Is the Fetus a Human Being?

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since I believe thst Jesus is God Incarnate and was formed in the womb, all stages of development of the body in the womb from conception to birth are sanctified human life. Since God was once a one celled zygote I don't understand how a Christian wouldn't recognize the sanctity of any human in the same stages of growth. Abortion is anti Incarnation of God.
Boom!
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm a Lutheran, so the answer is easy. I was born dead, made alive in baptism and adopted as a child of God.

In Lutheranism the emphasis is on redemption, not creation. You put creation first you make an idol out of your ideas of God instead of how God has revealed himself in Christ.
Actually historic Christianity has always focused first on the Incarnation.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Of course English translations vary. That's why the English isn't considered inspired.
And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?

Rather, we have to look at the Hebrew.

The noun yeled, refers to something born (boy, child, fruit, son, etc.) http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3206.htm

This is the same term used of other infants and children, such as Lamech's sons, David's young infant, the boy Elijah brought back to life, etc.
I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.

The verb yatsa is to go out or come forth, such as water coming forth from the rock. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3318.htm

Note that nothing in the Hebrew requires that the child is coming out dead (miscarriage.) Nothing in it requires that the child definitely come out alive. The woman's child coming forth as induced by the blow she received could potentially result in the child dying OR the child living.
Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.

The rest of the verse deals with those two potential outcomes. If 'ason' happens (harm, mischief) because of this then the man must pay in equal measure. Hence, if the child dies, the man dies. If the mother dies, the man dies. If the child lives but with a foot maimed, the man has his foot maimed. If the mother loses an eye, he loses an eye. Etc.

But if no harm comes to the mother or her delivered child, then the man pays a fine as determined by the husband.
I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ubicaritas
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?


I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.


Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.


I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.

Abortion was widely illegal in the past in many states in the US not so much because the Protestant majority took principled religious or moral stands but because many other things we consider perfectly innocent today, such as birth control or sex education, were also illegal. Society was much more patriarchal and considered women better pregnant and in the kitchen, and talking about the human body was considered obscene.

The Puritans in New England actually permitted abortion until the time of quickening, or when the fetus moved, and this was actually common in many Protestant countries in Europe, such as in England.

Judaism has no absolute ban on abortion in all cases in its tradition, in fact in conservative Judaism it is widely recognized that it may be considered an option for instance in severe genetic conditions such as Taye-Sachs, a horrible fatal genetic disease that occurs mostly among Ashkenazic Jews.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And what does the Hebrew say in Jeremiah 8:8?


I have no problem with any of this. Nor do I have a problem with a 'still born' child being dead in a miscarriage. I think that fits the Hebrew and the RSV.


Either way a 'fine' is imposed. But if the woman dies from the blow then it is life for life. That is how it was interpreted long ago, before abortion became a hot button topic. That's what I learned when studying it in 1972 anyway.


I do see how you get that interpretation, but I also see how the RSV got miscarriage which doesn't mean 'born early' as NIV says. And that changes 'our' assumptions about how we "rightly divide" the rest of those two verses.
Miscarriage or still born is shakol. Which does not appear in the passage:

Actually what we see is the first recorded fetal homicide law. Here's why:

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

The 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.

Therefore to rightly divide here, the fine and punishment is based on the state of the offspring.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Abortion was widely illegal in the past in many states in the US not so much because the Protestant majority took principled religious or moral stands but because many other things we consider perfectly innocent today, such as birth control or sex education, were also illegal. Society was much more patriarchal and considered women better pregnant and in the kitchen, and talking about the human body was considered obscene.

The Puritans in New England actually permitted abortion until the time of quickening, or when the fetus moved, and this was actually common in many Protestant countries in Europe, such as in England.

Judaism has no absolute ban on abortion in all cases in its tradition, in fact in conservative Judaism it is widely recognized that it may be considered an option for instance in severe genetic conditions such as Taye-Sachs, a horrible fatal genetic disease that occurs mostly among Ashkenazic Jews.
Then modern science caught up with the Puritans.

Again we are without excuse now.
 
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
"If any mischief follow" is not refering to fetal homicide but to the death or injury of the adult people in the altercation.

"If her fruit depart from her" could easily be understood as refering to miscarriage, and is the obvious sense since a blow to the abdomen of a pregnant woman could well cause a miscarriage (a common, but dangerous way that illegal abortions were done on the cheap pre Roe, and even increasingly today among desperate people living in certain areas). Satisfaction is made in money, not in blood, in this case.
 
Last edited:
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

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Then modern science caught up with the Puritans..

Modern science has no say on if or when a human being has a soul or what the moral worth of a human life is. That is a philosophical or ethical question . Stop pretending to have some kind of scientific high ground here.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Since I believe thst Jesus is God Incarnate and was formed in the womb, all stages of development of the body in the womb from conception to birth are sanctified human life. Since God was once a one celled zygote I don't understand how a Christian wouldn't recognize the sanctity of any human in the same stages of growth. Abortion is anti Incarnation of God.

Beautiful thinking, and honestly, I never thought about the issue through the doctrine of the incarnation, which should have crossed my mind. Thank you for bringing this to attention, God bless!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Modern science has no say on if or when a human being has a soul or what the moral worth of a human life is. That is a philosophical or ethical question . Stop pretending to have some kind of scientific high ground here.

Here we go, categorizing God out of Science, as though He did not create everything we call Science. And it seems a common trait in man is the tendency towards in the words of the serpent "you will become like God knowing good and evil". So man is ever ashamed of God and ever seeking to stand in His sovereign stead.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Here we go, categorizing God out of Science, as though He did not create everything we call Science. And it seems a common trait in man is the tendency towards in the words of the serpent "you shall become like gods knowing good and evil". So man is ever ashamed of God and ever seeking to stand in His sovereign stead.

What you are talking about is religion masquerading as science, a kind of pseudoscience. Modern science is naturalistic and does not answer questions that are philosophical or religious in nature.

Your Calvinism is the root of your troubles, my friend. While you guys were busy closing down brothels and molly houses "For the glory of God" and imposing your theocratic vision on Geneva and Britain, we were busy making telescopes and looking to the planets and figuring out how the world really worked. Our religion told us how we find peace with God, not how to interpret the natural world.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Show me the Hebrew word miscarriage is in that passage. It’s not. Has nothing to do with politics. Has to do with the RSV not being accurate in that verse.
Can't do it, just like you can't show me 'born prematurely' in the Hebrew. That's why I don't rest on this one verse either.

I did look up all 24 verses of the word shakol though. That was a new one I must admit. But having read all of them I find most don't seem to talk about abortion at all, even though Strong's even defines it almost solely as the definition. And when I checked the RSV I did find that it also did define shakol as a miscarriage of sorts. But it also blames God in that same verse. Hmmm so is God pro abortion or just Hosea wishing He was?

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O LORD -- what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying/shakol womb and dry breasts.

Let me ask you a question; Are you a dichotomist or a trichotomist, when defining a human being? The reason I ask is because all of your 'Princeton' and medical support for definition of a "zygote" or "embryo" or "person hood" all seem to miss some things in 'biblical' proportions which no one has so far even mentioned, let alone addressed.
 
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
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟107,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What you are talking about is religion masquerading as science, a kind of pseudoscience. Modern science is naturalistic and does not answer questions that are philosophical or religious in nature.

Science is nothing without philosophy. In fact if you were to study the history of Science, you would understand that Science is rooted in philosophy, and cannot operate apart from philosophy, and in fact "naturalism" is also a philosophy of Science. The Scientific Method absolutely depends on deductive reasoning, it depends on logic, which happens to be a branch of philosophy. So please spare us the "religion masquerading as science" tropes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Modern science has no say on if or when a human being has a soul or what the moral worth of a human life is. That is a philosophical or ethical question . Stop pretending to have some kind of scientific high ground here.
The burden of proof is in your side of the court. You have to establish why a fetus is not a human being and why it does not have a soul.

Then when you come to terms with your view ask the question....Was Jesus of Nazareth as much a human being as we are at conception? If not there are a few historical heresies we could discuss.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Abortion was widely illegal in the past in many states in the US not so much because the Protestant majority took principled religious or moral stands but because many other things we consider perfectly innocent today, such as birth control or sex education, were also illegal. Society was much more patriarchal and considered women better pregnant and in the kitchen, and talking about the human body was considered obscene.

The Puritans in New England actually permitted abortion until the time of quickening, or when the fetus moved, and this was actually common in many Protestant countries in Europe, such as in England.

Judaism has no absolute ban on abortion in all cases in its tradition, in fact in conservative Judaism it is widely recognized that it may be considered an option for instance in severe genetic conditions such as Taye-Sachs, a horrible fatal genetic disease that occurs mostly among Ashkenazic Jews.
Interesting points I've never heard of before also. But I suppose none of this really is a 'lock down' as to what we're all discussing tonight either IMO. What did the Puritans and Judists base their 'actions' upon I wonder?

And it is time for this poster to hit the hay.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"If any mischief follow" is not refering to fetal homicide but to the death or injury of the adult people in the altercation.

"If her fruit depart from her" could easily be understood as refering to miscarriage, and is the obvious sense since a blow to the abdomen of a pregnant woman could well cause a miscarriage (a common, but dangerous way that illegal abortions were done on the cheap pre Roe, and even increasingly today among desperate people living in certain areas). Satisfaction is made in money, not in blood, in this case.
Show me miscarriage in the Hebrew text.

The fines and punishments can apply to both woman and child as the text says no mischief follows.

If shakol appeared in the text you would have an argument for miscarriage or still birth or even forced abortion. Alas it does not exist.

See above post where I give an example of miscarriage used two chapters later.
 
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

ubicaritas

sinning boldly
Jul 22, 2017
1,842
1,071
Orlando
✟68,398.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
The burden of proof is in your side of the court. You have to establish why a fetus is not a human being and why it does not have a soul.

Actually, I don't. Those things are irrelevant to questions of law and also to some extent, ethics (there are secular pro-choice arguments that do acknowledge that the fetus may be a person, but still does not have rights to a womb). It is widely recognized by experts in Constitutional Law that there is no concept of fetal personhood within the Constitution. Antonin Scalia himself said "person" in the Constitution refers to people who "walk around", not fetuses. If you want it otherwise, you must come up with a Constitutional ammendment declaring it so.

Then when you come to terms with your view ask the question....Was Jesus of Nazareth as much a human being as we are at conception? If not there are a few historical heresies we could discuss.

According to the Nicene and Chalcedonian theology, a divine person took upon himself a human nature. Jesus was not a human person, and to say otherwise is a christological heresy.
 
Upvote 0