I agree there is not an explicitly verse that states abortion is immoral. There are also dozens of other contemporary moral issues that the Bible does not directly address, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important or that Christians cannot derive an appropriate understanding of their morality by drawing upon Biblical principles.
...
We have anything but a clear example showing what you claim. The fact that you are incapable of showing a single other passage demonstrates this. The fact that you can’t present a single Biblical commentary that supports you demonstrates this. The bottom line is that you have to take this passage out of context, (which I’ve already demonstrated how so I’m not doing it again), to prove your point.
As our friend dad has pointed out, there are plenty of examples of the Bible saying that we should love the little children. But there are none at all saying that we should value fetuses. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that the Bible sees nothing wrong with abortion, particularly as we have this example which shows no concern whatsoever for the loss of (who knows how many?) unborn children who, as a result of Numbers 5, apparently perish. The onus is now on your to prove that the Bible does value fetuses. I'm afraid there's simply no way you can get around it: a woman being given a drink which will cause her to miscarry is abortion, by definition; that's all there is to say.
Personhood is a made up and entirely subjective and arbitrary term used by people for the sole purpose of justifying and action against a “non-person” that would otherwise be considered immoral.
If we're going to do this, then please, let's try to put aside feelings and follow the evidence and arguments. There's nothing wrong with saying, "You make some interesting points. I'll have to think it over." I promise not to gloat.
If you're a person, then "personhood" is merely the consideration of what makes you one. You may wish to check out this debate on whether abortion before a fetus has a functioning brain is wrong (if you're interested, this one was actually put to a vote at the end, and the pro-choice side won).
Debate Issue: Abortion Before a Fetus Has a Functioning Brain is Not Wrong | Debate.org
To paraphrase the opening argument:
1. Where does personhood reside? In the brain. If your brain is damaged, your personality is damaged. If your brain is destroyed, but your body continues working, then you are dead, even if your heart is still beating.
2. Therefore, the qualification for personhood is the capacity for thought (not the presence of thought, but the capacity; you don't cease to be a person if you fall asleep, or even if you are comatose, because the capacity for thought still exists).
3. To quote: "...if one considered a situation with two people (Jeff and Clara) and a transplant surgery that moved Jeff's brain to Clara's body, nobody seriously believes that Clara's body retains Clara's personality. Indeed, it is obvious that the situation would be that Jeff's personality has moved to Clara's body. In fact, it would be more accurate to refer to the entity that inhabits Clara's body as "Jeff" and to consider that person to BE Jeff, but simply in a different "container."
4. To quote again: Imagine "...a Frankenstein-like entity on a table, constructed from the material from dead people. Even if it was inevitable or highly likely that he would be brought to life (suppose there is an automated process that will bring him to life in 20 mins), it would be in no way wrong to stop this process from happening, or to even disassemble this entity back into its original components before it did."
5. After considering this, we can see that a fetus lacks a brain, and has never had a brain. It is, therefore, no more a person than a brain-dead body, or the hypothetical subject of a brain transplant, as it lacks the ability to think or to be aware. It is not a person, but a potential person. Aborting a fetus is no murder; no person yet exists to have been killed.
Interestingly enough, abortion was not considered immoral by non-Catholic Christians until recently. In 1979, for example, Christianity Today had this to say:
"God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul."
And this was entirely typical of thought at the time, and perfectly sensible as well. You have said that abortion is obviously wrong, and that all Christians agree on this, but until recently you would have been very much on your own on this issue, and the only reason the spokespeople for Christianity changed their minds is for political advantage.
Really? Because I’ve yet to see William Lane Craig ever lose a debate against an atheist.
You have missed the Craig-Carroll debate, then. Craig was up against an actual professional cosmologist who knows what he's talking about, and was exposed as the amateur he is.
The simple fact is, for all Christian apologists love to say that there is "overwhelming evidence" for God and Jesus, it's only Christians who agree with them. Serious historians and cosmologists just ignore their books and speeches (which are never written up as peer-reviewed articles, of course). If apologists actually had real and compelling evidence for their arguments, they'd be winning Nobel prizes, rather than preaching sermons about Goldilocks and Kalam to reassure the flock.
