Why do some Christians claim that the Bible is pro-life, when it is clearly not?

Brother Billy said:

By "keeping" I meant recording all the laws that God had revealed to them. I didn't mean obeying the laws

Click to expand...

Kaon said:

It was something that affected women with a child - to expose conception product via adultery.

Since men didn't [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in a condom, and had bare sex (same as today, despite having prophylaxis) adultery could be tested by giving the woman something that would make her sick if she was pregnant; a woman without child wouldn't react.

It doesn't necessarily say, nor imply that the Most High God let the priests murder babies; they simply exposed a couple's fornications.

Click to expand...

Brother Billy said:

There are three reasons why I think that the Bible is not pro-life:

1)The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion

Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws and regulations ranging from sacrifices to the Lord, diet…childbirth, children’s relationship with parents, women’s uncleanness, offerings to the Lord after childbirth, nakedness, clothing, sexual relations, adultery, rape, marriage, slavery…etc. If God really thought that abortion was such a grave sin, why did he not also add abortion to this list? Just think of the number of abortions that might have been prevented if God made this clear to humanity?

2)God provides a test for unfaithfulness that, if positive, will abort her baby if she is pregnant

Numbers 5:11-29 describes what is known as the "Ordeal of Bitter Water". If a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, then she will be given a potion of "bitter water" to drink. If she is innocent, then she will not be harmed. However if she is guilty, then "her belly will swell and her thigh will rot". "Thigh" is a euphemism for uterus. If she had been unfaithful, then she might also be pregnant. In fact, her falling pregnant might have lead her husband to believe that she had been unfaithful, especially if they had infrequent or no sex recently. This "test" would therefore abort her fetus if it belonged to another man.

Note that the effectiveness of the Ordeal or the method by which it works (i.e. by oath/curse or an by abortifacient) is not relevant here. What is relevant here is the objective of this "test" and its consequences for her fetus (if she is pregnant). If God was against abortion, why would he devise such a "test"?

3)The Mosaic Laws (from God), don't consider a fetus to be a person

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV) says:
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage therefore prescribes death for someone who accidentally kills a pregnant mother, however if only her fetus is accidentally killed (while she is unharmed), then the perpetrator only gets a fine. This implies that the life of a fetus is worth less than it's mother. If both were considered people, then the penalty should be death in both cases, but this is not the case. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Therefore abortion cannot be murder (in terms of the Mosaic Laws).

The above interpretation/translation is consistent with the consensus held by Jewish scholars since the time of Moses. Most English versions of the Bible agree with this, including the NRSV, NIV (see footnote), RSV, AMPC, CEB, CJB, CEV, DRA, EXB, GNT, JUB, TLB, MSG, NABRE, NLV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSVCE and WYC.

However apologists dispute the interpretation/translation of verse 22 above. Instead of miscarriage, they claim verse 22 should be translated as: “If men fight with each other and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely and the baby lives, yet there is no further injury, the one who hurt her must be punished with a fine paid to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges decide". This in turn, they claim, shows that the penalty for killing either the woman or her unborn baby is death and so the Bible places the same value on the life of the woman and her unborn baby, and so abortion is murder. My response to this is:

• I find it bizarre that apologists would reject the consensus view of the ancient Hebrew scholars who were in the best position to understand the language and cultural context of the text that Exodus 21:22 was originally written in.
  
• Also if the injury causes a miscarriage of a fetus that is only a few weeks old, the only visible consequence is likely to be a bloody discharge. If there is no visible body, how then is " life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." to be applied? It doesn't make sense.
• A blunt blow severe enough to induce premature labor would also have a high chance of causing severe injuries to the fetus. Also the lungs of a fetus for most of the pregnancy are usually insufficiently developed to allow it to survive outside the womb. In the days before modern medical science, virtually all premature births under these circumstances would result in the death of the fetus. Why make an outcome, which is very unlikely to occur, the main subject of a law? Usually it is the most likely outcome that is the main subject of a law - any unlikely outcomes are either mentioned afterwards or ignored.
  
• The following link provides a rigorous analysis of the Hebrew text that this passage was written in: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7753/f08b4403fde53865cb58a30812f0be3b318d.pdf This paper concludes that the initial interpretation/translation stated in the NRSV above is correct.

________________________
Please note the following:
- I'm not claiming that the Bible says the fetus is unimportant, only that it was worth less than a person
- I am NOT advocating that abortion should be allowed. In fact, my own personal opinion is that human life begins at conception, human life is precious and it should be protected. Abortion should only be allowed where the mother's life is in danger.

Click to expand...

Daniel Marsh said:

The ordeal has more to do with her Conscience, not medical science.

Click to expand...

Brother Billy said:

There are three reasons why I think that the Bible is not pro-life:

1)The Bible never explicitly condemns abortion

Exodus and Leviticus have extensive lists of laws and regulations ranging from sacrifices to the Lord, diet…childbirth, children’s relationship with parents, women’s uncleanness, offerings to the Lord after childbirth, nakedness, clothing, sexual relations, adultery, rape, marriage, slavery…etc. If God really thought that abortion was such a grave sin, why did he not also add abortion to this list? Just think of the number of abortions that might have been prevented if God made this clear to humanity?

2)God provides a test for unfaithfulness that, if positive, will abort her baby if she is pregnant

Numbers 5:11-29 describes what is known as the "Ordeal of Bitter Water". If a man suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, then she will be given a potion of "bitter water" to drink. If she is innocent, then she will not be harmed. However if she is guilty, then "her belly will swell and her thigh will rot". "Thigh" is a euphemism for uterus. If she had been unfaithful, then she might also be pregnant. In fact, her falling pregnant might have lead her husband to believe that she had been unfaithful, especially if they had infrequent or no sex recently. This "test" would therefore abort her fetus if it belonged to another man.

Note that the effectiveness of the Ordeal or the method by which it works (i.e. by oath/curse or an by abortifacient) is not relevant here. What is relevant here is the objective of this "test" and its consequences for her fetus (if she is pregnant). If God was against abortion, why would he devise such a "test"?

3)The Mosaic Laws (from God), don't consider a fetus to be a person

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV) says:
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage therefore prescribes death for someone who accidentally kills a pregnant mother, however if only her fetus is accidentally killed (while she is unharmed), then the perpetrator only gets a fine. This implies that the life of a fetus is worth less than it's mother. If both were considered people, then the penalty should be death in both cases, but this is not the case. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person. Therefore abortion cannot be murder (in terms of the Mosaic Laws).

The above interpretation/translation is consistent with the consensus held by Jewish scholars since the time of Moses. Most English versions of the Bible agree with this, including the NRSV, NIV (see footnote), RSV, AMPC, CEB, CJB, CEV, DRA, EXB, GNT, JUB, TLB, MSG, NABRE, NLV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSVCE and WYC.

However apologists dispute the interpretation/translation of verse 22 above. Instead of miscarriage, they claim verse 22 should be translated as: “If men fight with each other and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely and the baby lives, yet there is no further injury, the one who hurt her must be punished with a fine paid to the woman’s husband, as much as the judges decide". This in turn, they claim, shows that the penalty for killing either the woman or her unborn baby is death and so the Bible places the same value on the life of the woman and her unborn baby, and so abortion is murder. My response to this is:

• I find it bizarre that apologists would reject the consensus view of the ancient Hebrew scholars who were in the best position to understand the language and cultural context of the text that Exodus 21:22 was originally written in.
  
• Also if the injury causes a miscarriage of a fetus that is only a few weeks old, the only visible consequence is likely to be a bloody discharge. If there is no visible body, how then is " life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." to be applied? It doesn't make sense.
• A blunt blow severe enough to induce premature labor would also have a high chance of causing severe injuries to the fetus. Also the lungs of a fetus for most of the pregnancy are usually insufficiently developed to allow it to survive outside the womb. In the days before modern medical science, virtually all premature births under these circumstances would result in the death of the fetus. Why make an outcome, which is very unlikely to occur, the main subject of a law? Usually it is the most likely outcome that is the main subject of a law - any unlikely outcomes are either mentioned afterwards or ignored.
  
• The following link provides a rigorous analysis of the Hebrew text that this passage was written in: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7753/f08b4403fde53865cb58a30812f0be3b318d.pdf This paper concludes that the initial interpretation/translation stated in the NRSV above is correct.

________________________
Please note the following:
- I'm not claiming that the Bible says the fetus is unimportant, only that it was worth less than a person
- I am NOT advocating that abortion should be allowed. In fact, my own personal opinion is that human life begins at conception, human life is precious and it should be protected. Abortion should only be allowed where the mother's life is in danger.

Click to expand...