Christianity and Abortion Don't Mix

steadfastchristian

steadfastchristiandotcom
Jun 8, 2010
125
1
Visit site
✟7,760.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Exodus 20:13 Though shalt not murder, Proverbs 6:17 ...God hates the shedding of innocent blood, Psalm 139:13,14 ...you knit me together in my mother's womb. The list of verses goes on and on.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. I have the up most compassion for anyone who decides to have an abortion. However, abortion is not the answer. There are many alternatives to choose from and thank God for organizations like Lifegaurd, National Right To LIfe, and others who provide support for those in need. Christians have the power due to shear numbers to peacefully overturn the barbaric practice of abortion by electing pro-life candidates.
God help us make the right decision this fall. (All Scriptures taken from NIV)
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Exodus 20:13 Though shalt not murder, Proverbs 6:17 ...God hates the shedding of innocent blood, Psalm 139:13,14 ...you knit me together in my mother's womb. The list of verses goes on and on.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. I have the up most compassion for anyone who decides to have an abortion. However, abortion is not the answer. There are many alternatives to choose from and thank God for organizations like Lifegaurd, National Right To LIfe, and others who provide support for those in need. Christians have the power due to shear numbers to peacefully overturn the barbaric practice of abortion by electing pro-life candidates.
God help us make the right decision this fall. (All Scriptures taken from NIV)

"Thou shalt not Murder" does not apply to children in utero and never did. The verse in Psalms is David speaking to God not the other way around and Jeremiah applies SOLELY to Jeremiah. Try again.
 
Upvote 0

steadfastchristian

steadfastchristiandotcom
Jun 8, 2010
125
1
Visit site
✟7,760.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Scripture agrees: Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Jesus toned down the severity of an eye for an eye but the main message is still relevant - harming the unborn is not acceptable.
 
Upvote 0

b.hopeful

Sharp as a razor, soft as a prayer
Jul 17, 2009
2,057
303
St.Louis metropolitan area
✟11,162.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Scripture agrees: Exodus 21:22-25 (NIV)

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Jesus toned down the severity of an eye for an eye but the main message is still relevant - harming the unborn is not acceptable.

aka...causing the fetus to die isn't murder...it's like loss of livestock. However, take the woman's life...it's murder.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
"Thou shalt not Murder" does not apply to children in utero and never did. The verse in Psalms is David speaking to God not the other way around and Jeremiah applies SOLELY to Jeremiah. Try again.

"They're not people. They're property."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Nope, look closely at the passage.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The bolded part refers to injury to the WOMAN not the foetus in utero, it is perhaps unclear in English but not in the Hebrew.
 
Upvote 0

SUNSTONE

Christian Warrior
Sep 2, 2002
8,785
213
49
Cocoa Village
Visit site
✟18,200.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Nope, look closely at the passage.

The bolded part refers to injury to the WOMAN not the foetus in utero, it is perhaps unclear in English but not in the Hebrew.

That's not true, there is a reason why it says "pregnant women" and not just "women".

And what about you, what do you say about this law, if a man hits and kills an unborn baby, he will be charged with murder.
Do you agree with this law that we have today, or no?
Or do you think that he has commited no crime, no sin, except if he hurts the mother???
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
We are not talking about the modern day but about the Hebrew law given over 3000 years ago. In the Hebrew it is quite clear that the latter part of the passage applies solely to the woman and that is how the Rabbis and sages of the Hebrews also interpreted the passage BTW.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barefooter

Barefooter
Nov 14, 2009
86
5
✟7,733.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There are numerous verses that show that even in the womb there is life. Taking a life is wrong. So abortion is sin. But it is just as wrong to kill abortion doctors. And it does no good to come down so hard on those who've had abortions. I like what was said earlier "hate the sin, but love the sinner".
 
Upvote 0

SUNSTONE

Christian Warrior
Sep 2, 2002
8,785
213
49
Cocoa Village
Visit site
✟18,200.00
Faith
Non-Denom
We are not talking about the modern day but about the Hebrew law given over 3000 years ago. In the Hebrew it is quite clear that the latter part of the passage applies solely to the woman and that is how the Rabbis and sages of the Hebrews also interpreted the passage BTW.

This thread was started because of the modern day law, so yes we are talking about modern day law.


What ever reason you think that abortion should be legal you probably thought it was a good reason.
But then I asked you that question...........a question you can't answer without making yourself look silly.

And I'm calling you out on that rabbis herbrew intrepretation on "women" and "pregnant women".
I think you completely made that up.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Please note the following:

To begin to make his case, Feldman points out that there is no Commandment reading "Thou shalt not kill": rather, the Commandment reads "Thou shalt not murder." In Judaism (and elsewhere, of course) killing in self-defense is allowed. There are a number of categories of allowable killing in self-defense - including the category "of rodef, the aggressor, who may be killed if that is the only way to stop his pursuit or aggression of a third party." The Talmud considers treating the fetus as a rodef - specifically, "an aggressor against its mother, and making that the reason why abortion to save the mother's life is permitted." But

the Talmud proceeds to reject that reasoning on the obvious grounds that the fetus is not yet of responsible age to deliberately forfeit its protection against being murdered [i.e., by consciously choosing to act as an aggressor, and thereby loosing its protection against killing]. The only valid grounds for permitting even therapeutic abortion is that murder is not involved because the fetus is not yet a human person [ftn. 1: Sanhedrin 72b: David Feldman Birth Control in Jewish Law (New York: New York University Press, 1968), chaps. 14 and 15.] Killing is admittedly involved, but not murder. Killing is the taking of life of, say, an animal or a chicken, or of a human who forfeits his protection by an act of aggression. (81)

This brings us to the central point: the crucial distinction between killing and murder further depends on the definition of the status of the life taken - a definition which Feldman observes is metaphysical and religious, rather than scientific:

And the difference between fetal life and human life is not determined by the biologist or the physician but by the metaphysician. It's the determination of the culture or the religion that declares not when life begins but when life begins to be human. (81)
In keeping with the frequent focus in the abortion debate on the status of the embryo or fetus, Feldman notes that

the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin pars viscerum matris. That is, the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity. This designation says nothing about the morality of abortion; rather, it defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased animal. As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition; gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide. (81-82)

Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."

The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.)

The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb. The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural. Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82)

Source
 
Upvote 0

dinonum

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
5,189
273
35
Indiana
✟29,804.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How can a Christian justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate? Polls show that Christians vote this way on a regular basis. After all, aren't we all held accountable for the choices we make in life?
This is why I don't vote at all. Pro-abortion or pro-war? It all seems to be related IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums