Question about abortion

lawtonfogle · Nov 11, 2010

hagee_falwell said:
What happens to the souls of aborted children?

Most likely nothing, as the soul likely does not exist till some measure of self-awareness exist. Otherwise, the majority of heaven is filled with individuals who never experienced a single thing on earth, because the majority of fertilized eggs never make it to birth, much less 3 or so years old. And that isn't even counting man caused abortions.

lawtonfogle · Nov 11, 2010

beforHim said:
I get what you're saying and all, but we do have our command from God:
"Let us do evil that good may come"- the command being the inverse, ie "don't do evil that good may come". The end never justifies the means with us humans is what God (through Paul) seems to be getting at.

No other act of good can compare to sending someone to heaven. If stealing a 50 cent candy bar would somehow stop a rape, and you were sure you wouldn't be caught, would you just allow the rape to happen?

(Don't worry about how this situation would occur, only that it does).

lawtonfogle · Nov 11, 2010

beforHim said:
Also in this case, dieing right when one becomes saved would be good, lest you apostasize and all.
Please, fellow brethern, don't start a debate on "once saved aways saved"; it was only brought up for purposes of getting the point across. Thx!

ISAS. Sorry, but as long as one believes that, then your argument is completely invalid.

lawtonfogle · Nov 11, 2010

laconicstudent said:
What about those unborn fetuses who aren't part of the elect? Don't they go to hell? That's kind of the view of some in the Soteriology forum, as I've seen it.

Well in that view they are going to Hell anyways.

laconicstudent · Nov 11, 2010

lawtonfogle said:
Well in that view they are going to Hell anyways.

True. I was just wondering if there was any answer to how they deal with believing that God saves the souls of some unborn at random and damns others to the Lake of Fire.

brvhrt · Nov 13, 2010

The spirit of God (life) is not just in the blood, but also the cells. God already has a plan of good, and not evil for that child (Yeah I said it), so we would do well not to interfere with Gods plans. We as christians should consider it immoral, and come against every form of murder. And the murder of the most innocent of all especially a child! A child depends on its mother above all, to protect it. But to abort her own baby! Instead of being a giver of life, she has become the reaper of death. Her womb according to doctors is a very protective place of protection. But! To turn the womb into a tomb! If you want to question a murder, bring up a gay, or a loser, a drug addict, or an x-wife; but the last place we should even consider is the baby that is depending on its mother. Thats abomination!

brvhrt · Nov 13, 2010

And someone tell me about ex. 21:22. Its never entered into my mind since I was a boy and read it, that it was speaking of the mother. What is the christian majority view on it? P.S. I hope yall (lol) dont mind me copying your stuff on these forums, im learning a lot on here, lol.

OzSpen · Nov 14, 2010

brvhrt,

brvhrt said:
And someone tell me about ex. 21:22. Its never entered into my mind since I was a boy and read it, that it was speaking of the mother. What is the christian majority view on it? P.S. I hope yall (lol) dont mind me copying your stuff on these forums, im learning a lot on here, lol.

Exodus 21:22 & abortion

Exodus 21:22 reads:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine" (ESV).

This verse has sometimes been interpreted to state that the fetus is not fully human. From the exegesis of the passage, I cannot conclude this way for these reasons:

1. The Hebrew word translated in the ESV as "come out", is yahtzah and it means "to give birth." This is the same Hebrew word used throughout the OT for live births. So, in this passage it refers to a premature birth of a live child. It does not refer to a miscarriage.

2. Another Hebrew word is used for miscarriage, shakol, and that is not the word used in Ex. 21:22.

3. The name of the mother's offspring in this verse is called "children," yeled. This is the same word that is used in verses such as Gen. 21:8 and Ex. 2:3 for babies and young children. If there was harm done to either the mother or child, the punishment was "life for life" (Ex. 21:23).

4. So, Ex. 21:22-23 demonstrates that the unborn was equal in value to the mother.

Geisler quotes the famous Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto , also known as Moshe David Cassuto (1883–1951), who translated Exodus 21:22-23 this way:

"When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life" (Umberto Cassuto 1974. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, transl. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, p. 275).

Therefore, these verses confirm that unborn children in the womb are human, on the same level as an adult woman who gives birth to a child, and the punishment for killing an unborn child is "life for life".

For this explanation, I am indebted to Norman Geisler 1989. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Leicester, England: Apollos (Inter-Varsity Press), p. 145.

Sincerely, Spencer

brvhrt · Nov 14, 2010

OzSpen
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine" (ESV).

The reason I always thought it was referring to the child was that the laws of murder "a life for a life" were already known. So this to me was a different situation that referred to the death of the child, hence, the law of life for a lfe, referring to the child.

OzSpen · Nov 14, 2010

brvhrt,

brvhrt said:
OzSpen
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the womans husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine" (ESV).

The reason I always thought it was referring to the child was that the laws of murder "a life for a life" were already known. So this to me was a different situation that referred to the death of the child, hence, the law of life for a lfe, referring to the child.

I am not understanding what you are trying to say. These verses (Ex. 21:22-23) affirm that the unborn is a "child".

Sincerely, Spencer

brvhrt · Nov 14, 2010

I am not understanding what you are trying to say. These verses (Ex. 21:22-23) affirm that the unborn is a "child".

I know that now, and copied it, thank you. What I meant was, in the past when I read this, it wouldnt have made sense to bring up the child, and refer to "life for a life" when it had already been stated before. The child as I always understood it was the reason for stating this "a life for a life" But hearing others say it referred to the mother put me in doubt, till I read what you wrote. Lol, I dont know if this made sense either.

BL2KTN · Nov 14, 2010

brvhrt said:
The spirit of God (life) is not just in the blood, but also the cells.

Well that's extrabiblical.

OzSpen said:
1. The Hebrew word translated in the ESV as "come out", is yahtzah and it means "to give birth." This is the same Hebrew word used throughout the OT for live births. So, in this passage it refers to a premature birth of a live child. It does not refer to a miscarriage.

The verb is actally "yalad" and means "to come out" and it is used for both birth and stillbirths. There is no noun here as it is included in the verb "yalad." I'm not sure about your understanding of ancient hebrew.

2. Another Hebrew word is used for miscarriage, shakol, and that is not the word used in Ex. 21:22.

Shakol would be a stupid word to use here since it connotates "barrenness," which is certainly not the reason for the termination of the pregnancy.

3. The name of the mother's offspring in this verse is called "children," yeled. This is the same word that is used in verses such as Gen. 21:8 and Ex. 2:3 for babies and young children. If there was harm done to either the mother or child, the punishment was "life for life" (Ex. 21:23).

This is simply false - there is no noun given in the text for the offspring.

Exodus 21 says exactly this:

1) Man hits woman and causes miscarriage = monetary fine.
2) Man hits woman and injury occurs to woman = lex talionis (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life).

If you try to make it say otherwise, you're being dishonest about the text and warping it so that it will fit your view.

BL

BL2KTN · Nov 14, 2010

By the way, here's the full commentary on Exodus 21 and it's meaning from my paper:

Now the first thing to realize when reading this verse is that different translations will translate the first sentence differently. Some translate it as a “premature birth,” while others translate it as a “miscarriage.” The above translation is from the New International Version, and it gives a footnote for the verse which says “or miscarriage.” The reason for this is that the actual Hebrew literally says that “her fruit goes out.” For many people, this is what the whole argument hinges upon… if it is simply a “premature birth,” then the baby survived and the punishment is for causing that premature birth. If the term is appropriately a “miscarriage,” then the unborn life only has a value equal to property loss, and does not have value equal to a person’s life since the woman’s life requires “life for life” but the fetus’ does not.

While the semantics might seem important at first, and we will look at the semantics just to be complete in the study, the historic understanding makes the difference in “premature birth” and “miscarriage” rather pointless. The scripture given does not place a timeframe on the pregnancy that is ended by this act, but rather it is given for any pregnancy which is either premature or miscarried (depending on how it is translated). Yet regardless of whether it is miscarried or prematurely delivered, unless the timeframe is very near the end of pregnancy, there is no way the fetus would live in that historic setting. In our modern age of medicine, a premature birth is a huge risk, but in the ancient world, when even normal births were risky, a premature birth was certain death for the fetus. So even if you view the correct translation as being “premature birth,” it is disingenuous to think that the act being described is anything less than certain death for the unborn.

If we look at the Hebrew wording here to determine what is really meant, we find that “miscarriage” is contextually the most accurate way to translate to English. The verb used for “gives birth prematurely” is “yalad,” which in Hebrew means “to come out.” It is used in the bible to describe other births and one other stillbirth. Some point out that two other words should have been used here if the bible is referring to a miscarriage and not the premature birth of a healthy infant. They say that “shakol” – a verb meaning to miscarry – and “nefel” – a verb meaning a miscarried fetus – should have been used. They believe that because these are absent, it must absolutely mean a healthy, premature birth. However, as I studied these two issues, I became aware of two problems. The first problem with the two words is the easiest – the Hebrew doesn’t use a word for a baby or a miscarried fetus in the passage… so whether or not “nefel” is used doesn’t matter because the opposite isn’t used either. It’s expressed totally in verb form (“yalad&#8221, without using a noun. The “shakol” word was a bit trickier, until I learned that “shakol” refers to barrenness – because this act is not related to barrenness, but physical injury, it wouldn’t make sense to use the word “shakol” here. And regardless, the verb “yalad” is used to describe a stillbirth elsewhere in the bible, so it’s not any stretch to use it here in concert with our context.

Another thing to understand is that this verse deals with the termination of a pregnancy throughout all times of the pregnancy. Whether the pregnancy is aborted in the third month, sixth month, or eighth month is not an issue for God in this commandment. In the third and sixth months, there is absolutely no chance for survival in that context, and in the eighth it would be unlikely. Yet, the consequence is the same for God. And if this commandment were only referring to a healthy birth process at an unexpected time, with the caveat that should “further mischief” follow for either the baby or woman, then why is there even a civil penalty for what has occurred? I think at this point it is obvious that the passage is referring to a miscarriage.
So what does this all have to do with abortion? Well, a miscarriage is a type of abortion. In this case, we have a commandment from God on how to handle either an accidental abortion or a purposeful abortion (if in the struggle the man decides he wants to cause the woman to abort by hitting her). In either case, God allows that the head of the woman’s family (the one with legal decision-making rights in that culture) may assign a monetary value to the loss and apply it as the penalty depending on the court’s approval. The commandment also allows that if any injury should have occurred to the woman, equal punishment should be applied to the perpetrator. So if in this attack the woman is killed, the perpetrator is to be put to death. However, since we’ve already established that the fetus is dead, the bible is differentiating between the very nature of the born life verses the unborn life.

This commandment by God is also the first appearance of the Lex Talionis concept – eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. The concept means that for the ancient Hebrews, if a person purposefully breaks another person’s hand, then the perpetrator’s hand should be broken if a conviction is had. So it is very significant that in a commandment from God Himself, He does not recognize the death of an unborn as being covered by Lex Talionis. Even if a Jewish priest had struck a female beggar and killed her, the priest, once convicted, has a life which is equally valued. Obviously the priest has a higher societal value, has a higher economic value, but he does not have a higher value for his life under the law of God. This concept has continued into the United States’ laws in the form of “equal protection.” Yet the “life for a life” is not given to the unborn, and we can infer from that that God does not view that biological life as the same as the life of the woman. Why? Well, I think it correlates with that life not yet possessing a spirit, but you can draw whatever conclusion you wish at this point.

brvhrt · Nov 14, 2010

You've crossed the line again, God says "Thou shalt not kill," Much wisdom doth make thee mad! Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The natural mind cannot receive the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. I dont think the majority of preachers, and christians, or moral men, or our american forefathers are going to embrace your sadistic psycho babble!

BL2KTN · Nov 14, 2010

You've crossed the line again, God says "Thou shalt not kill," Much wisdom doth make thee mad! Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The natural mind cannot receive the things of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned. I dont think the majority of preachers, and christians, or moral men, or our american forefathers are going to embrace your sadistic psycho babble!

Honestly, do you think quoting in 1600s English doth make you sound smarter?

Critique my points if you want... I'm not interested in whether I have crossed your line.

BL

brvhrt · Nov 14, 2010

It makes me sound 16th century, lol. Does misinterpreting the bible make you a theologian?

brvhrt · Nov 14, 2010

BlueLightningTN said:
Critique my points if you want... I'm not interested in whether I have crossed your line.

Honestly Bluelightning, I do have a problem believing that you believe some of these things you say. You expect me to answer you according to scripture, but you dont answer some of the things I say. Tell me, do you really believe that Jesus, Mary, Paul, John the baptist, Job, David, Moses, or solomon would support abortion, or agree with your interpretations of the scripture? And honestly, are you anti-abortion? Whats your stand?

BL2KTN · Nov 15, 2010

brvhrt said:
It makes me sound 16th century, lol. Does misinterpreting the bible make you a theologian?

When you can show me where I've misinterpreted the bible, then I'll be impressed with you. As of now, you're more of a cheerleader for OzSpen.

Honestly Bluelightning, I do have a problem believing that you believe some of these things you say.

And yet you can't find errors to show me. If you could, you would.

You expect me to answer you according to scripture, but you dont answer some of the things I say.

Pardon me for not responding to very post you've ever written.

Tell me, do you really believe that Jesus, Mary, Paul, John the baptist, Job, David, Moses, or solomon would support abortion, or agree with your interpretations of the scripture?

Jesus viewed birth as the beginning (John 3), so I would strongly assume so. Mary probably wouldn't disagree with Jesus. Paul told women to stay quiet in church, so me and Paul would probably disagree on various issues. I have no idea what John the Baptist would say since we don't know a tremendous amount about him. Job is an allegorical tool and not a real person. David committed adultery, then killed the woman's husband to hide it... I'm not a real fan of David, even if he was "a man after God's own heart." Moses is the very person who gives us Exodus 21 and Numbers 5 (supposedly).

Now if you want to pretend that they'd all agree with you, and that you know what they'd say, more power to your imagination I say.

And honestly, are you anti-abortion? Whats your stand?

My position is that a z/e/f is not ensouled at conception, does not posess any cognitive abilities until the third trimester, and therefore I have no problem with any abortion prior to the third trimester. Most occur in the first trimester, and I certainly have no issue with those.

I didn't always have that opinion. But my research has led me to a more logical, biblical position.

BL

brvhrt · Nov 15, 2010

Rest in peace.

BL2KTN · Nov 15, 2010

Too much to do to rest... but I suppose the same to you =)

BL

Question about abortion

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Well-Known Member

BRVHRT

BRVHRT

Regular Member

BRVHRT

Regular Member

BRVHRT

Scholar, Author, Educator

Scholar, Author, Educator

BRVHRT

Scholar, Author, Educator

BRVHRT

BRVHRT

Scholar, Author, Educator

BRVHRT

Scholar, Author, Educator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency