Abortion Is Murder

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Do you believe the government and private agencies failing to provide care for rape victims and their kids in utero is immoral? That is the question.
Again, that question has 100% nothing to do with whether or not an abortion is moral or immoral. And I’m talking about abortion, not government assistance.

Do you just not get that the how in which an unborn baby comes into existence has no bearing upon their moral worth and value?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
SPF, I never said how a baby is conceived determines its moral worth and value. That is not related to an expecting mother being treated as if she herself has no moral worth and value. A baby is only as valuable as the mother carrying it regardless of how it is conceived.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
A baby is only as valuable as the mother carrying it regardless of how it is conceived.
Then why do you think it is morally acceptable at times to kill the baby? If they are equally valuable as you just said then if it’s morally acceptable to kill the baby at times it must also be morally acceptable to kill the mother at times then too, right?

Your inconsistent position is glaringly obvious.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
You are still dodging my question. If you can't answer it, admit you are wrong about the need to treat the mother as a morally valuable human being.

You keep saying abortion is not the solution. I am asking you, "What IS the solution?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You are still dodging my question. If you can't answer it, admit you are wrong about the need to treat the mother as a morally valuable human being.

You keep saying abortion is not the solution. I am asking you, "What IS the solution?
Sigh, you’re impossible. Your question is important, yet irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s important, but it’s a red herring.

Your question is important, yet the answer has absolutely, 100% nothing to do with the morality of abortion.

Learn to stay on topic.

You’re inconsistent. You’ve said that abortion in the case of a happily married woman with a perfectly healthy unborn baby would be wrong and immoral.

You say this because you acknowledge that the unborn are inherently morally valuable from fertilization.

This is a good and right position to hold.

The morality of abortion is entirely dependent upon how we understand the nature of the human being inside the womb. It has absolutely nothing to do with what government, tax payer funded programs are in place to support the mother.

Your inconsistency rears its inconsistent head when you then say that abortion in rape situations is morally acceptable.

The ONLY difference between the married, wealthy woman aborting her healthy unborn baby and the rape victim aborting her baby is the HOW in which the unborn baby came into existence.

Do you get it yet? You very much are arguing that the how in which an unborn baby is created determines the morality of killing it or not.

This position of yours is inconsistent. You’ve never been able to justify it on any of the abortion threads you’ve posted in.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I am done arguing with you about this. You are a brick wall on the topic.
And like so many pro-abortion advocates, you’re incapable of addressing the actual heart of the abortion topic.

So now because you refuse to employ intellectual integrity you will continue to hold an inconsistent view of abortion and wrongly believe that the how in which a baby is conceived can impact whether or not it is moral to kill them.

If you want to create a topic that deals with the issue of whether or not we should support a tax payer funded government program to support pregnant rape victims I would be more than happy to engage in that topic.

But as this thread is about the morality of abortion, I won’t be sucked down a rabbit trail . You should leave this topic if you’re not willing to engage in what the topic is about.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

JerseyChristianSuperstar

Active Member
Feb 25, 2018
141
159
26
New Jersey
✟70,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I believe in a woman's choice but make no mistake abortion is murder. Here is picture of what a fetus looks like at 10 weeks...tell me that is not a human. Now I believe in a woman's right to chose because of the 10 year old girl raped and gets pregnant and a Christian politician believes she should be forced to carry it. Or the 18 year old. Or the mother who can not carry to term. But as for convenience sake...its murder. If you are not a victim of rape and can safely carry to term you can adopt your child out. Heck there are people who want a child and would pay your medical bills and everything for the child. And when you give birth if you still do not want the child just tell the hospital you do not have to take that child home. I am saying this now because some people I know think I am for abortion. Sorry not a chance...I understand its not black and white but again look at the picture if you can look at that and say that's not a human being then your either a liar, or delusional.

Murder is the unjustified slaying of living human beings.

And according to the Bible, you only become a living human being when endowed with a soul.

Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God fully formed Adam, our first Parent, from dust that was lying around in the Garden of Eden; He transformed dust into a mature, grown human body. But this human did not become a living being until God created and infused a soul within him, when He "breathed into his nostrils" the breath of life, a soul.

"Life begins at conception" is a popular slogan, but it isn't Biblical; the Bible says life begins at ensoulment.

And there is no reason to think that fetuses, at least in the early stages (first and second trimesters) have souls, and are living beings.

Exodus 21:22-25 - "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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

If two or more men are fighting and severely hurt a pregnant woman so hard that she has a miscarriage — "that her fruit departs from her" — then he shall pay monetary compensation as punishment. However, only if the pregnant woman dies alongside the fetus, then the offenders shall be given the death penalty — "thou shalt give life for life" — as penalty for killing a living human being.

If abortion were equivalent to murder, then the penalty would be the same only if the unborn died, but the pregnant mother lived. It isn't, you pay a fine for killing the fetus, and you suffer capital punishment if and only if the woman also dies.

This isn't to say that abortion is permissible at any stage of pregnancy.

In Luke 1, when Elizabeth was six months pregnant with her future son John the Baptist, the babe leaped in my womb for joy when he heard the voice of Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus, which indicates a soul in my mind.

I would say that abortion should be illegal starting at six-months gestation and any period afterworld, unless the physical life of the mother is in very serious jeopardy.

66% of pro-choice Americans oppose abortion in the third trimester, and I'm one of them. That is pretty much when viability starts.

Before that, the woman should have the ability to make the choice.

 
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

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Murder is the unjustified slaying of living human beings.

And according to the Bible, you only become a living human being when endowed with a soul.

Genesis 2:7 - And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God fully formed Adam, our first Parent, from dust that was lying around in the Garden of Eden; He transformed dust into a mature, grown human body. But this human did not become a living being until God created and infused a soul within him, when He "breathed into his nostrils" the breath of life, a soul.

"Life begins at conception" is a popular slogan, but it isn't Biblical; the Bible says life begins at ensoulment.

And there is no reason to think that fetuses, at least in the early stages (first and second trimesters) have souls, and are living beings.

Exodus 21:22-25 - "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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

If two or more men are fighting and severely hurt a pregnant woman so hard that she has a miscarriage — "that her fruit departs from her" — then he shall pay monetary compensation as punishment. However, only if the pregnant woman dies alongside the fetus, then the offenders shall be given the death penalty — "thou shalt give life for life" — as penalty for killing a living human being.

If abortion were equivalent to murder, then the penalty would be the same only if the unborn died, but the pregnant mother lived. It isn't, you pay a fine for killing the fetus, and you suffer capital punishment if and only if the woman also dies.

This isn't to say that abortion is permissible at any stage of pregnancy.

In Luke 1, when Elizabeth was six months pregnant with her future son John the Baptist, the babe leaped in my womb for joy when he heard the voice of Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus, which indicates a soul in my mind.

I would say that abortion should be illegal starting at six-months gestation and any period afterworld, unless the physical life of the mother is in very serious jeopardy.

66% of pro-choice Americans oppose abortion in the third trimester, and I'm one of them. That is pretty much when viability starts.

Before that, the woman should have the ability to make the choice.
It's like you post, trying to pretend that people haven't responded to these incorrect positions you hold in the past, hoping that if enough time goes by we might forget just how wrong you are.

First of all, the fact that Adam was created as a fully formed, fully developed adult human means we need to remember this was a one off instance and is really hard to make analogous to how we are formed since then. But if anything, the creation of Adam does more to support life at conception than at any other time in development.

Scientifically, we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. It's a scientific fact at this point. I've provided dozens of references in the past to support that, so I'll hold off on doing that just now. Let me know if you've chosen to mentally block those out and I can post them again for you.

Adam was essentially a dead body before God brought him to life. So with Adam, we have a fully formed, inanimate, not living human body. God then breathed life into him. Interesting to note that the passage doesn't say Adam came alive when he made his first breath, but when God breathed life into him. So God brings Adam's body to life, and He's alive.

The closest analogy we have to that today would be conception. At conception we have a new, living, growing, developing human being. We are alive at fertilization. So if we're going to try and stretch the case of Adam as analogous to us - then we would say that at fertilization we get our soul.

The problem you run into if you argue that at fertilization we don't have a soul is that there is absolutely no objective case to be made for when we then receive our soul. Indeed, if we look at your post, you are incapable of actually providing any sort of case for when ensoulment happens. The best you can do is acknowledge that John the Baptist was alive as Luke clearly indicates this, and so we know it must happen at some point in the womb. But you are incapable of pinpointing when. Therefore, for all you know it DOES happen at fertilization. You have absolutely NO objective argument for why ensoulment wouldn't happen simultaneously with our coming into living existence.

Finally, your interpretation of the Exodus passage has been honestly dealt with dozens upon dozens of times now. The word "miscarriage" is 100% NOT in the Hebrew. It's not there. You're putting a word into Scripture that isn't there. This is the problem with armchair theologians. Your ignorance leads to horribly wrong interpretations.

The passage is teaching that if the woman gives birth prematurely due to the incident and the child lives, that there is punishment, but not severe. However, if the unborn child were to die as a result of the altercation, then life for life must be paid. Your actually highlighting a passage that teaches the exact opposite of what you're trying to twist it into saying.

The bottom line here is quite simple:

1. Scientifically we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
2. Biblically we know that all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

The only reason that you're reading all these ideas into Scripture is because you have an agenda. You want abortion to be morally acceptable, and so you're doing everything you can to desperately find a way to make Scripture support you. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Adam was essentially a dead body before God brought him to life. So with Adam, we have a fully formed, inanimate, not living human body. God then breathed life into him. Interesting to note that the passage doesn't say Adam came alive when he made his first breath, but when God breathed life into him. So God brings Adam's body to life, and He's alive.

Good point, but because Adam came from dust, there was no body. There is no death before life.

The closest analogy we have to that today would be conception. At conception we have a new, living, growing, developing human being. We are alive at fertilization. So if we're going to try and stretch the case of Adam as analogous to us - then we would say that at fertilization we get our soul.

How do we know zygotes have souls and are not just alive scientifically?
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Good point, but because Adam came from dust, there was no body. There is no death before life.
That makes no sense. There was no body? What came alive? What did God breathe into? How did Adam get his body?

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God created Adam's physical body. So the mental picture is that we have a fully developed adult male body on the ground. It's not a live, there is no pumping heart, no neural activity. It's essentially a dead body. Then, God breathes life into Adam, and he becomes alive.

Again, this is a one off account and is really just bad hermeneutics to try and make it analogous to how the rest of us come into existence. But if we were to try, then we would see that when Adam's physical body came to life would coincide with the exact moment that he received his soul. Thus the analogy would tell us that all human beings receive their soul when they first come alive - and we know scientifically we first come alive at fertilization.

How do we know zygotes have souls and are not just alive scientifically?
Can you think of any instance in Scripture where we have a living human being that is soulless? I can't.

The Biblical narrative seems to simply be that human beings are created as both physical and spiritual beings. As long as we are physically living, our soul is inside us. Thanks to sin entering the world, we may endure a period of existing as a disembodied spirit when we die and before Christ returns, but eventually we will be living on this earth as physical creatures with Christ for all eternity.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate there is ever at any time a living human being without a soul.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
There is nothing in Scripture to indicate there is ever at any time a living human being without a soul.

That would mean even non-Christians have a soul. Does anything in Scripture indicate people who do not follow God lose their souls? If that happens, we get our souls upon salvation, not fertilization.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
That would mean even non-Christians have a soul. Does anything in Scripture indicate people who do not follow God lose their souls? If that happens, we get our souls upon salvation, not fertilization.
All human beings have a soul. What all human beings don't have is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that happens at Salvation.
 
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

JerseyChristianSuperstar

Active Member
Feb 25, 2018
141
159
26
New Jersey
✟70,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Scientifically, we know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. It's a scientific fact at this point. I've provided dozens of references in the past to support that, so I'll hold off on doing that just now. Let me know if you've chosen to mentally block those out and I can post them again for you.

Rubbish. Your references prove nothing of the kind.

Scientifically, we know that zygotes come into existence at fertilization.

And zygotes/embryos are not human beings anymore than acorns are trees. It has its own unique genetic code — so what? Acorns have their own DNA as well, doesn't make them trees, they only have the potential to be trees.

You've already said elsewhere that you believe rape victims should be forced to bear their attacker's child.

In another words, you want to live in a world where 16-year-old female rape victims would be forced to carry their pregnancies to term with no choice in the matter, no matter the emotional and psychological harm putting her in such a predicament would cause.

Doesn't get more primitive, misogynistic and fanatical than that.

Finally, your interpretation of the Exodus passage has been honestly dealt with dozens upon dozens of times now. The word "miscarriage" is 100% NOT in the Hebrew. It's not there. You're putting a word into Scripture that isn't there. This is the problem with armchair theologians. Your ignorance leads to horribly wrong interpretations.

People who are eminently qualified on the subject —Biblical scholars of Ancient Hebrew— disagree with you. The NRSV is held in high regard among esteemed theologians as a reliable translation of the Bible, and they translated it as miscarriage. The majority of modern English translations, including the NRSV, RSV, AMPC, CEB, CJB, CEV, DRA, EXB, GNT, JUB, TLB, MSG, NABRE, NLV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSVCE and WYC agree with the miscarriage translation.

If it was so clearly "100% NOT in the Hebrew", as you adamantly suggest, all the translations would agree that it isn't referring to a miscarriage, just like how virtually all translations render Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" (although the KJV renders "heavens" as simply "heaven")- because it is so obvious that is what the first sentence of the Bible means in the original Hebrew, hence the consensus, which is not the case in Exodus 21, hence the disagreement.

Furthermore, the passage was written in Ancient Israel, in an era without the modern innovations in technology and medical science. If a woman was hit with such force that it caused her fetus to be expelled from her, the chances of survival of the baby was less than 1 percent.

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. Again, 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.
 
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Rubbish. Your references prove nothing of the kind.

Scientifically, we know that zygotes come into existence at fertilization.

And zygotes/embryos are not human beings anymore than acorns are trees. It has its own unique genetic code — so what? Acorns have their own DNA as well, doesn't make them trees, they only have the potential to be trees.
The references I provided (and I can provide dozens more if you like) demonstrate that the scientific understanding is that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

A human being takes roughly 25 years to fully develop, yet at no point in their development are they not a human being.

If you disagree with what modern science and biology has revealed, please provide some credible resources for us to review. Otherwise you’re essentially just saying “because I said so”, and I suspect you aren’t an authority on the subject.

People who are eminently qualified on the subject —Biblical scholars of Ancient Hebrew— disagree with you.
Can you please provide the names of these people and show something they’ve written to support this claim?

If a woman was hit with such force that it caused her fetus to be expelled from her, the chances of survival of the baby was less than 1 percent.
they say 65% of statistics are made up on the spot.

The fact of the matter is that you’re entirely incapable of providing any sort of objective argument for when a human being earns a soul. Thankfully you at least acknowledge that John the Baptist has a soul and so you ambiguously acknowledge it must therefore happen sometime in the womb, but that’s all you can do.

All you can do is say it happens sometime in the womb before birth.

Yet there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that would support the idea that there are ever soulless human beings.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Jersey, the fact that a raped 16-year old girl shouldn't be forced to carry her baby to term against her will (a position I will always agree with you on) has nothing to do with when humans come into existence. Yet you bundle the two arguments in the same post. Do you care if zygotes, oocysts, blastocyst, or embryos, all of which are human beings, have souls? Do you only deny that they have souls or that they are living? From your posts I have seen over and over your only basis for believing zygotes are not people is Genesis 2:7 - which, of course, is nonsense because Adam was never a zygote, oocyst, blastocyst, or embryo.
 
Upvote 0

JerseyChristianSuperstar

Active Member
Feb 25, 2018
141
159
26
New Jersey
✟70,316.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Can you please provide the names of these people and show something they’ve written to support this claim?

Who do you think produces Bible translations? Translation committees and Biblical scholars and theologians well-versed in Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

The translators of the RSV, AMPC, CEB, CJB, CEV, DRA, EXB, GNT, JUB, TLB, MSG, NABRE, NLV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSVCE and WYC are the Biblical scholars I was referring to.

I already mentioned these translations which render it as miscarriage, which is no doubt why you glossed over them in your reply.

These people are not "armchair theologians", they are people with bachelor's and master's degrees in the Biblical fields they have studied, and are qualified.

These are other scholars.

Graham Spurgeon: "In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman — death. Abortion, then, is not murder." The Religious Case for Abortion (ed H Gregory, Asheville Madison and Polk, 1983)

Daniel Sinclair: ""But one thing is clear: foeticide did not carry the death penalty, and only the death of the mother entailed the giving of 'a life in place of a life. In conclusion, it would appear that from both the critical and the historical dogmatic standpoints, the Biblical sanction of foeticide, whether intentional or unintentional, is a pecuniary one. Abortion is not homicide, and the foetus is not an independent life. It is paternal property, and any loss or damage gives rise to a claim for compensation." "The Legal Basis for the Prohibition on Abortion in Jewish Law," Israel Law Review 15/1 (January 1980)

Lloyd Kalland:"Interpreters who claim that the fetus should be treated as a person, in my opinion, have been unsuccessful in their attempt to square this
assumption with the interpretation most faithful to the text." "Fetal Life," Eternity (February 1971) 24
 
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

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟142,081.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Who do you think produces Bible translations? Translation committees and Biblical scholars and theologians well-versed in Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

The translators of the RSV, AMPC, CEB, CJB, CEV, DRA, EXB, GNT, JUB, TLB, MSG, NABRE, NLV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSVCE and WYC are the Biblical scholars I was referring to.

I already mentioned these translations which render it as miscarriage, which is no doubt why you glossed over them in your reply.

These people are not "armchair theologians", they are people with bachelor's and master's degrees in the Biblical fields they have studied, and are qualified.

These are other scholars.

Graham Spurgeon: "In other words, if you cause the death of the fetus, you merely pay a fine; if you cause the death of the woman, you lose your own life. Thus the Bible clearly shows that a fetus is not considered a person. If the fetus were considered to be a person, then the penalty for killing it would be the same as for killing the woman — death. Abortion, then, is not murder." The Religious Case for Abortion (ed H Gregory, Asheville Madison and Polk, 1983)

Daniel Sinclair: ""But one thing is clear: foeticide did not carry the death penalty, and only the death of the mother entailed the giving of 'a life in place of a life. In conclusion, it would appear that from both the critical and the historical dogmatic standpoints, the Biblical sanction of foeticide, whether intentional or unintentional, is a pecuniary one. Abortion is not homicide, and the foetus is not an independent life. It is paternal property, and any loss or damage gives rise to a claim for compensation." "The Legal Basis for the Prohibition on Abortion in Jewish Law," Israel Law Review 15/1 (January 1980)

Lloyd Kalland:"Interpreters who claim that the fetus should be treated as a person, in my opinion, have been unsuccessful in their attempt to square this
assumption with the interpretation most faithful to the text." "Fetal Life," Eternity (February 1971) 24
I recommend you spend some time reading this: What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion | Stand to Reason

A word's meaning in any language is determined in two steps. We learn a word's range of meaning--its possible definitions--inductively by examining its general usage. We learn its specific meaning within that range by the immediate context.

The relevant phrase in the passage, "...she has a miscarriage...," reads w?yase û ye ladêhâ in the Hebrew. It's a combination of a Hebrew noun, yeled, and a verb, yasa, and literally means "the child comes forth." The NASB makes note of this literal rendering in the margin.

The Hebrew noun translated "child" in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means "child, son, boy, or youth."[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning "to bear, bring forth, or beget." In the NASB yalad is translated "childbirth" 10 times, some form of "gave birth" over 50 times, and either "bore," "born," or "borne" 180 times.

The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means "to go or come out." It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It's translated with some form of "coming out" (e.g., "comes out," "came out," etc.) 103 times, and some form of "going" 445 times.

It's common for yasa to describe the "coming forth" of something living, frequently a child. There is only one time yasa is clearly used for a dead child. Numbers 12:12 says, "Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother's womb!"

Note here, that we don't infer the child's death from the word yasa, but from explicit statements in the context. This is a still-birth, not a miscarriage. The child is dead before the birth ("whose flesh is half eaten away"), and doesn't die as a result of the untimely delivery, as in a miscarriage.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated "miscarriage" in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?

Gleason Archer, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, concludes:

"There is no ambiguity here, whatever. What is required is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (nepes) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule; he is avenged just as if he were a normally delivered child or an older person: life for life. Or if the injury is less, but not serious enough to involve inflicting a like injury on the offender, then he may offer compensation in monetary damages...

Was this the only word that could be used to indicate a miscarriage? No. Two other words were available to convey this particular meaning, if that's what the writer had in mind: nepel and sakal. These are used seven times in the Hebrew text.

The noun nepel means "miscarriage" or "abortion," and is used three times

The verb sakal means "to be bereaved" and is used four times, including one time when it's actually translated "abort"

Moses had words in his vocabulary that literally meant abortion or miscarriage, but he didn't use them in Exodus 21:22. Instead, he chose the same word he used in many other places to signify a living child being brought forth.

Yasa doesn't mean miscarriage in the sense we think of that word. Instead, the combination of yeled with yasa suggests a living child coming forth from the womb. Nowhere else is this word ever translated "miscarriage." Why? Because the word doesn't mean the baby is still-born. It simply means the child comes out.

Three Questions

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word "miscarriage" entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn't mean miscarriage; it means "to come forth." The word itself never suggests death.[13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it's never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There's nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn't indicate that the child wasn't fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn't mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.
 
Upvote 0