Thought I'd jump into something hefty this morning.. I'm just in a heavy-thought kinda mood I suppose 
Is Abortion mentioned in the Bible?
Not really, no. But something that is mentioned is the death of a child in-utero, in the book of Exodus. It states [Exodus 21:22] "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 judge determines."
So killing the unborn child of a prospective parent was not considered homicide, nor was it treated as such. Had there been so much value placed on the unborn child as a "person", the consequences for harming the fetus even by accident would be quite dire -- as it states, should there be no further harm, it was to be a fine... but if there was further harm to the pregnant woman, that would be harming a person, and that would require far more dire consequences.
How is the word "Conception" used?
People often forget what we have always known as the terms "birth" and "conception" being not only very different words, but taking on very different meanings, and one does not denote the same context as the other. There was a time when the terms "birth" and "conception" were two very different words taking on very different meanings. one does not necessarily denote the same context as the other. For instance, people in Biblical days may have had a "birth-right"... not conception-right. We are "born again", not "conceived again". We honor the birth of a Nation, and the birth of Christ, and the birthday of a child (not conception-day). The amount of reference in the Bible to the words "birth" is in the hundreds, and the references to that of conception is about one-fifth in number at best. When the word conception is referred to at all, it is almost always in terms of "She conceived and bore a child", rather than alone and something of extreme value.
So conception was very rarely talked about separately from birth. Life and life-based rights happened at birth.
Doesn't this devalue "potential" life?
That is certainly not my intention at all, and not the point. Degrading the concept of potential life isn't what it's about, nor do I want to stomp on people's view that abortion is wrong, because that is their personal view and not mine. It's ok for people to have differing viewpoints. I am pro-choice so someone can choose to be pro-life, as far as I'm concerned. That's the whole idea: Personal viewpoints and opinions are ok as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others to have conflicting personal view points. And my personal view is that a fetus is not a person with rights. Rights start at birth. Personhood.. starts at birth. And that's just a personal opinion, just as someone who believes the opposite is also holding a personal opinion.
However, the concept of "potential life" is a tough one for me, because I do not place hefty weight on "life" before it even begins. It's just not the way I see the world. I believe the lives already existing in the world now, as opposed to the ones that are "to come" in the future [be them conceived in biological terms or only in thought], are of far more importance. That means if having a child is going to impact a person's life negatively, it becomes that individual's responsibility to take the course of action that will protect his or her existing life; not consider the "potential life" to come as being more important.
This doesn't mean I place a heavy "devaluation" on the fetus itself, but rather I believe there is a pecking order of sorts to consider. The point still isn't to devalue the concept, and that is what I want to make as clear as possible. The concept and value of "potential life" is entirely up to the individual, regardless of which view to which you subscribe.
But.. to say that there is "sound evidence" of abortion being murder in Biblical terms and that we all must take our idea of "potential life" from that evidence, is preposterous. In fact, to go back to the first question momentarily... the amount of times actual induced abortion is referenced in the Bible is precisely Zero. The best people can do is try to link it to murder, but that requires a personal view point that a fetus is a person to begin with, a viewpoint that is somewhat countered by the idea that conception of a child is not paramount to the birth of said child.
At any rate, the lack of guidelines surrounding it 2,000 years ago means there are no religious tenets about it, no spiritual guide lines, not even a cultural reference. It probably hadn't even been thought of yet when the Bible was written! Abortion is something we are capable of doing now, but would have been beyond medical abilities some time ago. The only way in which more fundamentalist and/or literalist Christians speak out "Biblically" about abortion, is by twisting the words of existing scripture to fit their ideal. And this is never appropriate.
So the Bible proves Abortion is OK?
I didn't say that. And neither does the Bible.
The Bible says nothing conclusive about abortion at all, and therefor skewing the points to try to prove or disprove it by using religious texts is pointless. My overall point is simply to bring to your attention the fact that people cannot continue to use the bible to prove or disprove it. Even if you could one way or the other, the Bible is an allegorical device that must be taken for what it's worth to us today as a story, not as a history book of facts. Weeding out the cultural aspects, which may have included a view on abortion [but doesn't] would be part of that process.
So a Christian can be pro-choice?
Yes!
People construe their own facts for themselves, based on the way they see and interpret the world (for themselves). As a result, feelings on the start of life, and the appropriate nature of abortion, may not be a "universal fact" throughout the entire population. In step, it is far from fair of religiously-based (or any other type of) anti-abortion activists to "force" pro-choicers into their line of thinking. Nor is it fair for pro-choice individuals to force those values as "universal truth" on people who are pro-life. We are all responsible for our own choices, and our own bodies, and our own values. Mutual respect is key in every controversial issue that will ever rear its head.
If I am a professing Christian, and I am pro-choice? That's ok. I believe that life begins at birth, and that is also ok. It doesn't mean I don't respect the prospect of life, or those who believe differently than myself; however, I just don't see an unborn fetus as a "person", nor do I see the choice made by mothers to have an induced abortion as morally, ethically, or religiously wrong.
This issue must remain a personal choice, and I believe in each person's right to make that choice free and clear of persecution and judgment.
Is Abortion mentioned in the Bible?
Not really, no. But something that is mentioned is the death of a child in-utero, in the book of Exodus. It states [Exodus 21:22] "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 judge determines."
So killing the unborn child of a prospective parent was not considered homicide, nor was it treated as such. Had there been so much value placed on the unborn child as a "person", the consequences for harming the fetus even by accident would be quite dire -- as it states, should there be no further harm, it was to be a fine... but if there was further harm to the pregnant woman, that would be harming a person, and that would require far more dire consequences.
How is the word "Conception" used?
People often forget what we have always known as the terms "birth" and "conception" being not only very different words, but taking on very different meanings, and one does not denote the same context as the other. There was a time when the terms "birth" and "conception" were two very different words taking on very different meanings. one does not necessarily denote the same context as the other. For instance, people in Biblical days may have had a "birth-right"... not conception-right. We are "born again", not "conceived again". We honor the birth of a Nation, and the birth of Christ, and the birthday of a child (not conception-day). The amount of reference in the Bible to the words "birth" is in the hundreds, and the references to that of conception is about one-fifth in number at best. When the word conception is referred to at all, it is almost always in terms of "She conceived and bore a child", rather than alone and something of extreme value.
So conception was very rarely talked about separately from birth. Life and life-based rights happened at birth.
Doesn't this devalue "potential" life?
That is certainly not my intention at all, and not the point. Degrading the concept of potential life isn't what it's about, nor do I want to stomp on people's view that abortion is wrong, because that is their personal view and not mine. It's ok for people to have differing viewpoints. I am pro-choice so someone can choose to be pro-life, as far as I'm concerned. That's the whole idea: Personal viewpoints and opinions are ok as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others to have conflicting personal view points. And my personal view is that a fetus is not a person with rights. Rights start at birth. Personhood.. starts at birth. And that's just a personal opinion, just as someone who believes the opposite is also holding a personal opinion.
However, the concept of "potential life" is a tough one for me, because I do not place hefty weight on "life" before it even begins. It's just not the way I see the world. I believe the lives already existing in the world now, as opposed to the ones that are "to come" in the future [be them conceived in biological terms or only in thought], are of far more importance. That means if having a child is going to impact a person's life negatively, it becomes that individual's responsibility to take the course of action that will protect his or her existing life; not consider the "potential life" to come as being more important.
This doesn't mean I place a heavy "devaluation" on the fetus itself, but rather I believe there is a pecking order of sorts to consider. The point still isn't to devalue the concept, and that is what I want to make as clear as possible. The concept and value of "potential life" is entirely up to the individual, regardless of which view to which you subscribe.
But.. to say that there is "sound evidence" of abortion being murder in Biblical terms and that we all must take our idea of "potential life" from that evidence, is preposterous. In fact, to go back to the first question momentarily... the amount of times actual induced abortion is referenced in the Bible is precisely Zero. The best people can do is try to link it to murder, but that requires a personal view point that a fetus is a person to begin with, a viewpoint that is somewhat countered by the idea that conception of a child is not paramount to the birth of said child.
At any rate, the lack of guidelines surrounding it 2,000 years ago means there are no religious tenets about it, no spiritual guide lines, not even a cultural reference. It probably hadn't even been thought of yet when the Bible was written! Abortion is something we are capable of doing now, but would have been beyond medical abilities some time ago. The only way in which more fundamentalist and/or literalist Christians speak out "Biblically" about abortion, is by twisting the words of existing scripture to fit their ideal. And this is never appropriate.
So the Bible proves Abortion is OK?
I didn't say that. And neither does the Bible.
The Bible says nothing conclusive about abortion at all, and therefor skewing the points to try to prove or disprove it by using religious texts is pointless. My overall point is simply to bring to your attention the fact that people cannot continue to use the bible to prove or disprove it. Even if you could one way or the other, the Bible is an allegorical device that must be taken for what it's worth to us today as a story, not as a history book of facts. Weeding out the cultural aspects, which may have included a view on abortion [but doesn't] would be part of that process.
So a Christian can be pro-choice?
Yes!
People construe their own facts for themselves, based on the way they see and interpret the world (for themselves). As a result, feelings on the start of life, and the appropriate nature of abortion, may not be a "universal fact" throughout the entire population. In step, it is far from fair of religiously-based (or any other type of) anti-abortion activists to "force" pro-choicers into their line of thinking. Nor is it fair for pro-choice individuals to force those values as "universal truth" on people who are pro-life. We are all responsible for our own choices, and our own bodies, and our own values. Mutual respect is key in every controversial issue that will ever rear its head.
If I am a professing Christian, and I am pro-choice? That's ok. I believe that life begins at birth, and that is also ok. It doesn't mean I don't respect the prospect of life, or those who believe differently than myself; however, I just don't see an unborn fetus as a "person", nor do I see the choice made by mothers to have an induced abortion as morally, ethically, or religiously wrong.
This issue must remain a personal choice, and I believe in each person's right to make that choice free and clear of persecution and judgment.
