my take on abortion:

[Armoured]

None. Hebrew. Massoretic Text: Leningrad Codex.

Uh-huh.

 

[redleghunter]

The passage being considered comes from Exodus. And what it says is that if men fight with each other and strike a pregnant woman who as a result gives birth; that if the child is not injured there will be a fine, but if the child is injured, then we have life for life. The life of the newly born child is considered just as morally valuable as the grown individual.

Exodus 21:22 - "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."

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 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).

שָׁכֹל shâkôl, 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.

Excellent exegesis.

 

[SPF]

It won't change the fundamental fact that foetuses are not self aware, thus not morally comparable to actual people..

First off, are you asserting that all fetuses in the womb are at all times throughout the entirety of the pregnancy not self aware? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not your position. Certainly John the Baptist was self aware as he literally leaped for joy while in his mother's womb.

As for the second part, which consists of your unsupported assertion - you need to actually present an argument and defend that.

Basically what you just said was that unless a human is self aware they are not as morally valuable as another human that is self aware. Ok, now that you've said - why? Why is this true? I don't see how you can defend this or support it. Please do so.

 

[redleghunter]

“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; 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

Can you show me in the Hebrew where 'miscarriage' exists?

And for brevity sake I will quote the exegesis provided by @SPF :

my take on abortion:

Which no doubt you have seen before on other abortion threads.

 

[SPF]

Excellent exegesis.

I would hope you think so given the source!

 

[Armoured]

First off, are you asserting that all fetuses in the womb are at all times throughout the entirety of the pregnancy not self aware? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is not your position. Certainly John the Baptist was self aware as he literally leaped for joy while in his mother's womb.

As for the second part, which consists of your unsupported assertion - you need to actually present an argument and defend that.

Basically what you just said was that unless a human is self aware they are not as morally valuable as another human that is self aware. Ok, now that you've said - why? Why is this true? I don't see how you can defend this or support it. Please do so.

Self awareness requires a minimum number of neural connections. Before that point, a foetus isn't self aware, can we agree to that much?

 

[redleghunter]

When does life begin? When Adam was formed from the dust of the ground....Was he alive before God blew the Breathe of Life into His nostrils? How important is God's breathe if we say there is life regardless of whether God gives the breathe or not? Should we care or think about when a spirit connects to a body?

Is it possible for God to send his breathe and spirit to the earth and a mother aborts and and God says...."Oh well, you wont get your chance now."???

Can it be possible that when a spirit is sent to the earth and one child is aborted, it can go to another.....which may or may not be a better situation for the spirit........assuming God is not all-knowing and would send life to the wrong place.?

I Have trust in God and just do not believe that the Life that God intends to live can be stopped by the likes of a human.

For the record...I too am against Abortion......I just do not have any condemnation for those who arent. And I can see and understand both sides objectively.

Why are you against abortion?

 

[redleghunter]

A fine is different to execution. A fine suggests the foetus has value (IF the father so deems), but it is clearly NOT the same value s that placed on an actual born person.

Not quite. There is a fine because the child is prematurely birthed from the struggle. If the child dies as a result it is life for life. The string of verses broken down in the Hebrew lexicon shows both the fine and punishment are related to the seed or life in the womb. Good reading when you get a chance.

Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

Exodus 21:23 Hebrew Text Analysis

 

[Armoured]

Basically what you just said was that unless a human is self aware they are not as morally valuable as another human that is self aware. Ok, now that you've said - why? Why is this true? I don't see how you can defend this or support it. Please do so.

I don't see how you can refute or deny it.

 

[RaymondG]

Why are you against abortion?

I just dont like the idea of it. I wouldn't encourage anyone to do it, nor would i want it done if it was part of my seed. However, I would not condemn anyone else if they decide to do it...nor try to use the bible to condemn them.

But my nature is selfish....and I hold to the flesh and sometimes disregard the spirit, who without, there is no life.

I also dont like the idea of Guacamole. It reminds me of something that came out of the stomach, and should not go back in. But I dont condemn those that love it......nor would i say I am right and they are wrong based on my personal feelings.

I say if we want to respect science and scientist on this matter, which Im ok with, Lets respect them on all biblical matters. The picking and choosing when to use and when to dismiss based on whether or not they validate our personal views can get tiresome.

 

[redleghunter]

I just dont like the idea of it. I wouldn't encourage anyone to do it, nor would i want it done if it was part of my seed. However, I would not condemn anyone else if they decide to do it...nor try to use the bible to condemn them.

Well God is the One who will Judge. I agree with you there.

It comes down to whether or not you see clearly biological human being in the womb (any stage) morally equal to all other human life. If not we need to answer the 'why.' Your answer, given in a most humble tone, says 'it depends on the individual.' If so let me know. I am not asking you to judge anyone other than the life in the womb (any stage). Because the answer we give does in fact judge us.

 

[redleghunter]

No! Read it again, it's life for life, eye for an eye if the MOTHER dies, if ONLY the child dies, but the mother is fine, there's a fine to be paid, and ONLY if the father so deems. Execution =/= fine.

Again no.

From the literal word for word NASB translation.

Exodus 21: NASB

22 “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. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Hebrew Lexicon word for word translation to English

"yet there is no injury": and not follow [from her] mischief

Bold above "follow [from her] in the Hebrew Lexicon is yih-yeh.

yih-yeh is literally seed or yielding seed. Linked to yaled which is fruit of the womb. Therefore, the object or subject of 'no injury' or mischief is related to the seed from the woman. The very child that was prematurely born.

Exodus 21:22 Hebrew Text Analysis
Hebrew Concordance: yih·yeh -- 420 Occurrences

 

[RaymondG]

Well God is the One who will Judge. I agree with you there.

It comes down to whether or not you see clearly biological human being in the womb (any stage) morally equal to all other human life. If not we need to answer the 'why.' Your answer, given in a most humble tone, says 'it depends on the individual.' If so let me know. I am not asking you to judge anyone other than the life in the womb (any stage). Because the answer we give does in fact judge us.

I believe that the spirit gives life, not anything physical. I believe the breathe of life given to Adam was essential to making him a living soul.

So the question is, was the dust of the ground just as important as the Adam with the breath. Rather, is the fetus the child of God before the breath of God is blown into it.

Also, when God says, I will be born this day to this mother.....can the mother foil God's plan?

If these mother's are somehow, fooling God into misplacing His spirits, then I would agree we have a reason try to stop this at all cost and give God the help he would,( if this is true), need.

 

[redleghunter]

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the mother's womb. Science tells us that human life begins at conception. Scripture tells us that all human life is inherently morally valuable and created in the image of God. This logically leads us to a place where terminating the innocent life inside a mother's womb for convenience sake is morally wrong.

People have tried to justify abortion by fabricating a subjective and arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person. But that distinction is again, necessarily subjective and arbitrary, and the only reason that one would attempt to create the distinction would be that some act may be committed against the human non-person that would otherwise be considered immoral. If you (or anyone else) disagrees, I welcome an actual argument as to why the distinction between a human and a human person is actually real, and how we know where the line is.

Now that up there friends is what is called an argument.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm against abortion, but I have to say I seriously disagree with this statement. It is not simple to be pregnant and give birth - it's a difficult thing for the body to endure. Psychologically it is difficult to carry a baby as the product of rape. Adoption is never simple either.

Hi JC!

Please consider the following as it seems you do see all human life as morally valuable.

A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The rapist is caught and convicted.

The woman has made a premeditated decision to abort her child. She aborts the child.

The rapist gets 7 years in prison because he got a good lawyer and the judge determined this was his first offense. He goes to jail where he gets '3 hots and a cot' and cable TV. He gets out of jail and starts raping again most likely.

The child got a death sentence without lawyer representation, trial or judicial consideration.

Where is the justice in the above situation? What did the child ever do to deserve termination of his/her life?

 

[Hank77]

Can you show me in the Hebrew where 'miscarriage' exists?

According to @SPF 's exegesis there is. It is 'shakol', H7921.

 

[Vicomte13]

Uh-huh.

Yep.

 

[redleghunter]

foetuses are not self aware, thus not morally comparable to actual people..

Define the 'awareness' necessary to be morally comparable to you and me?

Peter Singer puts it about 30 days after birth. And he is a noted bio-ethics professor from Princeton University. Is this your definition as well?

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1


Peter Singer is not alone in these beliefs. As early as 1972, philosopher Michael Tooley bluntly declared that a human being “possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.”2 Infants do not qualify.


More recently, American University philosophy professor Jeffrey Reiman has asserted that unlike mature human beings, infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.” He explicitly holds that infants are not persons with a right to life and that “there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children.”3

Singer doesn’t tell us why self-awareness belongs to the concept of personhood; he merely asserts that it does. In so doing, he espouses a doctrine known as functionalism, the belief that what defines human persons is what they can and cannot do.

http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

Footnotes to citations at link above if one chooses to attack the source.

Question is, where do you put your functionalism stake in the ground? As you see
@SPF was correct to call your assertion 'arbitrary' and 'subjective.'

 

[redleghunter]

According to @SPF 's exegesis there is. It is 'shakol', H7921.

Yet not found in the text of Exodus 21:22ff.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

If you want to know if a child in the early weeks after conception is a baby or a bunch of undeveloped cells, goand ask a woman who has had a miscarriage if they lost a baby or not. I doubt you will find one who does not think it is a baby they lost. They only become a bunch of cells when it suits the people involved to kill them.