If abortion is murder...

[SkyWriting]

Total nonsense. Such a belief screams ignorance because many people who actually did kill somebody are acquitted based on secular law. This happens for several reasons:

1. There was not enough evidence to prove the defendent is guilty.
2. The defendent's pre-trial plea was "not guilty by insanity."
3. Application of the Second Amendment in the not-guilty verdict.

Too bad, so sad.
1 Timothy 2

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sky, Timothy 2 has absolutely nothing to do with murderers being acquitted in courts.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think people who aborted their babies have some prayers of forgiveness to do for sure.

Their child is in Heaven, so if they want to go to Heaven then they are going to need to repent and be reconciled with their child.

 

[joshua 1 9]

whether or not someone is held accountable by the law

Man's law or God's law?

 

[SPF]

Man's law or God's law?

I think placing that quote of mine in the greater context of the paragraph you pulled it from should make it obvious what I’m referring to...

And for me, the obvious answer is only if abortion is illegal. As a Christian, I can go ahead and say that abortion is certainly a form of murder. But whether or not someone is held accountable by the law obviously depends on whether or not the law considers the act of abortion illegal. Which as of now, it does not. So as of now, I would not hold women/doctors who abort their children responsible by the law. Though I certainly would be in favor of the law changing.

 

[redleghunter]

...then should we punish the parent(s) who aborted their children?

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image."
- Genesis 9:6
​

It seems to me that it is inconsistent for prolifers to be about ending abortion, because it is murder of an actual human being, but don't believe it is right to punish such a crime.

By the way, I am an abolitionist prolifer and stand against the genocide and holocaust of our culture.

View attachment 259159

Wow that image is....wow.

 

[JM]

I voted no. I’m not an activist, pro-life or pro-choice. Nor am I seeking to impose my beliefs on society. Including those who’ve chosen otherwise.

Only the Lord can soften a person’s heart. And until that takes place I will make no attempt to force its occurrence. I’m not privy to the reasons for their sins or mistake. That’s for God to resolve.

Wow, I can imagine someone saying the above in the 1940's...somewhere in Europe...during a very, very dark time.

Abortion is murder.

 

[redleghunter]

Wow, I can imagine someone saying the above in the 1940's...somewhere in Europe...during a very, very dark time.

Abortion is murder.

The trains came into town, people removed from their homes, loaded on trains, everyone knew where they were going and covered their ears as the trains rolled out.

Yep.

 

[JM]

If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.

JOHN CALVIN in Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, on Exodus 21:22

 

[redleghunter]

If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.

JOHN CALVIN in Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, on Exodus 21:22

I think the important observation of that passage is nowhere is miscarriage or abortion mentioned in the Hebrew:

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

The 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]

If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the fœtus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother.

JOHN CALVIN in Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, on Exodus 21:22

This was quite informative:

Associates for Biblical Research - Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus

(Scroll down a bit)


The fetus in biblical law - Ministry Magazine