Abortion Discussion

[Nic Samojluk]

However, it is clear by science and the way God has revealed Himself to us through nature; that life does not begin at the moment of conception nor that an egg with a sperm cell in it is a person.

When does human life begin, according to your personal opinion?

If the unborn is not alive, how come it moves, sucks its thumb, and grows?

If it is not alive, why the need to poison it or dismember its body?

Do you kill a dead dog? Do you attempt to kill a dead insect?

You need to consult a biology textbook. It says clearly that human life begins at conception.

 

[Julie.S]

It seemed that someone was implying that you are serving two masters by making your own decisions.

Oh yes indeed it did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When does human life begin, according to your personal opinion?

If the unborn is not alive, how come it moves, sucks its thumb, and grows?

If it is not alive, why the need to poison it or dismember its body?

Do you kill a dead dog? Do you attempt to kill a dead insect?

You need to consult a biology textbook. It says clearly that human life begins at conception.

It all depends upon how you define a "human being". Yes you can find definitions that put life as beginning at conception. But we are talking about much more than life here. Your argument amounts to just being an equivocation error.

 

[Cearbhall]

I think the Catholic Church is targeted for its anti gay and anti abortion stance, because this conveniently masks some of its more positive or pro social political moral and ethical teachings, etc.

I don't know that there's any sort of agenda here, as you're implying, but I do wish that people (including many Catholics!) were more aware of Catholic social teaching. It was astonishing to see some Catholics get so bent out of shape when the Pope made comments about climate change, for example. And in other cases, many seem to think that the Catholic Church is all about capitalism. Do they not know their own church's teachings? I was raised Catholic and am no longer part of the Church, but I'm still a huge fan of most of their teachings on social justice.

 

[redleghunter]

What human life? You mean the one that was criminally forced into the woman? You're going to further force her to carry that life just because there is no other alternative to support it?

There is an alternative... You may not like it but there is an alternative and unfortunately it involves a decision of life or death.

The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.

And if you want to affect the lives of others the burden of proof that a fetus is a person with a soul is upon you. Otherwise it is a moral question for the victim to answer.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I was referring to life-threatening physical illness, but major mental conditions are physical illnesses. They are brain disorders. Postpartum depression is a serious complication of giving birth. It's treatable, but can be severe. The wife of a colleague of mine committed suicide about 10 weeks after her baby was born.

What is the incidence of severe mental depression? Is it one in a thousand, one in a million, one in ten million?

Should not laws take into account the pros and cons of implementing a particular rule? When abortion was legalized, the number of abortions mushrooms into a million and a half in the U.S. alone.

It got to the extreme that babies were being killed seconds prior to a complete delivery. This is what is defended by both Hillary and Sanders.

 

[Archivist]

If the "mother's right to choose" takes precedence then what protection can their be?

But under the law states can prohibit abortion after fetal viability, slightly before the end of the first trimester except in cases involving the life or health of the pregnant woman. That seems like a fairly significant protection for the fetus.

 

[Archivist]

That's still an emotional response to the situation and does not address how ending a human life which committed no crime to suffer the death penalty.

The only justified response to the rape is to punish the rapist. If someone shoots and kills the rapist, they will go to jail.

So in your scenario the rapist gets 7-10 in the state pen with chances of paroll early.

Yet the woman can act as judge, jury and executioner for human life which did no harm?

All of which ignores the fact that it is her body. To require her to carry her attackers spawn to term constitutes involuntary servitude, a violation of her constitutional rights. Do you believe on slavery in other cases or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[Archivist]

The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.

Then why don't you carry the fetus to term? Just leave the rape victim out if it.

 

[AirPo]

The crime does not spawn as a child. The offender is the rapist. The only justified response is to punish the offender. The conceived life is not the offender anymore than the civilians in the hospital the terrorists.

Shouldn't the victem be indemnified?

 

[Hank77]

The scholars who used miscarriage or still birth are clearly in error. They form a very small minority and have engaged in eisegesis, the method of interpreting scriptures with a bias.

In order to determine the exact meaning of a word in the Bible you need a literal word for word translation and look back at the Hebrew for Exodus 21. Those trying to use miscarriage or still born are likely using a dynamic equivalent or paraphrase translation and not a literal word for word translation.


The majority of scholars who ascribe to the Hebrew and Greek lexicon.

Here is the passage in question.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

he KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
   
   
2. child, children
   
   
3. descendants
   
   
4. youth

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren (2x), childless (2x), cast young (2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children (1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.

More here:

Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245

Abortion: Biblical exegesis of Exodus 21:22ff
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098322
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...r-for-the-babies.7922364/page-3#post-68987259
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-34#post-69060024
Abortion: The Mind of God on our humanity; How TaNaKh Jews viewed conception
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69090685
Is abortion Ethical for seculars:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/it-should-be-murder.7925104/page-33#post-69118203
Bitter water explained:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/pro-life-or-pro-choice.7934246/page-98#post-69342499

In all fairness to @KingDavid403 we need to be honest about how the Jews know their Hebrew language and the traditions that were pasted down by the oral law?
Rashi....
The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Ensoulment is not a halakhic issue, since full human status in Judaism pertains only at the birth of a full-term baby. The Hellenistic position and that of the early church stand in opposition to the position which developed in the Land of Israel and which became normative Jewish law. Although there was some tendency to accept the Hellenistic position by ascribing levels of vitality to the fetus, it never attained full human status. Consequently, abortion was never considered homicide in Jewish law.

The halakhic status of an embryo/fetus depends upon the stage of its development. From conception to the fortieth day, it is considered to be merely water. At three months the pregnancy is physically recognizable. Prior to labor the fetus is considered a “limb of its mother,” i.e. without independent legal status. During labor, before the head (or the majority of the body in a breech birth) is delivered, the fetus is considered a living being but one whose life is less valuable than the mother’s. After the head or the majority of the body is birthed, the fetus has a nearly equal status with the mother, especially if it is a full-term pregnancy. Only after a full-term pregnancy or survival of the premature fetus for thirty days does full human status adhere.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion

I believe that Adam Clarke had the correct understanding of this verse as it pertained to Jewish understanding and Jewish law.
And hurt a woman with child - As a posterity among the Jews was among the peculiar promises of their covenant, and as every man had some reason to think that the Messiah should spring from his family, therefore any injury done to a woman with child, by which the fruit of her womb might be destroyed, was considered a very heavy offense; and as the crime was committed principally against the husband, the degree of punishment was left to his discretion. But if mischief followed, that is, if the child had been fully formed, and was killed by this means, or the woman lost her life in consequence, then the punishment was as in other cases of murder - the person was put to death; Exo_21:23. [emphasis mine]
Clarke's Commentary
John Gill's Commentary sites the Targums as he often does.
so that her fruit depart from her; or, "her children go forth" (z), out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labour, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected:

and yet no mischief follow: to her, as the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra restrain it to the woman; and which mischief they interpret of death, as does also the Targum of Onkelos; but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them: now though there was none of any sort:[emphasis mine]

 

[PapaZoom]

Why must the woman carry her rapist's offspring? It was never her choice to be involved in a criminal violation of her body and whatever results of that is fully on the perpetrator. If anything... I say charge the rapist with murder if she decides to abort. It's his fault any of this happened anyway.

If a woman ends up pregnant as the victim of a rape and wants to carry that child to term, put it up for adoption or raise it herself, I have no problem with that. However, I would also never fault a woman who decides to end a pregnancy that she not only did not ever intend on having, but was criminally forced upon her.

you completely avoided the question

 

[Cearbhall]

If we incentivize adoption we'll only end up intensifying one of foster-care's biggest problems, too many so-called care-givers who are only in it for the money...

I'm not sure what you want to see happen, then. You don't want the population of foster care kids to go past a certain quota, but you don't want women to choose abortion...

I agree with you that people make mistakes about the potential of a baby to survive and live a normal life. I and three of my friends were children who could have been aborted had my parents known about my issues before birth or the other parents not adamantly opposed to the idea.

It is sad when the accuracy of these tests isn't communicated clearly.

 

[PapaZoom]

What dictionary are you using? I have never seen the word "innocent" used in the definition.

A fetus is human. It is not, however, a human life.

As to my personal opinion, I follow the Jewish view which is that it begins with the first breath. You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion.

One of the most unintelligent things I've ever read.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Our Pledge of Allegiance contains the following phrase which negates what you stated:

“Under God”

This means that Roe v Wade is null and void under the rulership of God. Your effort to get God out of our nation is futile.

The Pledge of Allegiance has no legal authority whatsoever. It is nothing more than a secular prayer for an inanimate object.

I think you're bible would actually call that idolatry.

 

[Cearbhall]

Our Pledge of Allegiance contains the following phrase which negates what you stated:

“Under God”

This means that Roe v Wade is null and void under the rulership of God. Your effort to get God out of our nation is futile.

How are you under the impression that a non-law can overrule a Supreme Court ruling?

 

[PapaZoom]

Life:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

Clearly a fetus is a life. What kind of life is a fetus? Its parents are human. Human parents beget human offspring. So a fetus is a human life. This is a biological fact. So why do some deny it?

ignorance

 

[PapaZoom]

not to mention arrogance

 

[GoldenBoy89]

you completely avoided the question

Because it is based off the criminal violation of the woman's body. If it is the result of a crime then the woman has no obligation to go through with the pregnancy and carry the offspring of her attacker.

None, whatsoever because that's not something she ever decided to be a part of. The fact that the product of such a crime is alive and cannot be carried by anyone else is just too bad for that baby. The woman still has no obligation to carry the sperm of a person who forced it into her.