁷ Our response is required not just in the medical and biological realm but also in the underlying philosophical assumptions of the debate.
 
The non-functional or sanctity of life approach describes personhood in terms of being; existing as something rather than identifying specific functions e.g. breathing, thinking, speaking. To establish being a number of parameters of being are set within which personhood can be said to be present. The Christian approach to being is essentially defined in creation terms, man made in the image of God. The first chapters of Genesis reveal to us what it means to be human.
 
 
1. A person is a being in relation to God.
Man is a being created in the image and likeness of God. As such he is created in relation to God.

So God created man in his own image,
In the image of God he created him;
Male and female he created them. (Gen 1.27)

 
In planning this, God is found in conversation with himself. There is the strange tension of he not being in the singular. God is evidently in relationship with himself. Man is in this image, made in relationship to God. This is illustrated by God and man having conversation (Gen1.28-30, Gen 2.16-17). The relationship with God gives man purpose. Fruitfulness, government and gardening are their fulfilling tasks (Gen1.28, Gen 2.15). God shows emotion. He is pleased with what he sees (Gen 1.31).