Show me scripture that supports ABORTION.

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Blackwater Babe said:
*rolls eyes* No it doesn't actually. Maybe you should read what it actually says before you base arguments on it?

The passage in question says they only get a fine if the baby dies, and then ONLY if its father to be says so. Its only if the mother dies that its to be life for a life.

If the Bible did actually say what you say it says, then yes, that would be an excelent example of the Bible speaking against abortion. But since it doesn't say what you said it says...

"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..."--Exodus 21:22-24

Maybe you should read more carefully.

"if men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Exodus 21:22-24

The passage in question does not say that the baby dies, but only that the baby is born prematurely. The passage does not say "only if the mother dies" then it's life for life. It says "if any lasting harm follows", which could mean to either the mother or the child.

So I guess since the bible actually did say what SharonL said it says then this is "an excellent example of the bible speaking against abortion."
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Maybe you should read more carefully.

"if men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Exodus 21:22-24

The passage in question does not say that the baby dies, but only that the baby is born prematurely. The passage does not say "only if the mother dies" then it's life for life. It says "if any lasting harm follows", which could mean to either the mother or the child.

So I guess since the bible actually did say what SharonL said it says then this is "an excellent example of the bible speaking against abortion."

All Hebrew experts disagree with you. The passage refers to hurt to the woman not the foetus because a foetus had no value until it had drawn it's first breath under Jewish law.
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
Maybe you should read more carefully.

"if men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..." Exodus 21:22-24

The passage in question does not say that the baby dies, but only that the baby is born prematurely. The passage does not say "only if the mother dies" then it's life for life. It says "if any lasting harm follows", which could mean to either the mother or the child.

So I guess since the bible actually did say what SharonL said it says then this is "an excellent example of the bible speaking against abortion."

Dude... MISCARRIAGE
 
Upvote 0

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Blackwater Babe said:
Dude... MISCARRIAGE

"Dude... MISCARRIAGE"? Really? That's the best you got?

Try looking at what the verse says in the original Hebrew. It says nothing about the child dying.

Dude, looks like you were wrong all along.
 
Upvote 0

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
SayaOtonashi said:

First, Psalm 139:13 has nothing to do with abortion.

Second, On to Num 5:27. God is the Creator of all life. God creates life and He can take life any time He wants. Can you tell me which modern day abortions God is ordering? I didn't think so.

Is God really ordering an abortion or is God punishing the woman for her infidelity?

This passage does not prove that the bible approves of abortions.
 
Upvote 0

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
kiwimac said:
All Hebrew experts disagree with you. The passage refers to hurt to the woman not the foetus because a foetus had no value until it had drawn it's first breath under Jewish law.

Are you reading the same verse I am. The verse says the child came out, as in "was born". And it does not say the child died. So since the child was born alive, under "Jewish law", I guess the child has "value" after all.
 
Upvote 0

Blackwater Babe

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2011
7,093
246
United States
✟8,940.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Libertarian
"Dude... MISCARRIAGE"? Really? That's the best you got?

Try looking at what the verse says in the original Hebrew. It says nothing about the child dying.

Dude, looks like you were wrong all along.
Read Hebrew, do you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hosea shows the punishment and men had ripped babies from their mothers womb. God never condemn them. Also abortion was well know in Biblical times herbs were used to abort babies. Number 5 talks about that the bitter water was know to cause a miscarriage.
 
Upvote 0

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Blackwater Babe said:
Hardly. You're the one telling me that I should read the original Hebrew. I'm just wondering if you have?

I didn't ask you to read the verse in Hebrew. I ask you to look into what the verse actually says. And what it does not say is that the child died.

Now, have you look into what the verse actually says?
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Are you reading the same verse I am. The verse says the child came out, as in "was born". And it does not say the child died. So since the child was born alive, under "Jewish law", I guess the child has "value" after all.

If a woman miscarries in such conditions the likelihood is the foetus is dead. In any case Jewish law assigns no value to a child until they are at least 8 days old (time for an offering for the child at the temple) and then a month more (at which time they were counted in censuses.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TomZzyzx

Newbie
Mar 23, 2011
857
41
✟9,184.00
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
kiwimac said:
If a woman miscarries in such conditions the likelihood is the foetus is dead. In any case Jewish law assigns no value to a child until they are at least 8 days old (time for an offering for the child at the temple) and then a month more (at which time they were counted in censuses.)

What conditions? Are you reading a different verse again? Because our verse Ex 21:22 does not say the woman miscarried. It says the baby came out and it does not say the baby died. The baby was born prematurely and was born alive.
 
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Read the verse.

Ex 21:22 "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.
23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
ESV

Further:

" . . .Intentional abortion is not mentioned directly in the Bible, but a case of accidental abortion is discussed in Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The famous medieval biblical commentator Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi, interprets “no other misfortune” to mean no fatal injury to the woman following her miscarriage. In that case, the attacker pays only financial compensation for having unintentionally caused the miscarriage, no differently than if he had accidentally injured the woman elsewhere on her body. Most other Jewish Bible commentators, including Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Abraham Ibn Ezra, Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim), Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah), Samson Raphael Hirsch, Joseph Hertz, and others, agree with Rashi’s interpretation. We can thus conclude that when the mother is otherwise unharmed following trauma to her abdomen during which the fetus is lost, the only rabbinic concern is to have the one responsible pay damages to the woman and her husband for the loss of the fetus. None of the rabbis raise the possibility of involuntary manslaughter being involved because the unborn fetus is not legally a person and, therefore, there is no question of murder involved when a fetus is aborted. . ."

Source

Again:

" . . .The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb. The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural. Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82) . . ."

Source

I also recommend the following Paper by J. M. Sprinkle in the Westminster Theological Journal vol. 55 (1993) pp 233-253.
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well the Jewish have not problem with abortion
[FONT=Georgia,'Times New Roman',Times,serif]
The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.

If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

SayaOtonashi

Newbie
May 19, 2012
1,960
81
USA
✟19,181.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller, known as Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary on this passage in the Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. Similar reasoning is found in Rashi’s commentary on the talmudic discussion of this mishnaic passage, where Rashi states that as long as the child has not come out into the world, it is not called a living being, i.e., nefesh. Once the head of the child has come out, the child may not be harmed because it is considered as fully born, and one life may not be taken to save another.
The Mishnah elsewhere states: “If a pregnant woman is taken out to be executed, one does not wait for her to give birth; but if her pains of parturition have already begun [lit. she has already sat on the birth stool], one waits for her until she gives birth.” One does not delay the execution of the mother in order to save the life of the fetus because the fetus is not yet a person (Heb. nefesh), and judgments in Judaism must be promptly implemented. The Talmud also explains that the embryo is part of the mother’s body and has no identity of its own, since it is dependent for its life upon the body of the woman. However, as soon as it starts to move from the womb, it is considered an autonomous being (nefesh) and thus unaffected by the mother’s state. This concept of the embryo being considered part of the mother and not a separate being recurs throughout the Talmud and rabbinic writings.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums