Show me scripture that supports ABORTION.

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

But it isn't an unlawful killing, so it isn't murder.

It is if its premeditated termination of life. And it is in the sight of God.
As I said anyone can make a law and hide behind it, it was lawful in Nazi Germany to kill Jews.

No, saying that "God is love" condems slavery is your interpretation of scripture. Others may disagree.

And saying it isnt would be yours. The one owuld have to decide whose interpretation one thought was correct.

But in reality if one believes what the scripture says, that God knows us before and in the womb, then one wouldn't murder life by pro-choice abortion.

 

[Archivist]

It is if its premeditated termination of life. And it is in the sight of God.

But it isn't illegal, and--as has been shown--there is nothing in Scripture that specifically forbids abortion. There is Scripture that can be interpretated either way.

As I said anyone can make a law and hide behind it, it was lawful in Nazi Germany to kill Jews.

Strawman. That isn't the topic of this thread.

And saying it isnt would be yours.

Not necessarily true. I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with your interpretation. You are making an assumption.

The one owuld have to decide whose interpretation one thought was correct.

And as I have said to you in this and other threads, we All interpretate Scripture.

But in reality if one believes what the scripture says, that God knows us before and in the womb, then one wouldn't murder life by pro-choice abortion.

First, abortion isn't murder. Simply repeating that doesn't make it so. Second, we all have our interpretation of Scripture. Your interprtetation is no more correct than my interpretation.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

But it isn't illegal, and--as has been shown--there is nothing in Scripture that specifically forbids abortion. There is Scripture that can be interpretated either way.

Firstly in many countries in the world pro-choice abortion is not legal, abortions can only take place where life is threatened. So you’re ‘my country is bigger than your country’ approach to what is legal or not, is not very helpful. The issue would depend on whether the abortion was seen as terminating human life or a human being.
To the second point, there is no interpretation at all, that’s liberalism making assumptions. There is no direct support or condemnation, but if God knows people before the womb and knits them together in the womb then how can you say abortion is not destroying what God knows and has plans for? No I don’t accept that.

Strawman. That isn't the topic of this thread.

As hown it is not a strawman, pro-choice abortion in illegal in some countries so don’t hide behind the US laws.

And as I have said to you in this and other threads, we All interpretate Scripture.

And as I have said this isnt interpretion of scripture but disbelief an denial.
Repeating your denial of my statement that abortion is murder does no more for your argument than mine.

The key here is that the pro-choice argument does not interpret the scriptures such as Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah, it disbelieves them. If God knows and has plans for people before they are in the womb, and knits them together in the womb, there no possibility for terminating it! That a human might consider it not viable due to whatever criteria the human dreams up is disbelief.

Let me leave you with this. Someone who decides that the murder of an abortion doctor, so as to save so many babies lives, is in fact making just as bad as decision. Notice, ‘just as bad’.

 

[Archivist]

Firstly in many countries in the world pro-choice abortion is not legal, abortions can only take place where life is threatened. So you’re ‘my country is bigger than your country’ approach to what is legal or not, is not very helpful.

Only about 25% of the world's population lives in countries where abortion is banned or restricted to situations where the mother's life is in danger, so this is hardly a "my country is bigger than your country approach" as you claim.

The issue would depend on whether the abortion was seen as terminating human life or a human being.

No, the issue is whether there is an unlawful killing.

To the second point, there is no interpretation at all, that’s liberalism making assumptions.

In other words, my interpretation is an assumption; your interpretation is the only valid interpretation?

There is no direct support or condemnation, but if God knows people before the womb and knits them together in the womb then how can you say abortion is not destroying what God knows and has plans for? No I don’t accept that.

Then why does scripture tell us that if I hit a woman and cause her to suffer a miscarriage it isn't murder?

As hown it is not a strawman, pro-choice abortion in illegal in some countries so don’t hide behind the US laws.

I'm not "hiding" behind US laws--I'm looking at the laws that apply to to vast majority of the world's population.

And as I have said this isnt interpretion of scripture but disbelief an denial.

So that which disagrees with your interpretation is "disbelief and denial."

Repeating your denial of my statement that abortion is murder does no more for your argument than mine.

Once again, definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought."

The key here is that the pro-choice argument does not interpret the scriptures such as Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah, it disbelieves them. If God knows and has plans for people before they are in the womb, and knits them together in the womb, there no possibility for terminating it! That a human might consider it not viable due to whatever criteria the human dreams up is disbelief.

Just as your argument ignores Exodus 21:22.

Let me leave you with this. Someone who decides that the murder of an abortion doctor, so as to save so many babies lives, is in fact making just as bad as decision. Notice, ‘just as bad’.

The difference is that killing the abortion doctor is murder; abortion, for the vast majority of the world's population, is not.

 

[Phinehas2]

Archivist,

Only about 25% of the world's population lives in countries where abortion is banned or restricted to situations where the mother's life is in danger, so this is hardly a "my country is bigger than your country approach" as you claim.

It is exactly that, this 25% statement merely re-affirms it. And by the way a significant number of Americans are against pro-choice abortion as well.
The issue would depend on whether the abortion was seen as terminating human life or a human being.

No, the issue is whether there is an unlawful killing.

No, its not about that, that’s your argument hiding behind a unjust law. The laws of abortion in countries are based on when the act is or isn’t viable. In some countries they abort after the US law thinks the life is viable. However the pro-choice argument merely hides behind its own country’s laws and turns a blind eye to the subjectivity in other country’s laws and then has the audacity to attack the pro-life position.

In other words, my interpretation is an assumption; your interpretation is the only valid interpretation?

<edit>

Then why does scripture tell us that if I hit a woman and cause her to suffer a miscarriage it isn't murder?

The question was to you, you have replied with a question. As to your point it doesn’t tell us its murder you have assumed that (from a original act that nonetheless carries a punishment)

I'm not "hiding" behind US laws--I'm looking at the laws that apply to vast majority of the world's population.

No, they don’t agree with the US laws, there are different times involved, and many in the US are against pro-choice abortion.

So that which disagrees with your interpretation is "disbelief and denial."

<edit>

Once again, definition of murder: "The unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought."

Once again the Nazi’s treated killing Jews as lawful, but it was unlawful in other countries. You are happy to hide behind certain human laws at the expense of other human laws and ignore God’s word.

Just as your argument ignores Exodus 21:22.

No it doesn’t, the act involved in Exodus 21:22 is where men fight and the fruit of the woman’s womb departs prematurely. This might mean a miscarriage or a premature birth. The passage then continues to pay a small penalty if there no serious harm, or an eye for an eye if there is. One may interpret this to mean if it’s a miscarriage the life lost should cause the men to lose their lives, or if it’s a premature birth and things are ok it is just a fine.
Assumption, and since when have your arguments relied on OT law?

The difference is that killing the abortion doctor is murder

So is pro-chocie abortion as shown. But according to your 'interpretation', but not according to another’s 'interpretation', Exodus 21:22 could be 'interpreted' both ways. Why do you talk about 'interpretation' and then expect others to have the same 'interpretation' as you?

 

[catherineh]

This topic continues to trouble me -- precisely because scripture is so vague. I assume we can all agree that abortion is a terrible event. But I cannot find any compelling evidence in scripture that it is forbidden. Which leads me to wonder why God is so silent on this subject since He is so explicit on less critical matters.

I find that the pro-life stance is usually based on emotion, weak scripture references and, quite often, a Catholic upbringing. I am not moved to a conclusion by either argument (pro or con), but I have difficulty equating existence in the womb with life in this world.

I find there is a sort of self-righteousness in those who choose their pro-life beliefs -- not based on scripture but on their "feelings." I wish as much time was spent loving their neighbors as is spent puffing their chests on this subject.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Scripture isnt vague, there are 3 passages given that describe God knowing and creating people in the womb and even before. As God created man and woman to multiply there would have to be some pretty direct scriptural support for abortion before even a consideration could take place.

 

[Archivist]

Scripture isnt vague, there are 3 passages given that describe God knowing and creating people in the womb and even before. As God created man and woman to multiply there would have to be some pretty direct scriptural support for abortion before even a consideration could take place.

But Scripture is vague. Yes there are three instances of Scripture saying that God knew people in the womb. However Exodus 21:22 seems to say that a fetus is worth less than a person in being.

 

[Cain Spencer]

But Scripture is vague. Yes there are three instances of Scripture saying that God knew people in the womb. However Exodus 21:22 seems to say that a fetus is worth less than a person in being.

No, that scripture is there for one reason only (and not to value the life) it is there for them to know what is to be done should that life be accidently/ deliberately killed.

 

[Archivist]

No, that scripture is there for one reason only (and not to value the life) it is there for them to know what is to be done should that life be accidently/ deliberately killed.

Yes, and the valuation of the fetus is less than that of a person in being.

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

 

[Cain Spencer]

Yes, and the valuation of the fetus is less than that of a person in being.

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

Interpretation is not needed here, just a little common logic... the scripture is blantanly there for people to come to a resolve should this incident happen.

 

[Archivist]

Interpretation is not needed here, just a little common logic... the scripture is blantanly there for people to come to a resolve should this incident happen.

Yes, and the Scripture clearly values a fetus as less than a person in being.

I stand by what I said--Scripture is vague on the issue of abortion.

 

[Cain Spencer]

Yes, and the Scripture clearly values a fetus as less than a person in being.

But you have got the wrong end of the stick there, the scripture is there for the purpose of educating people on the "action to take" after the event. That is why it was written, you know that but you are stretching the meaning as far as you can until it meets your theology.

I stand by what I said--Scripture is vague on the issue of abortion.

That's your mian point? But that is the way you interpretate it only because you are in belief of abortion? Can you see the plank there or is it only a spec to you?

Come on now, but be bought by biasness.

 

[Archivist]

But you have got the wrong end of the stick there, the scripture is there for the purpose of educating people on the "action to take" after the event. That is why it was written, you know that but you are stretching the meaning as far as you can until it meets your theology.

I'm not stretching anything. Traditional Jewish law, relying on that verse, holds that a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a partial life.

That's your mian point? But that is the way you interpretate it only because you are in belief of abortion? Can you see the plank there or is it only a spec to you?

Come on now, but be bought by biasness.

And you view, of course, isn't biased at all...

 

[Cain Spencer]

I'm not stretching anything.

No?

Traditional Jewish law, relying on that verse,

...oh really? Show me a source for that... do you have one, or maybe someone told you? Where did you get that idea from?

holds that a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb.

Jews did not believe that. Why do you think that?

Before then, the fetus is considered a partial life.

According to...?

And you view, of course, isn't biased at all...

No, simply because I am seeing the verse in the way of which it was written... I am not adding to the subject.

 

[Archivist]

No?

If anyone is stretching anything here it is you.

...oh really? Show me a source for that... do you have one, or maybe someone told you? Where did you get that idea from?

I attended a seminar several years ago where thsi was addressed by several Jewish scholars from Yeshiva University. Check out thsi link: Abortion in Jewish Law

Jews did not believe that. Why do you think that?

Maybe you should take timer to learn the facts before saying such things. As the material that I provided states "As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna, if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other." (Emphasis added)

If you have sources that say otherwise please provide them.

No, simply because I am seeing the verse in the way of which it was written... I am not adding to the subject.

According to your interpretation.

 

[Cain Spencer]

If anyone is stretching anything here it si you.



I attended a seminar several years ago where thsi was addressed by several Jewish scholars from Yeshiva University. Check out thsi link: Abortion in Jewish Law



Maybe you should take timer to learn the facts before saying such things. As the material that I provided states "As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer6 after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna,7 if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other."

If you have sources that say otherwise please provide them.



According to your interpretation.

Well, isn't this going far? It would be interesting for a start if you could prove first of all that there was such a thing as abortion back in biblical times, since you would need to rely on that and not to mention the fact that all of Judaism today is a entire reform of the ancient religion it once was.

Stick to the verse, not politics that didn't exist back when the line was written.

 

[Archivist]

Well, isn't this going far? It would be interesting for a start if you could prove first of all that there was such a thing as abortion back in biblical times, since you would need to rely on that and not to mention the fact that all of Judaism today is a entire reform of the ancient religion it once was.

Stick to the verse, not politics that didn't exist back when the line was written.

Yes, there was abortion in ancient times. Wikipedia, under History of Abortion, states the following: "The practice of abortion dates back to ancient times. Pregnancies were terminated through a number of methods, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques." For more detail you might want to read the book "Marriage and Family in the Biblical World."

The verse from Exodus 21:22 was applied as I stated in ancient times; it isn't a matter of modern politics.

I'm still waiting for any evidence to the contrary. This far I've seen nothing but opinion from you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Archivist,
Are people really allowed their interpretation? What about those who killed the doctor? Do you mean people are allowed their interpretaion as long as it fits the law so long as the law fits your interpretation?

 

[Archivist]

Are people really allowed their interpretation? What about those who killed the doctor? Do you mean people are allowed their interpretaion as long as it fits the law so long as the law fits your interpretation?

I never said anywhere that those who kill abortion doctors should be allowed to do so if it fits their interpretation of Scripture. That would clearly be a violation of the Commandment not to kill.

However, the fact is that we all interprete Scripture. One reason why there are so many different Christian denominations is becasue we all have differing interpretations.