Abortion [CO]

[ryanb6]

How would a Christian justify it? Give answers from scripture.

Yes it does relate to politics.

 

[smorse1]

I don't think you can justify it...no way, no how.

 

[poohgirl]

There is no way a christian can justify aborting babies.

 

[smorse1]

to take this a step further, a Christian should not vote for someone who supports this activity either.

 

[DZoolander]

Here's what I'm curious of.

Provide me the Biblical support condemning abortion - or where the "life begins at conception" argument? The only thing I've ever heard supporting that was the vague Luke 1:41 "and John lept in the womb when they were filled with the Holy Spirit".

Apart from that (and that's hairy at best) - there's nothing supporting the idea that life begins at conception.

 

[Blackrend]

I don't think you can justify it...no way, no how.

Not even if the mother's life was threatened? Or in the case of rape and incest? Those only make up a very small percentage of abortions anyway.

 

[smorse1]

Not even if the mother's life was threatened? Or in the case of rape and incest? Those only make up a very small percentage of abortions anyway.

The problem with this is it becomes a slippery slope, and "health of the mother" can be defined in many different ways.

 

[Blackrend]

The problem with this is it becomes a slippery slope, and "health of the mother" can be defined in many different ways.

I said life of the mother. I'm pro-choice, but I hate it when women use the old "whaaaaa, I'm depressed" excuse to get out of having a child. THAT, to me, is the lowest possible thing a mother could do. -_-

Well, one of the lowest.

 

[jayem]

Here's what I'm curious of.

Provide me the Biblical support condemning abortion - or where the "life begins at conception" argument? The only thing I've ever heard supporting that was the vague Luke 1:41 "and John lept in the womb when they were filled with the Holy Spirit".

Apart from that (and that's hairy at best) - there's nothing supporting the idea that life begins at conception.

There's certainly nothing that explicitly says an abortion is murder. If anything, Exodus 21:22 implies that a fetus does not have the same status as other persons. And as I understand it, the Talmud states that a fetus is not fully a person until it takes it's first breath. (I'd think the rabbis would be credible experts on the OT.) But OTOH, I can see how by combining and extrapolating from other passages (like Luke 1:14) one might conclude that abortion is unjustly killing a person. I think the idea that abortion = murder is a "penumbra" which could be derived from several Biblical passages. Ironic, because it's just like SCOTUS ruling that the right to an abortion is a penumbra derived from several Constitutional amendments.

 

[ryanb6]

Here's what I'm curious of.

Provide me the Biblical support condemning abortion - or where the "life begins at conception" argument? The only thing I've ever heard supporting that was the vague Luke 1:41 "and John lept in the womb when they were filled with the Holy Spirit".

Apart from that (and that's hairy at best) - there's nothing supporting the idea that life begins at conception.

I asked for justification for abortion.

If anything, Exodus 21:22 implies that a fetus does not have the same status as other persons.

Exodus 21:22 actually seems to imply the very opposite.

 

[DZoolander]

I don't know how you reason either of those.

First - if something is not prohibited - then it's implied that it's allowed.

Next - I disagree with your interpretation of Exodus 21:22-23 if that's what you seem to read from it...

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,

If someone willingly hurts a pregnant woman so that the child is lost, but she survives, then he is to be punished according to the judgment of the husband. However - if she dies - then it is a life for a life.

How could that be any more clear? Or - how are you interpreting that to infer that the unborn is seen as "alive"?

 

[ryanb6]

If someone willingly hurts a pregnant woman so that the child is lost, but she survives, then he is to be punished according to the judgment of the husband. However - if she dies - then it is a life for a life.

How could that be any more clear? Or - how are you interpreting that to infer that the unborn is seen as "alive"?

Read it again. The living and dying is speaking of the baby, not the woman.

 

[DaisyDay]

Read it again. The living and dying is speaking of the baby, not the woman.

"Her fruit depart from her" is the fetus being miscarried. If a live baby were the result, why would the husband need to pay anything?

This is followed by "but no mischief follows", meaning the wife is alive still.

 

[ryanb6]

"Her fruit depart from her" is the fetus being miscarried. If a live baby were the result, why would the husband need to pay anything?

This is followed by "but no mischief follows", meaning the wife is alive still.

This is a premature baby. The Hebrew literally reads, "so that her children come out". The Hebrew word for miscarriage, shakol, is never used.

It is saying if you make the baby come out early, then you pay a fine. If the baby dies, then you pay with your life. That is murder. Scripture is crystal clear on this.

 

[katautumn]

Numbers 5:11-31

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [d] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [e] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [f] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "

 

[ryanb6]

What exactly are you saying?

 

[jayem]

This is a premature baby. The Hebrew literally reads, "so that her children come out". The Hebrew word for miscarriage, shakol, is never used.

There are different opinions on that. The Revised English Bible, which is my reference Bible, translates the passage as "if she has a miscarriage, but no further harm follows..." I believe the NIV also has a footnote for that passage stating that "miscarriage" is an alternate translation of the Hebrew. It's also my understanding that the rabbis who wrote the Talmudic commentaries on Mosaic law (who should be experts in OT Hebrew) state that miscarriage, not premature birth, is what is being referred to.

Look at it in historical context. The OT laws concern things that were common in that day--like livestock falling into wells, and people with running sores. Given the state of neonatal care 3000 years ago, what would be the likelihood that any premature baby would survive for very long? Unless it was very close to full-term, I would think every premature birth in those days--especially one caused by injury--would be tantamount to a dead infant. It doesn't make sense to me that the OT would have a law about such a rare event as a traumatically induced premature birth where no further harm resulted.

 

[ryanb6]

There are different opinions on that. The Revised English Bible, which is my reference Bible, translates the passage as "if she has a miscarriage, but no further harm follows..." I believe the NIV also has a footnote for that passage stating that "miscarriage" is an alternate translation of the Hebrew. It's also my understanding that the rabbis who wrote the Talmudic commentaries on Mosaic law (who should be experts in OT Hebrew) state that miscarriage, not premature birth, is what is being referred to.

It is unmistakable in the Hebrew. It doesn't matter what english translations say. The word shakol, which is used for miscarriage is never used.

 

[katautumn]

I'm thinking this question would have been better if asked in the Theology>Debates on Abortion section, if you are looking for Christians exclusively to respond.

 

[Smidlee]

I asked for justification for abortion.

Exodus 21:22 actually seems to imply the very opposite.

In this verse the strife is with the woman so the child isn't the target yet still loss it's life. The person was to still be punished. Now in the next verse since the strife was aimed at the woman and the woman dies then the death penalty would apply. With abortion the child is the target.