Abortion

[BVS]

The entire bible was written by man. If this is true then why do you have faith in a higher being?

There's a difference between inspired by God and written by God.

Just like there are those today who say they speak for God, there were those that said the same thing back then...

 

[sulawesigirl4]

While I appreciate that this always divisive topic has managed to stay (for the most part) civil, I think the thread is in danger of being derailed. Can we shift back from theological discussions on Biblical inspiration/inerrancy to the original topic? Much thanks.

 

[maycocksean]

I disagree. I think that the moment prochoice organizations collectively say that abortion is the taking of a human life, the criminalization of abortion is right around the corner, and that's why they can't do it.

Maybe. Maybe not. We all know that the death penalty takes human life and yet it hasn't been entirely banned or criminalized.

But again, I think the issue of "innocence" would definitely shade the issue making your scenario likely.

Which is unfortunate, because I think if we're going to have legalized abortion (which I think we should), we need to be honest about what we're doing. I understand your point though. Most people can't stomach the idea that we might be killing children, and perhaps it shouldn't be "stomached." (Which again proves that your typical pro-choice supporter is NOT a murderer).

 

[maycocksean]

Would there be some way that a man could prosecute a woman who had his child aborted against his will? Or would men have any rights? It's all so hypothetical.

This one, I get a little bit worked up about.

I totally totally oppose men being able to do this, but I admitt right up front that my reasons are largely, and deeply emotional and it's hard for me to approach it rationally.

 

[maycocksean]

I think we can pretty much know what Jesus thinks, even though he of course never mentioned the word "abortion".

He constantly speak of and exhibited his love for children.

Perhaps in the broad sense, yes I think we can say that Jesus would not think abortion a "wonderful" thing. Insisting that his stance would mirror exactly that of pro-lifers today is more dicey.

After all Jesus constantly demonstrated his love and respect for women as well in a time and place where extreme chauvinism is the rule of the day.

Everybody (at least if you're a believer) wants to co-opt Jesus for their side, and all I'm saying is that when Jesus was on earth He had a way of not allowing Himself to be co-opted by anyone. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the same could be said today.

And while, like you, I believe that all of the Bible is the word of God, using laws given by God to Old Testament Israel for running a society at a particular time and in a particular cultural setting does little to strengthen your position since we both know that many of the laws on either side of Exodus 21:22-23 you would quickly dismiss as no longer applicable. It becomes a case of convenient picking and choosing.

 

[80sU2isBest]

And while, like you, I believe that all of the Bible is the word of God, using laws given by God to Old Testament Israel for running a society at a particular time and in a particular cultural setting does little to strengthen your position since we both know that many of the laws on either side of Exodus 21:22-23 you would quickly dismiss as no longer applicable. It becomes a case of convenient picking and choosing.

You're wrong; it's not a case of "convenient picking and choosing".

When Christ came to the earth and lived a completely sinless life, he fulfilled the law, and anyone who follows him is now under the covenant of Grace, not the law. But that doesn't mean that we just throw out everything in the Old Testament. So, how can a person decide which concepts we are still to live by? The concepts that are based on God's important moral standards, not on ritualism and cultural traditions.

For instance, when Christ walked the earth, he did away with several of the laws. He didn't make his disciples wash before eating, he healed on the Sabbath, etc. etc. But he did not do away with God's holy moral standards at all. And think about some of the other things that have changed; they are cultural things (such as women being able to cut their hair) and health-related ocncerns that do not exist anymore (being able to eat certain kinds of foods, because now we can safely prepare them).

Throughout the Old testament, God consistently stood in defense of the innocent, the weak the powerless. That did not change in the New Testament. That's because it's one of the standards that is part of God's very nature, who he is.

And that is why I think we can be assured that God's stance on protecting the unborn has not changed.

 

[trevster2k]

 

[BVS]

Well it had a long run, maybe one of the longest abortion threads we've had...

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think that the Biblical stance on abortion does not stray from the topic.

 

[80sU2isBest]

according to Nathan1977 and 80s




God says to kill.



the scripture they are advocating and that they say are God'd words are from the NIV Bible

here is some more





It seems pretty obvious to me that these laws were written by men.

Deep, I'll answer this in a new thread, since Sicy asked us to get back on topic.

 

[yolland]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I think that the Biblical stance on abortion does not stray from the topic.

Yeah, I think what sula meant was the straying into "written by God or by man?" stuff, which has nothing to do with abortion and might lead to an unrelated discussion about Biblical inerrancy.

Anyhow...without getting back into said who-"really"-wrote-the-Bible tangent, I wanted to toss in a comment on the Exodus verse, since that one always seems to come up in these discussions. If you couldn't care less about the Exodus verse, please feel free to skip this post altogether.

Ironically, in Jewish law Exodus 21:22-25 is the traditional source for our view that abortion is not murder. It's certainly strongly discouraged, because it means a human life that could've been never will be, and because traditionally in Judaism (and still among the Orthodox) it's just assumed that everyone intends to have children. Of course, at the time the Torah was compiled, most girls were married off at Bat Mitzvah age (12) and played no role in society except as wives and mothers, so it's unlikely these kinds of questions came up very often.

I'd translate verses 23-25 pretty much the same way whatever translation 80s quoted did, but not verse 22, so I'll go ahead and translate that one directly here:

וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים.
(vekhi yinatsu anashim vengafu ishah hara veyatse'u yeladeya velo yiyeh ason anosh y'anesh ka'asher yashith alav ba'al ha'ishah venatan biflilim)

Translating as literally as I can: "And if - they fight - men - and smite - woman - pregnant - and they make depart - her begotten - and not - he becomes - harming - to be fined - he shall be fined - such as - he will place - upon him - the husband of the woman - and he gives - according to the judgment."

Biblical Hebrew had no (known) term for an induced miscarriage. There is a verb shakol which usually means 'to be made childless' (as by war) but occasionally, in a context of invoking chronic fertility problems, seems to mean 'to spontaneously miscarry' (invariably implying stillbirth), as opposed to the normal verb for 'to give birth', yalad. And there's a noun for a stillborn baby, nephel (literally, 'fallen one') as opposed to an ordinary newborn, uhl--in fact, so far as I can think of this is how a spontaneous miscarriage outside the context of chronic fertility problems is always discussed, but it has no verb form and doesn't combine with yalad; you wouldn't say "She gave birth to a nephel". Anyhow, none of those words are used here; instead we have this awkward construction 'make depart her begotten'. Because nothing in the next three verses suggests that they refer to the 'begotten' (a newborn wouldn't have teeth or burns, and it's hard to imagine how any nonfatal injury to the mother could amputate its hand or foot) the Jewish understanding of this passage has always been that the 'begotten' 'departed' its mother dead, and the next three verses thus refer to any injury to the mother above and beyond the miscarriage. Therefore the fact that the penalty proposed by 21:22 is financial damages alone--which of course is not in keeping with standard Torah punishments for murder--is taken to mean that 'making depart the begotten' is not murder. For this reason you will not find any discussion, whether in the Talmud, Tosafot (medieval rabbinic writings) or the modern responsa literature, addressing the notion of abortion as murder. In fact the Talmud says of the fetus, 'lav nevesh hu'--it is not a person.

Speaking of murder, and since deep mentioned the Sixth Commandment, I'll also point out that what the Hebrew there reads is Lo tirtzakh--literally, "Murder not"--using the imperative form of ratzah, the verb for a malicious, unlawfull killing specifically; had it been meant as a blanket injunction against killing (which wouldn't make too much sense amidst all the Torah's blood and gore, anyhow) it would've been the completely different verb Lo taharoq.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I didn't find out about this until I was an adult, if I recall correctly and we've talked about it some since then. I especially wanted to know if she found that she was "haunted" by what happened or if it "damaged her for life" especially after I read this terribly written pro-life pamphlet-disguised-as-a-novel called The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers (an author who I normally admire very, very much) and the author insisted that all women who have abortions are damaged forever and ever because of what they did. So I asked my mom if that was true for her and she said, no it wasn't. She felt peace about what she did, and while I'm sure there will be those who say "she's lying. . .oh, she's haunted all right" I chose to take her word for it because I see the peace and joy she has in her life everyday and I know that's real.

Perhaps it's because of her that my view of the abortion issue is so "complicated."

I am very sorry to hear about your mother's situation. I truly am.

I am curious about something about Francine Rivers. Did her book make the point that women who have an abortion are damaged forever, or did she allow for God's forgiveness and healing, which would retsore the women?

Secondly, I am curious about your mother's response. Did she say she never regretted or was always at peace? Could it be that she has experienced God's forgiveness and healing, and that is why she feels at peace? I'm not making any arguments either way, I am just very curious as to what you think she would answer to those questions.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd translate verses 23-25 pretty much the same way whatever translation 80s quoted did, but not verse 22, so I'll go ahead and translate that one directly here:

וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים.
(vekhi yinatsu anashim vengafu ishah hara veyatse'u yeladeya velo yiyeh ason anosh y'anesh ka'asher yashith alav ba'al ha'ishah venatan biflilim)

Translating as literally as I can: "And if - they fight - men - and smite - woman - pregnant - and they make depart - her begotten - and not - he becomes - harming - to be fined - he shall be fined - such as - he will place - upon him - the husband of the woman - and he gives - according to the judgment."

Biblical Hebrew had no (known) term for an induced miscarriage. There is a verb shakol which usually means 'to be made childless' (as by war) but occasionally, in a context of invoking chronic fertility problems, seems to mean 'to spontaneously miscarry' (invariably implying stillbirth), as opposed to the normal verb for 'to give birth', yalad. And there's a noun for a stillborn baby, nephel (literally, 'fallen one') as opposed to an ordinary newborn, uhl--in fact, so far as I can think of this is how a spontaneous miscarriage outside the context of chronic fertility problems is always discussed, but it has no verb form and doesn't combine with yalad; you wouldn't say "She gave birth to a nephel". Anyhow, none of those words are used here; instead we have this awkward construction 'make depart her begotten'. Because nothing in the next three verses suggests that they refer to the 'begotten' (a newborn wouldn't have teeth or burns, and it's hard to imagine how any nonfatal injury to the mother could amputate its hand or foot) the Jewish understanding of this passage has always been that the 'begotten' 'departed' its mother dead, and the next three verses thus refer to any injury to the mother above and beyond the miscarriage. Therefore the fact that the penalty proposed by 21:22 is financial damages alone--which of course is not in keeping with standard Torah punishments for murder--is taken to mean that 'making depart the begotten' is not murder.

You are quite the scripture student. I can tell you put a lot of study and effort into that.

However, I do have a question. Could it be that "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.) is presented here as saying that the penalty should assess the concept of "eye for an eye" (equal payback), not the literal taking of an eye, tooth, etc.?

For this reason you will not find any discussion, whether in the Talmud, Tosafot (medieval rabbinic writings) or the modern responsa literature, addressing the notion of abortion as murder. In fact the Talmud says of the fetus, 'lav nevesh hu'--it is not a person.

The Talmud may not, but in the Old Testament, the life within the womb is never spoken of as a "fetus". It is always referred to as a person, using terms like "child", etc.

 

[dazzlingamy]

but do you see that for countless - we really could care less what it says in the bible or whatever - it means nothing utterly devoid of meaning and because i live in a state where church and state is seperated (oh thank allah for that!) i don't think anything pulled out of a book - that only a few place precident in should be used to make or unmake a law in the land.

"god" has nothing to do with my body and therefore should have no say in such a general weirdy twisty way from reading some passage in a book, over my body.

Done and done.

 

[maycocksean]

You're wrong; it's not a case of "convenient picking and choosing".

When Christ came to the earth and lived a completely sinless life, he fulfilled the law, and anyone who follows him is now under the covenant of Grace, not the law. But that doesn't mean that we just throw out everything in the Old Testament. So, how can a person decide which concepts we are still to live by? The concepts that are based on God's important moral standards, not on ritualism and cultural traditions.

For instance, when Christ walked the earth, he did away with several of the laws. He didn't make his disciples wash before eating, he healed on the Sabbath, etc. etc. But he did not do away with God's holy moral standards at all. And think about some of the other things that have changed; they are cultural things (such as women being able to cut their hair) and health-related ocncerns that do not exist anymore (being able to eat certain kinds of foods, because now we can safely prepare them).

Throughout the Old testament, God consistently stood in defense of the innocent, the weak the powerless. That did not change in the New Testament. That's because it's one of the standards that is part of God's very nature, who he is.

And that is why I think we can be assured that God's stance on protecting the unborn has not changed.

I agree with everything you say here, except for the last sentence. I do believe God desires to "protect the unborn" but I don't think that necessarily means that His stance mirrors the pro-life position today. That's really all I'm saying. To insist "This is God's stand" not taking into consideraton the complicated nature of the issue and without a clear Biblical stance (though granted one could infer a Biblical stance as you have done by quoting texts that indicate God knew us before we were born etc--of course God knew us before we were even conceived as well) I think it's dangerous to say "This is Jesus Stance."

 

[maycocksean]

but do you see that for countless - we really could care less what it says in the bible or whatever - it means nothing utterly devoid of meaning and because i live in a state where church and state is seperated (oh thank allah for that!) i don't think anything pulled out of a book - that only a few place precident in should be used to make or unmake a law in the land.

"god" has nothing to do with my body and therefore should have no say in such a general weirdy twisty way from reading some passage in a book, over my body.

Done and done.

Of course. That's a given. But I'm not discussing this with countless numbers of people per se or putting a general post out there. I'm responding to specific issues raised by a specific poster for whom the Bible is very much relevant to their stance on the issues.

You might think we are stupid to take the Bible into account in our decision making process, and that's your right, but I'm sure you can at least respect that for us, at least, it's important. You can skip over our posts and continue on to those with a strictly secular approach. After all, I don't imagine your suggesting that religious issues can't be brought to bear in the discussion just because not all participants in the discussion are religious.

Just to be clear, I'm NOT advocating that religion be a deciding factor in how this is or isn't legislated. I'm definitely against that. But on a personal level I think it can be an appropriate element of the argument.

 

[yolland]

However, I do have a question. Could it be that "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.) is presented here as saying that the penalty should assess the concept of "eye for an eye" (equal payback), not the literal taking of an eye, tooth, etc.?

I suppose you could argue it could, although the other verses employing that construction don't include the 'etc.' bits Exodus 25 does, so you'd then have to account for why this one particular verse throws them in. As a footnote--and you may well already know this, but I find it's a common misconception--Jewish law does not take that principle literally, except in the case of capital punishment for murder. In the Oral Law (Torah sh'bal'peh--the detailed form of the written Torah's legal sections, which analogous to arrangements in other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, was transmitted orally to priests/rabbis until the second century, when diaspora conditions made this unfeasible; at which point it was written down and became the core of the Talmud) it's explained that it means monetary compensation approximating the value of the body part lost or maimed--eye, tooth, disablingly burnt or scarred limb, etc. When Jesus refers to it he seems to be warning against using the principle to justify personal retribution, suggesting that perhaps some people had taken to using it to justify plain old revenge--which contradicts the law against that laid down by Leviticus 19:18 of course, but that's all too easy a maxim to rationalize one's way out of, so it wouldn't be surprising if that was common.

The Talmud may not, but in the Old Testament, the life within the womb is never spoken of as a "fetus". It is always referred to as a person, using terms like "child", etc.

Oh, the Talmud doesn't per se have any terms meaning 'fetus' either--Ancient Hebrew didn't have specific terms for life in utero, period. Generally the term used for 'child' in the sense of 'with child' is yeled, yalid or some other derivative of yalad, which as mentioned above is the Hebrew phrase used for 'to give birth.' That's a root verb which is used to refer to anything from calving to eggs hatching to childbirth, or, in its derivative forms, anything from beings in utero to 'children' (the kind that run around yelling) to 'descendants.' It doesn't intrinsically entail 'personhood' in the way 'child' does--the context supplies that--but rather the sense of 'that which was begotten'. The best English equivalent for it, I guess, would be something like 'progeny' or 'issue,' but that'd just sound silly in many situations where yalad/yeled/etc. are used. Anyway, I *think* that's the term that Talmud passage used; unfortunately I don't have my CD-ROM Talmud on me at the moment or I'd check.

There are a few other terms which could be aptly translated 'child', uhl and a couple related words which etymologically convey 'suckling' (as in one who nurses), as well as some specific words for male or female children which generally carry the sense of 'heir,' but I can't think of a situation where these are used to describe beings in utero.

Anyways, I'm not trying to assign a Definitive Interpretation to the Exodus passage or anything; I'm certainly not qualified to do that, and as I've said before, obviously it's not for me to tell a Christian what kind of interpretation of whatever "OT" passage his or her personal understanding and experience of God ought to yield. Just wanted to clarify some aspects of the traditional Jewish view on that passage.

 

[martha]

It took seven pages before Jesus was brought up! Congratulations! I think that's a new FYM record.

I'm loving all these boys with furrowed brows maybe not thinking an abortion is such a good thing.

Like they'll ever ever ever have to actually deal with the sitch.

Shall we post videos of actual women leading their actual lives? Or would that interfere with these boys' ideals of abortion somehow not being linked to actual, real, living, breathing women?

I swore to myself I wouldn't get involved in another idiotic "abortion is wrong because I say so" thread, but lately I've been less than patient with people who want to tell me what to do when they have no authority whatsoever to do so.

 

[CTU2fan]

^ Not speaking for anyone else in here but my views on abortion wouldn't change a bit even if roles were reversed and men were the ones carrying & bearing children. Not sure that's true for the majority of pro-lifers, based on their positions on other issues, but it is for me.

That's why the point Sean touched on a page or 2 ago is so tough for me. While I oppose abortion, in the "real" world where it's legal I also oppose men being given a legal say over a woman's decision to abort (or not to abort). It's a difficult scenario for me though - but basically my thought is if we're going to allow them the decision should lie with the mother.

That said, personally, if a partner of mine went against my wishes & tried to abort my child I'm not sure how I'd handle it...I'd probably end up in jail for kidnapping or something.

 

[martha]

Now what will happen to me - will it now be said that I minimalize rape, that I don't have compassion for rape victims?

Yes, it will. You "value" a zygote more than a woman. So you'll have to live with it. I'm sure you'll find a Bible verse to make you feel better.

 

[martha]

That said, personally, if a partner of mine went against my wishes & tried to abort my child I'm not sure how I'd handle it...I'd probably end up in jail for kidnapping or something.

Lots of men think this is a legitimate solution to a disobedient woman. You'll have plenty of company in that jail.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes, it will. You "value" a zygote more than a woman. So you'll have to live with it. I'm sure you'll find a Bible verse to make you feel better.

I was almost sure I could count on someone. Thanks for fulfilling my prophecy.

 

[BorderGirl]

Yes, it will. You "value" a zygote more than a woman. So you'll have to live with it. I'm sure you'll find a Bible verse to make you feel better.

We are made kind by being kind.

 

[martha]

We are made kind by being kind.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[martha]

I was almost sure I could count on someone. Thanks for fulfilling my prophecy.

Someone had to step up to the plate and call you on it. Someday you'll take full responsibility for your 16th century views.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It took seven pages before Jesus was brought up! Congratulations! I think that's a new FYM record.

I'm loving all these boys with furrowed brows maybe not thinking an abortion is such a good thing.

Like they'll ever ever ever have to actually deal with the sitch.

Shall we post videos of actual women leading their actual lives? Or would that interfere with these boys' ideals of abortion somehow not being linked to actual, real, living, breathing women?

I swore to myself I wouldn't get involved in another idiotic "abortion is wrong because I say so" thread, but lately I've been less than patient with people who want to tell me what to do when they have no authority whatsoever to do so.

Boys? I'm 40 years old. What makes you think that none of who oppose abortion have ever faced the situation of having an unplanned child on the way?

My mother (who had 6 children), my 2 sisters (who had 2 chidren each including a boy with cerebral palsy), my 2 neices, my two married female friends (who also have two children apiece) and my single female friend all oppose abortion and wish it were illegal. Are you going to call them "boys"?

You should have kept your oath to yourself and not participated in this thread. Take your rude and classless comments somewhere else, lady.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Someone had to step up to the plate and call you on it. Someday you'll take full responsibility for your 16th century views.

Hardly. I'm right.

 

[martha]

Boys? I'm 40 years old. What makes you think that none of who oppose abortion have ever faced the situation of having an unplanned child on the way?

Women have a whole different stake in the issue. I'll consider what they say in a different light. Men have no say. Period.

My mother (who had 6 children), my 2 sisters (who had 2 chidren each including a boy with cerebral palsy), my 2 neices, my two married female friends (who also have two children apiece) and my single female friend all oppose abortion and wish it were illegal. Are you going to call them "boys"?

No. See above.

You should have kept your oath to yourself and not participated in this thread. Take your rude and classless comments somewhere else, lady.

Again with the whole "class" thing. You started this thread to get a rise out of people. Everyone here knows how you feel about this issue, yet you somehow think every few months you need some attention. So you start a thread letting us all know that you feel like you need a say in my medical procedures. Then you get all bent out of shape when you get called on it. Where's your "class"?

 

[martha]

Hardly. I'm right.

And so am I.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Again with the whole "class" thing. You started this thread to get a rise out of people. Everyone here knows how you feel about this issue, yet you somehow think every few months you need some attention. So you start a thread letting us all know that you feel like you need a say in my medical procedures. Then you get all bent out of shape when you get called on it. Where's your "class"?

I didn't start this thread, Martha. In a different thread, I simply replied to something someone else said on the subject, and since it was off-topic, it was made into a separate thread.

Every few months I need attention? What do you mean? I hardly ever start threads, and don't get into nearly the amount of discussion I used to.