Are you pro mutilation or anti mutilation?

[cantata]

Since when does the Bible say anything about abortion? Heck, the word "abortion" isn't even in the Bible.

I love your use of the word 'heck'

 

[cantata]

For Christians, only one opinion should count...God's, and you dont find His will by polling drs and scientist. You prayerfully search His Word guided by the Spirit.

Well, have fun with that. Personally I'd rather stick to the consensus of the scientific community, but that's just what a crazy atheist would say, I guess.

 

[HannahBanana]

I love your use of the word 'heck'

LOL, yeah. It's one of the few "angry" words that I can actually use on this site, so I use it wayyy too much.

 

[cantata]

LOL, yeah. It's one of the few "angry" words that I can actually use on this site, so I use it wayyy too much.

When I was little, my child-minder used to say "flipping-blasty-heck!" when she was annoyed. Very cathartic!

 

[PETE_]

Since when does the Bible say anything about abortion? Heck, the word "abortion" isn't even in the Bible.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible as well, but the Bible teaches it in many ways.

Ex 21:22-25 is one instance and the Bible teaches God's value on life and His work in creating each of us is taught in many areas

 

[HannahBanana]

The word Trinity is not in the Bible as well, but the Bible teaches it in many ways.

Ex 21:22-25 is one instance and the Bible teaches God's value on life and His work in creating each of us is taught in many areas

Exodus 21:22-25 is about how sinful it is to abuse a pregnant woman. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere in there.

And don't even get me started on how little sense the trinity makes...

 

[cantata]

The word Trinity is not in the Bible as well, but the Bible teaches it in many ways.

That's right; to be honest I think the gospel writers were too sane to come up with something so utterly weird.

 

[PETE_]

Exodus 21:22-25 is about how sinful it is to abuse a pregnant woman. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere in there.

Verse 22 describes a case where two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman. She delivers a healthy premature baby, and is not harmed herself. In fact, there is no injury to anyone. Still, the men are to be fined, but only as the husband demands and the court allows. However, verses 23–25 tell what is to be done if any harm comes to either the fetus or the mother. If either is injured, the law of retaliation is to be invoked—life for life, eye for eye, foot for foot, etc.http://christianforums.com/#_ftn1 It shows that God places the highest value on the developing life. When the baby is born prematurely but unharmed, a fine is assessed. When there is harm to either mother or baby, the law of retaliation is required. Even in America you can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child.
http://christianforums.com/#_ftnref1http://christianforums.com/#_ftnref1

And don't even get me started on how little sense the trinity makes

Yet, you have stated that you agree with it.

 

[HannahBanana]

Verse 22 describes a case where two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman. She delivers a healthy premature baby, and is not harmed herself. In fact, there is no injury to anyone.

How could there be "no injury to anyone" when the two men strike the woman hard enough to cause premature labor? Do you even know how physically difficult it is to cause premature labor just by hitting someone? After all, the fetus is protected by the extremely large amniotic sac and it's not like punching the sac itself (through the woman's skin, of course) would cause premature labor.

Still, the men are to be fined, but only as the husband demands and the court allows. However, verses 23–25 tell what is to be done if any harm comes to either the fetus or the mother. If either is injured, the law of retaliation is to be invoked—life for life, eye for eye, foot for foot, etc. It shows that God places the highest value on the developing life. When the baby is born prematurely but unharmed, a fine is assessed. When there is harm to either mother or baby, the law of retaliation is required. Even in America you can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child.

How exactly does it show that "God places the highest value on the developing life"? All it shows is that God doesn't like it when people abuse others.

Yet, you have stated that you agree with it.

Where did I state that?

 

[cantata]

Verse 22 describes a case where two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman. She delivers a healthy premature baby, and is not harmed herself. In fact, there is no injury to anyone.

Rubbish.

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 judge determines.

So if she miscarries, all that is imposed is a fine. Even if you prefer a translation which says she gives birth prematurely, it says nothing about the foetus being healthy.

However, verses 23–25 tell what is to be done if any harm comes to either the fetus or the mother. If either is injured, the law of retaliation is to be invoked—life for life, eye for eye, foot for foot, etc. It shows that God places the highest value on the developing life. When the baby is born prematurely but unharmed, a fine is assessed. When there is harm to either mother or baby, the law of retaliation is required.

Remember Lamech in Genesis 4:24, who said that "If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold"? The 'law of retaliation' is a law to temper retaliation, not to encourage it, so that people didn't go around retaliating and retaliating as Lamech wished to. So when Jesus says that you should reject 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', he wasn't throwing out an Old Testament law; he was saying that you shouldn't retaliate at all, rather than just meeting like with like as is sanctioned in the Old Testament.

Besides, the text is talking about harm to the mother, since in verse 22 it clearly states that there should be no retaliation beyond a fine if all that occurs is a miscarriage.

Even in America you can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child.

Only if charges are pressed.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Verse 22 describes a case where two men are fighting and strike a pregnant woman. She delivers a healthy premature baby, and is not harmed herself. In fact, there is no injury to anyone. Still, the men are to be fined, but only as the husband demands and the court allows. However, verses 23–25 tell what is to be done if any harm comes to either the fetus or the mother. If either is injured, the law of retaliation is to be invoked—life for life, eye for eye, foot for foot, etc. It shows that God places the highest value on the developing life. When the baby is born prematurely but unharmed, a fine is assessed. When there is harm to either mother or baby, the law of retaliation is required.

Do you have any support for this interpretation? What you say above appears to be a valid interpretation, but an equally valid interpretation seems to me to be that the harm being talked about is in relation to the mother only.

 

[PETE_]

Do you have any support for this interpretation? What you say above appears to be a valid interpretation, but an equally valid interpretation seems to me to be that the harm being talked about is in relation to the mother only.

The noun in both verses 22 and 23 is indefinite, indicating that the harm that is avoided in verse 22 and that is to be punished in verse 23 is to either the mother or the child. If only the mother was in view in verse 23, we would expect the harm to be restricted by the use of the pronoun “to her". http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43814842#_ftnref1

 

[Electric Skeptic]

The noun in both verses 22 and 23 is indefinite, indicating that the harm that is avoided in verse 22 and that is to be punished in verse 23 is to either the mother or the child. If only the mother was in view in verse 23, we would expect the harm to be restricted by the use of the pronoun “to her".

What noun are you talking about? 'Mischief'? How is it indefinite? What does 'indefinite' mean in this context any way? Sorry, but you need a lot more support than the above. I was actually thinking of some tradition, some history of scholars having interpreted these verses to refer to both the fetus and the mother. Do you have such support? Or, failing that, a much better linguistic analysis than you have given?

 

[PETE_]

אָסוֹן ason (62a); from an unused word; mischief, evil, harm:http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftn1

It is indefinite because it is not specific to the mother or the child.


Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten; for “everything that is shaped, and has received a soul from God, if it be slain, shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed.”41http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftn2
41 Ex. xxi. 23, LXX.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftnref2The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325.

1. And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2. Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit paederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practise magic, thou shalt not practise witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.25 http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftn5.

25 Comp. Ex. xxi. 22, 23.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D.

If . . . a pregnant woman delivered her child prematurely as a result of a blow, but both were otherwise uninjured, the guilty party was to pay compensation determined by the woman’s husband and the court. However, if there was injury to the expectant mother or her child, then the assailant was to be penalized in proportion to the nature of severity of the injury. While unintentional life-taking was usually not a capital offense (cf. vv. 12-13), here it clearly was. Also the unborn fetus is viewed in this passage as just as much a human being as its mother; the abortion of a fetus was considered murder.http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftn3

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43819619#_ftnref3Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary:

 

[PETE_]

an interesting article on the passage

No teaching in the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly condemns or condones abortion. Exegetically, the debate has been waged on implicit grounds. The Old Testament passage that has received the greatest attention concerning this matter is Exodus 21:22-24.

​

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

​

There is a built-in ambiguity with this text, giving rise to differing interpretations of its precise meaning and application. The theological house is divided between “maximum” and “minimum” positions. The problem centers in the words no harm follows. To what “harm” does the verse refer? This problem is linked to another, namely the question of what is meant by the “miscarriage” of the pregnant woman. Is the text referring to an incident where the woman, being jostled by fighting men, is induced to a premature childbirth in which the anguish and inconvenience of premature delivery is recompensed by the law even though the premature child lives and thrives? Or is the text speaking of a case where the induced premature birth yields a stillborn fetus and further considerations come into play only if the mother suffers additional complications, even death?

​

The Old Testament scholar Keil adopts the maximum view, arguing that the “no harm follows” clause refers to both mother and child. The summary is that if the premature baby survives, recompense is limited to damages paid for the inconvenience and mental anguish provoked as claimed by the husband and awarded by the judge. But if the child is harmed or dies, the full measure of the lex talonis (eye for eye) is to apply. In this reading the unborn fetus is so highly valued by Scripture that the life-for-life principle is applied, and the unintentional causing of abortion “in the midst of another felonious act” warrants the death penalty. If this interpretation is correct, we would have decisive evidence that Scripture considers the unborn fetus as “life” in the fullest legal sense.

​

The minimal view of the text argues that the “no harm follows” clause refers exclusively to the mother. In this schema the net result would be that the aborted or premature birth of the fetus would not invoke the lex talonis or legally be considered murder or loss of life. Only if further complications affect the mother does the “eye for eye, life for life” equation apply. The inference then would be that Scripture does not regard the fetus as “life.” The fetus is protected by the law, however, and its value may be established via a law suit. Some push it further by arguing that though legal indemnities may be imposed, they are initiated by the claims of the husband. The unspoken presumption is that the “value” of the fetus is determined to some degree by the subjective values attached by the parents. In this “case” the Scriptures deal with an abortion or miscarriage imposed from without, apart from the design of the parents, who presumably desire the pregnancy to reach its full term. The passage is then made of no consequence to the question of an intentional abortion performed according to the will and design of the parents. The minimal view thus protects the parents and not the fetus.

​

The difference between these interpretations covers the gamut of the contemporary debate. Though I am persuaded of the maximal interpretation, I must admit the problematic and ambiguous character of the text.

​

In the New Testament the word abortion is used only in a figurative sense. One passage often cited to support an antiabortion stance is Luke 1:39-42, when Mary visited Elizabeth and the child “leaped in her womb.” Other passages that speak of persons being conceived in sin and known by God in the womb are also referred to. The question exegetically is whether or not these allusions are to be taken as religious hyperbole or poetry. However, the message of these passages clearly indicates that God is involved with man’s history prior to his birth.

​

The question of when life begins has been pivotal to the discussion. Agreement is difficult because no consensus has emerged. Different points on the conception-birth continuum have been proferred, with the added problem of variant medical definitions of “life” itself.

​

There are some who maintain that the moment of birth is when a fetus becomes a person. There are good reasons for this argument. This is a rather clear line of demarcation, indicating a new status, a new moment of independent existence with individuation beginning with the snipping of the umbilical cord.

​

Another view points to the moment of “quickening”; another to the time when the circulatory system is fully developed. Others say that the principle of life in the Old Testament is the “breath” of life in man. Therefore, life would be present when the lungs develop and the fetus could breathe on its own.

​

The moment of conception has been seen by many groups to be the beginning of life, since all the potentiality of personhood is then present. David and others speak of their conception as part of their personal history.

​

What we conceive the fetus to be will determine what value we assign it. There are those who say that the embryo (the term usually used to refer to the product of conception during its first twelve weeks) is nothing more than a blob of protoplasm. Others argue that it is merely a highly specialized form of parasite. It has been compared to a cancer, a tissue growth foreign to the mother, which the body seeks to reject. If the mother fails to reject it, it would be fatal to her. Certainly these are emotive terms that greatly cloud the issue and represent an irresponsible approach to the question.

​

To refer to an embryo as a blob of protoplasm is to be guilty of a severe form of reductionism. The “parasite” term is equally inaccurate, as parasites have an independent life cycle that includes reproduction. As for the analogy to cancer, a cancer left to natural development destroys life. An embryo left to natural development produces life—a difference that cannot be ignored.

​

The crucial concern here is that we can say with certainty that at any stage of development the fetus is a potential life, a potential human being, with a high level of probability of becoming a human being if left to the normal course of its life. With this in mind, let us look at the essence of the debate: What is the relationship of abortion to the biblical prohibition against murder? Does the Bible have anything to say about the destruction of a potential life?

​

We remember that in the Old Testament there are five distinctions made in the broader application of the Decalogue’s prohibition of killing, including distinctions for manslaughter and involuntary murder. In the New Testament, however, we have an authoritative application and interpretation of this prohibition.

​

The prohibition “You shall not kill” is not a universal prohibition against taking human life in any context, but it is wider in its scope than simple first-degree murder. Jesus includes in his understanding of this mandate a prohibition against hatred. Hatred is understood as murder of the heart. In effect Jesus says that the law implicitly prohibits potential murder (and potential adultery). Left to its own, hatred results in murder; lust, in adultery. He says that the law prohibits the potential destruction of life. This is not the same as prohibiting the actual destruction of potential life. But these two are very close to being the same, similar enough to raise serious questions about abortion. In terms of the sanctity of life, potentiality is clearly an issue with Jesus.

​

If we are seriously considering the spirit of the law, we must pay attention to the implications (implicit understanding) of a particular commandment. The converse of a prohibition must be affirmed: what the law implicitly affirms is a part of the complex of what the prohibition explicitly negates. Wanton destruction of life is prohibited. This implies an implicit command to promote the sanctity and safeguarding of life. The sanctity of life is the supreme basis for the prohibition of murder. The question is, Does the sanctity of life include concern for potential life? There is no way we can prove decisively that it does. But in light of the overwhelming concern in the Scriptures for the safeguarding and preservation of life, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to destroy potential life.​

Sproul, R.C.: Following Christ. Wheaton, IL : Tyndale House Publishers, 1996, c1991

 

[cantata]

So if she miscarries, all that is imposed is a fine. Even if you prefer a translation which says she gives birth prematurely, it says nothing about the foetus being healthy.

This?

Remember Lamech in Genesis 4:24, who said that "If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold"? The 'law of retaliation' is a law to temper retaliation, not to encourage it, so that people didn't go around retaliating and retaliating as Lamech wished to. So when Jesus says that you should reject 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth', he wasn't throwing out an Old Testament law; he was saying that you shouldn't retaliate at all, rather than just meeting like with like as is sanctioned in the Old Testament.

This?

 

[uberd00b]

For Christians, only one opinion should count...God's, and you dont find His will by polling drs and scientist. You prayerfully search His Word guided by the Spirit.

I would have to disagree. We do not have God's opinion but we have many books purporting to be so. A Christian worships God and not the Bible. I feel a Christian should use as their primary source their God-given knowledge of right and wrong over the Bible, as it seems closer to the source.

 

[uberd00b]

Since when does the Bible say anything about abortion? Heck, the word "abortion" isn't even in the Bible.

Not abortion specifically, but it does make clear that an unborn baby does not have the same worth as a living human being.

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

 

[lawtonfogle]

(This is set up as a parallel thread), minus the lack of tolerance and respect for others' view on the topic.

Are you for women having non clinical abortions (belly punches, slipping down the stairs, back door operations, etc) or for them having clinical abortions?



Edited to include mod hat link in thread: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31122771&postcount=123

Or you for killing a child by quickly slitting his/her throat while they sleep or by making them drink acid (were talking really low pH here)?

Don't you just love those questions where both choices are bad.