Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[redleghunter]

Hmm, funny.

You might want to check with other Christians, namely, the Christians who translated several versions of the Bible. Because they interpret it as referring to a pregnant woman.

Perhaps it is referring to a woman who is carrying a child in her arms? But then what does it mean when it says, "make her fruit depart"?

I mean, it sure sounds like it is talking about a pregnant woman who is hit hard enough that she loses the baby.

But of course, they're wrong and you're right.



Are you suggesting that parts of the Bible are irrelevant?

The scholars who used miscarriage or still birth are clearly in error. They form a very small minority and have engaged in eisegesis, the method of interpreting scriptures with a bias.

In order to determine the exact meaning of a word in the Bible you need a literal word for word translation and look back at the Hebrew for Exodus 21. Those trying to use miscarriage or still born are likely using a dynamic equivalent or paraphrase translation and not a literal word for word translation.


The majority of scholars who ascribe to the Hebrew and Greek lexicon.

Here is the passage in question.

Exodus 21: King James Version (KJV)

22 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.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now another word for word literal translation from a modern English version.

Exodus 21: NASB


"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 NASB
http://bible.com/100/exo.21.22-25.NASB


Now we take a look at the Hebrew lexicon.



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.

So that her fruit:

Hebrew: יֶלֶד yeled

he KJV translates Strongs H3206 in the following manner:child (72x), young man (7x), young ones (3x), sons (3x), boy (2x), fruit (1x), variant (1x).


child, son, boy, offspring, youth

1. child, son, boy
   
   
2. child, children
   
   
3. descendants
   
   
4. youth
   

Yeled is not not miscarriage nor still birth, it's a live child.

Is there a Hebrew word for miscarriage and stillborn? Yes and it is not Yeled.

Exodus 23: KJV


26 There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil.

The above now in the Hebrew lexicon:
שָׁכֹל shakol


The KJV translates Strongs H7921 in the following manner:bereave (10x),barren (2x), childless (2x), cast young (2x), cast a calf (1x), lost children (1x),rob of children (1x), deprived (1x), misc (5x).


שָׁכֹלshâkôl, shaw-kole'; a primitive root; properly, to miscarry, i.e. suffer abortion; by analogy, to bereave (literally or figuratively):—bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, × expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil.


So we can see shakol is not used in Exodus 21:22ff.

Yaled is alive; shakol is miscarriage.

 

[redleghunter]

Show me one serious scientific text that makes such a claim?

Posted three time here.

 

[Armoured]

Posted three time here.

Where? What post number?

 

[redleghunter]

People don't say that, because those are not the circumstances.

The majority of circumstances are for convenience:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658

 

[redleghunter]

You are entitled to your opinion. Your views are not shared by everyone. They are not shared by atheists and people of other religions. They are not even shared by all Christians. I realize that you "know truth". However, you may not "know truth", any more than you think I don't. This (excerpted) from the folks at CARM:

No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus that you're a Christian.
1. There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10,44:6, 8).
4.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 3:1-2, 5:1-4).

Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.

​

If I'm right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Muslims are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Hindus are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If the folks at CARM are right, your knowledge is wrong.

The odds are that your knowledge is wrong.

What does this have to do with the OP? This is a direct attack on Catholics as you assert they are not Christian.

 

[Cearbhall]

The majority of circumstances are for convenience:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16150658

What a cop-out word.

RESULTS:
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

CONCLUSIONS:
The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.
____________________________________

Society leads them to this decision. They see other women facing questions like "Why did you have a child you couldn't afford?" "Why didn't you continue your education?" "Why did you have a kid if you knew you wouldn't be able to hold down your job?" "Why did you have another kid if you were just going to put him in the foster system?" "Why didn't you give your kid up if you couldn't care for him?" "Where's the father?"

 

[Armoured]

What does this have to do with the OP? This is a direct attack on Catholics as you assert they are not Christian.

No he's not. All Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. The terms aren't interchangeable.

 

[redleghunter]

​

Do you realize that you have just confirmed that those Christians who helped abolish slavery by enacting secular laws committed idolatry?

No they guided the nation they lived in to the conclusion slavery was evil.

 

[Cearbhall]

What does this have to do with the OP? This is a direct attack on Catholics as you assert they are not Christian.

He was quite clearly quoting and using it to make a different point...

 

[redleghunter]

Apparently there is a lot of interpreting and mis-translation going on. So much for the objective truth of holy scripture.

When will you folks stop arguing about it, admit that it's all about human translations and human interpretations and agree that the other person's beliefs are just as valid as your own?

Ahh, heck. We all know the answer to that one, don't we.

You are confusing translations of the Hebrew for interpretations. Two very different disciplines.

If one has a faulty translation then there is a greater chance of an exegesis being in error.

The Hebrew meaning was always there. That's why on such contentious issues it is important to go to the source languages.

Plus this should not interest you in the least unless you are attempting to proselytize Christians on a Christian forum to your secular atheist subjective ethics.

 

[Cearbhall]

You are confusing translations of the Hebrew for interpretations. Two very different disciplines.

No, translation is just the first round of interpretation. Changing a passage from one language to another, especially an ancient one, is not like changing an English passage from Wingdings font to TNR. Translators have to make decisions. They are informed by their knowledge (or lack thereof) and their opinions regarding the culture, historical context, and intentions of the original authors.

 

[redleghunter]

There are opinions and there are opinions. The article you quoted was originally published in 1999 in the ...

(International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999)

It is not surprising that the philosophical opinions of Dr. Irving are the same as the philosophical opinions of the Catholic Church (my emphasis) ...

http://www.lifeissues.net/writer.php?ID=irv

Dr. Irving's professional activities include teaching positions at Georgetown University, Catholic University of America, and The Dominican House of Studies. She represented the Catholic Medical Association of the United States, and the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, at the Scientific Conference in Mexico City, Mexico, October 28, 1999 and presented a paper on "The Dignity and Status of the Human Embryo". Dr. Irving is a former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist (NIH, NCI, Bethesda, MD), an M.A. and Ph.D. philosopher (Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.), and Professor of the History of Philosophy, and of Medical Ethics. ​

The author lays out the settled definitions of embryologists. No sociologists. There is no opinion in this matter but scientific fact that at conception we have a distinct human being. Are the medical books wrong too?

More:

The Developing Human Being
By Keith Moore, and T.V.N. Persaud
7th edition, 2003

From an introductory definition section:

“Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte(ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a male. Cell division, cell migration, programmed cell death, differentiation, growth, and cell rearrangement transform the fertilized oocyte, a highly specialized, totipotent cell – a zygote – into a multicellular human being. Although most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and fetal periods, important changes occur during later periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25. Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” (p. 2)

“Zygote. This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm during fertilization. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” (p. 2)

“Embryo. The developing human during its early stages of development. Theembryonic period extends to the end of the eighth week (56 days), by which time the beginnings of all major structures are present.” (p. 3)

From chapter 2: “The Beginning of Human Development: First Week”

First sentence of the Chapter: “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” (p. 16)

“Studies on early stages of development indicate that human oocytes are usually fertilized with 12 hours after ovulation. In vitro observations have shown that the oocyte cannot be fertilized after 24 hours and this it degenerates shortly thereafter.” [This would buttress our argument that sperm and ovum by themselves are parts of the parents and not entire beings. That there is a substantial change between gametes and zygotes.] (p. 31)

“The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents.” (p. 33)

“Cleavage consists of repeated mitotic divisions of the zygote, resulting in a rapid increase in the number of cells. The embryonic cells – blastomeres – become smaller with each cleavage division. First the zygote divides into two blastomores, which then divide into four blastomores, either blastomeres, and so on.” (p. 36-37) [We can use the cleavage discussion to show that now the embryo is operating on its own and developing.]

And more:

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes.html

 

[Cearbhall]

There is no opinion in this matter but scientific fact that at conception we have a distinct human being.

Who is denying this??

 

[ecco]

Abortion was not legal before 1973. Therefore, abortion were occurring at a fraction of a percentage compared with today.

How do you, or anyone, know how many illegal abortions happened?

Immorality is much more prevelant now, than say, in the 1950's. Children were taught basic moral values and family life was more stable.

Got some stats to back up that claim?

One reason that there were fewer divorces was because, in at least some states, in order for there to be a divorce, one partner had to accuse the other of infidelity - even if there was none.
Another is because people who wanted a divorce stayed together because of the "shame" of getting one. This made both parents more miserable and this was often taken out on the kids. You've been watching too may old TV shows like Lucy, Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie & Harriet. Those shows were not indicative of how Americans actually lived then.

Homo sexual or abortion acts were not legal in many parts of the USA, and hence less prevalent. Because people now want to live for themselves and their pleasures they've set the things of God aside.

Nonsense. People's sexual nature has not changed for millenia. The only thing that has changed is it has become more open instead of being hidden.

I'll tell you, the first step is to recognize what's going on is sinful. Then to try and legitimately turn away from those sinful acts. From there God will help. Because you're conscience tells you it's wrong, or at least at some point it did. No one is ever exempt from Gods saving grace, as long as there's still a breath of life. Consider what's going on. Respond to your conscience and turn from your sin. God is awaiting with open arm to receive.

It's the religious repression of these natural feelings that causes the problems. Take a look through the
"Struggles with Sexuality" forum. There are a lot of people in pain because people like you are telling them they are bad.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cearbhall]

Abortion was not legal before 1973. Therefore, abortion were occurring at a fraction of a percentage compared with today.

Immorality is much more prevelant now, than say, in the 1950's. Children were taught basic moral values and family life was more stable. Homo sexual or abortion acts were not legal in many parts of the USA, and hence less prevalent.

And before that, abortion was legal for a very long time. The world did not come into existence in the 50s. Speaking about the United States specifically, our legal system is based on English common law, which allowed abortion until quickening.

I hate the absurdity of moral decay theory with a fiery passion. The darn Victorian era screwed up Westerners' perspectives of history.

 

[redleghunter]

Show me one serious scientific text that makes such a claim?

I thought for sure as a nurse you would be able to quote a few.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
You are entitled to your opinion. Your views are not shared by everyone. They are not shared by atheists and people of other religions. They are not even shared by all Christians. I realize that you "know truth". However, you may not "know truth", any more than you think I don't. This (excerpted) from the folks at CARM:

No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus that you're a Christian.
1. There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10,44:6, 8).
4.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 3:1-2, 5:1-4).

Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.​

If I'm right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Muslims are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Hindus are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If the folks at CARM are right, your knowledge is wrong.

The odds are that your knowledge is wrong.​

What does this have to do with the OP?
This is a direct attack on Catholics as you assert they are not Christian.

I asserted nothing.

You have been here long enough to know how to read a post.

I clearly showed that the comments regarding Catholicism were excerpted from CARM.

They were stated in response to a self-identified Catholic to show that not everyone, and not even all Christians, agreed with his views.

If you had taken the time you would know that the subject of my discussion with him was specifically about the issue of abortion and compromise.

 

[redleghunter]

That's not personhood. Scientists are not lawmakers.

Personhood is not just a legal term. There is also a moral person and a Constitutional person.

Science is confirming we have a human being at conception.

Yes there are legal terms for personhood. They include corporations and conglomerates. A legal person must have the capacity to sell or buy property. By that definition most children are not legal persons.

The personhood you seek is a philosophical term which before Roe v. Wade was equivalent with human being.

 

[redleghunter]

ecco said: ↑
You are entitled to your opinion. Your views are not shared by everyone. They are not shared by atheists and people of other religions. They are not even shared by all Christians. I realize that you "know truth". However, you may not "know truth", any more than you think I don't. This (excerpted) from the folks at CARM:

No, Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not the same thing. Christianity is properly defined by certain doctrines that are revealed in the Bible. It is not defined by simply saying that as long as you believe in Jesus that you're a Christian.
1. There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 43:10,44:6, 8).
4.Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9, Gal. 3:1-2, 5:1-4).

Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints). It denies the sole and true sovereignty of the living God by promoting prayer to and the worship of Mary. Also, it denies justification by faith alone in Christ alone. It is not a Christian church.​

If I'm right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Muslims are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If Hindus are right, your knowledge is wrong.
If the folks at CARM are right, your knowledge is wrong.

The odds are that your knowledge is wrong.​

I asserted nothing.

You have been here long enough to know how to read a post.

I clearly showed that the comments regarding Catholicism were excerpted from CARM.

They were stated in response to a self-identified Catholic to show that not everyone, and not even all Christians, agreed with his views.

If you had taken the time you would know that the subject of my discussion with him was specifically about the issue of abortion and compromise.

Yes yet you chose to use CARM to attack another poster's faith.

 

[redleghunter]

Who is denying this??

Many.