What Does The Bible Say About Elective Abortion?

[Miles]

.

I ask because I can't find a darn thing. And if it isn't addressed in the Bible how important can it be?

.

[Miles]

.

I ask because I can't find a darn thing. And if it isn't addressed in the Bible how important can it be?

.

Personally, I don't much care what it does or doesn't say. People need to listen to science and themselves, not long dead men, from a time when people thought people were made from mud and important dead ones rose from the dead.

In as much as quite a few Christians oppose abortion . . .

The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

"the Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."

_________________

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion (including the use of abortifacient drugs) is the taking of a human life.

_________________

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes elective abortion based on a belief in the "sanctity of human life.

_________________

Jehovah's Witnesses adopt a very strong anti-abortion stance, based on their interpretation of the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have a long list of "serious sins" - one of which is abortion.

_________________

The General Board of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. opposes abortion "as a means of avoiding responsibility for conception, as a primary means of birth control, and without regard for the far-reaching consequences of the act.

_________________

The Seventh-day Adventist Church adopt an anti-abortion stance, albeit with some exceptions.

. . . and actively try to prevent others from accessing them, I felt it was worthwhile to consider their position and where it may come from.


.

[PinSeeker]

Commandment number six (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) covers any and all types of murder of people of any age. Just four short words are sufficient: "You shall not murder."

That's alright because in the USA, at least, abortion is not considered murder. And who determined that an embryo or fetus is people (a person)? The word certainly doesn't fit the definition.

Mere rationalization. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways higher than our ways, His thoughts than our thoughts.

It shouldn't be so tough, though; we do have a heartbeat about three to four weeks after conception. To deny personhood at any point after conception is really a denial of basic biology... science, as it were.

At any rate, God says He formed us all in our mother's wombs. Regarding the Bible, if it's the concrete you crave, you might or might not be aware that in Rachael's womb, Jacob took Esau by the heel. And in Elizabeth's womb, though John was still three months from birth, he leapt when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting.

Person
A person (plural people or persons) is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."
Source: Wikipedia

Ah, good old Wikipedia. LOL!!!

Grace and peace to you, Miles.

[PinSeeker]

Since there are many circumstances under which homicide is sanctioned in the Bible, citing a generic commandment against murder (prohibited homicide) to claim that an abortion is a murder is an invalid argument. It also just looks like you're trying to sidestep what the OP was asking.

No sidestepping necessary. God certainly states it differently (see above) than Dr. Seuss did in "Horton Hears a Who"... <snicker>... but a person is a person no matter how small.

An any rate, this sounds like a rationalization of some sort to me, too. Let's hear one of those circumstances, Difflugia.

Grace and peace to you.

[Difflugia]

“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life.”—Exodus 21:22, 23.

If the penalty is for death for a person that accidentally kills an unborn child, I don't see why a person that intentionally kills an unborn child would get a pass.

That's an unlikely interpretation that makes little contextual sense, the supporting translation is tortured, and you left off the final two verses that are important indications for context (in the process, changing a comma from your own favorite translation into a period).

The full quotation, Exodus 21:22-25, reads thus in the NWT:

“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.

The phrase translated as "gives birth prematurely" is literally "and her boy goes out" or "and her boys go out" (the singular subject and plural verb don't agree). Leaving that as ambiguous for a moment, then, the word that the NWT translates as "fatality" actually means "injury." If it's supposed to refer to the child, then restitution to the father makes no sense if the child is born, but doesn't suffer any injury. The most likely meaning of this passage is that if the child is miscarried, then the father must be compensated for the death of the unborn child. If the man's wife is further injured, then the offender must be punished in direct proportion to the injury received by the woman. If אָסֹ֑ון is intended to mean "fatality" here, then verses 24 and 25 make no sense, as you apparently recognized when you truncated the quotation.

The NRSV renders it this way, I think correctly:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The implication here is clear: unborn children are economically important, but wives are people.

[Difflugia]

No sidestepping necessary. God certainly states it differently (see above) than Dr. Seuss did in "Horton Hears a Who"... <snicker>... but a person is a person no matter how small.

In that verse, God didn't state it at all. God told us that it's wrong to murder a person, without defining "murder" or "person." You may fill in your own definitions, but it's either misleading or hubris to suggest without further support that those definitions are the ones that God intended.

An any rate, this sounds like a rationalization of some sort to me, too.

That's why I called you out on it.

Let's hear one of those circumstances, Difflugia.

What, seriously? Just one?

Leviticus 27:28-29:

Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man devotes to Yahweh of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed. Everything that is permanently devoted is most holy to Yahweh.

No one devoted to destruction, who shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed. He shall surely be put to death.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #15]

I much prefer the English Standard Version (ESV), as it is made much clearer. It doesn't have a different meaning of course, it's just not antiquated or even slightly ambiguous:

• "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The first thing that should be striking here is -- should be, anyway -- that the children are already considered (by God) children even before they "come out." The second thing is that, in these verses, when it speaks of harm, it makes no distinction between the woman and her children. And the third is that the punishment should fit the crime, regardless upon whom -- woman and/or children -- the harm was inflicted or even the level of harm, from the slightest (mere injury) to the most severe (death). And with this third point, we see that there is no distinction between woman and child; both are persons, and of equal importance.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[2timothy316]

“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life.”—Exodus 21:22, 23.

If the penalty is for death for a person that accidentally kills an unborn child, I don't see why a person that intentionally kills an unborn child would get a pass.

That's an unlikely interpretation that makes little contextual sense, the supporting translation is tortured, and you left off the final two verses that are important indications for context (in the process, changing a comma from your own favorite translation into a period).

The full quotation, Exodus 21:22-25, reads thus in the NWT:

“If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.

The phrase translated as "gives birth prematurely" is literally "and her boy goes out" or "and her boys go out" (the singular subject and plural verb don't agree). Leaving that as ambiguous for a moment, then, the word that the NWT translates as "fatality" actually means "injury." If it's supposed to refer to the child, then restitution to the father makes no sense if the child is born, but doesn't suffer any injury. The most likely meaning of this passage is that if the child is miscarried, then the father must be compensated for the death of the unborn child. If the man's wife is further injured, then the offender must be punished in direct proportion to the injury received by the woman. If אָסֹ֑ון is intended to mean "fatality" here, then verses 24 and 25 make no sense, as you apparently recognized when you truncated the quotation.

The NRSV renders it this way, I think correctly:

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The implication here is clear: unborn children are economically important, but wives are people.

Life for life is included even in your preferred translation, if it was the unborn baby's life that was lost then the person's life who caused the death is forfeit if unintentional. I don't see how all this you said here gives a person that intentionally kills a unborn child a pass from judgement.

[PinSeeker]

No sidestepping necessary. God certainly states it differently (see above) than Dr. Seuss did in "Horton Hears a Who"... <snicker>... but a person is a person no matter how small.

In that verse, God didn't state it at all. God told us that it's wrong to murder a person, without defining "murder" or "person." You may fill in your own definitions, but it's either misleading or hubris to suggest without further support that those definitions are the ones that God intended.

Presumably, you're talking only about Exodus 20: and Deuteronomy 5:17 ("You shall not murder"). Perhaps you skipped over my further explanation to Miles, which I had directed you to. To restate:

• "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways higher than our ways, His thoughts than our thoughts. It shouldn't be so tough, though; we do have a heartbeat about three to four weeks after conception. To deny personhood at any point after conception is really a denial of basic biology... science, as it were. At any rate, God says He formed us all in our mother's wombs. Regarding the Bible, if it's the concrete you crave, you might or might not be aware that in Rachael's womb, Jacob took Esau by the heel. And in Elizabeth's womb, though John was still three months from birth, he leapt when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting."

An any rate, this sounds like a rationalization of some sort to me, too.

That's why I called you out on it.

It's all you, my friend. There is absolutely no rationalization on my end. It is what it is, nothing more, and nothing less. That rationalization is all yours to own... or not; I don't care either way, but it is what it is.

Let's hear one of those circumstances, Difflugia.

What, seriously? Just one?

Yes. Or as many as you would like, but one is sufficient, I'm sure.

Leviticus 27:28-29:
Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man devotes to Yahweh of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed. Everything that is permanently devoted is most holy to Yahweh.

No one devoted to destruction, who shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed. He shall surely be put to death.

LOL! Verses 28 and 29 of Leviticus 27, Difflugia, concerns "devoting" things acquired by Israel in their war against the Canaanites, yes, thing, animal, or man, including prisoners of war. These things could not be ransomed. You can cross-reference this with Deuteronomy 2:34-35:

• "And we captured all his cities at that time and devoted to destruction every city, men, women, and children. We left no survivors. Only the livestock we took as spoil for ourselves, with the plunder of the cities that we captured."

The total destruction of Sihon's cities and people reflects God's instructions for battle within the Promised Land. This emphasis is absent in the parallel account in Numbers 21:1-3...

• "When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negeb, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. 2 And Israel vowed a vow to the LORD and said, “If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.” 3 And the LORD heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction."

...but is made clearer in Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

• "But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded, that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the LORD your God."

Since God (not Israel) is the victor, the spoils of battle belong to Him and not to Israel, hence their destruction as an act of devotion to God. There is no intimation of "homicide" or murder.

Would you like to try another?

Grace and peace to you anyway, my friend.

[Difflugia]

There is no intimation of "homicide" or murder.

Homicide is the killing of a human being, murder is the unsanctioned killing of a human being. If human beings put someone to death, it's homicide. If it's legal (in this case, at the direction of their god), it's not murder. That's exactly what my point was; there are homicides in the Bible that are sanctioned, therefore the verse merely proscribing "murder" doesn't establish whether causing a miscarriage would be murder. That's even if the Bible considers an unborn child to be within the definition of "human being," which I'd argue against based on the Exodus verses.

Remember, the Bible defines bats as being kinds of birds, so our definitions and the Bible's definitions don't necessarily coincide (hubris notwithstanding).

[otseng]

Personally, I don't much care what it does or doesn't say. People need to listen to science and themselves, not long dead men, from a time when people thought people were made from mud and important dead ones rose from the dead.

Moderator Comment

In TDD, the Bible is considered authoritative. If you do not consider it authoritative, please do not debate is this subforum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.