|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
This maybe sent off to the Old nags because I can't believe it hasn't been done to death before.
But does the bible really teach that abortion, the killing of an unborn child is the same as murder.
If men contend with each other, and a pregnant woman is hurt so that she has a miscarriage, yet no further damage follows, [the one who hurt her] shall surely be punished with a fine [paid] to the woman's husband, as much as the judges determine. Exodus 21:22 Amplified
Some translations suggest the child is not lost but born prematurely but I think the intention of the text is about miscarriage. Clearly this is not the same punishment as causing the death of an already born person.
Causing the death of the unborn is not good but it is not murder.
Also the verses like Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being;you knit me together in my mother’s womb." Are poetic verses saying that before we were born God knew us, rather like He knew us before the foundation of the world, they are verses about God's foreknowledge rather than statements about when life begins.
While Christians may argue against abortion for moral reasons I don't think that they can call on the Bible for unqualified support
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I suspect you're correct. Not only from the text you provided, but from the fact that the common law took the same view until very recently. It was not possible to be convicted of the murder of an unborn child. Given that much of the common law has Biblical roots, I would suspect that's where the view came from. The idea that you can 'murder' an unborn child is a very recent one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Can you spell d-e-a-d h-o-r-s-e? Down you go.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
The Exodus passage doesn't really help either way - both the women ians child are collateral damage - neither is the direct object of attack. The termination of life through an abortion is a conscious and deliberate premeditated act.
But maybe we can go back a step. You say we could describe abortion as 'not good' and potentially objectionable on 'moral grounds.' What moral principle (and in particular what Biblical moral principle) might it violate?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The Exodus passage doesn't really help either way - both the women ians child are collateral damage - neither is the direct object of attack.
I'm not sure that's necessarily correct - at best, I think you're making an assumption about how and why a pregnant woman would be hurt. It's perfectly possible to hurt a pregnant woman with the intent of hurting the foetus inside. In fact, it was a case of that very nature that prompted a rethink in at least one Australian state. A man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, not because he wanted to hurt the woman but because he wanted to kill or injure the foetus.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
Oh my, for once, I'm early enough to dive into a Dead Horses thread!
Apparently in the bible, there's a distinction in the commandment "Thou shall not kill" (according to a book I'm currently skimming through: "The Good Book, by Peter J. Gomes). He says the Hebrew should be translated "Thou shall do no murder". So murder refers to the premeditated taking of a person outside the womb; killing had to do with the ritual slaughter of animals for sacrifice. Here endeth my citation.
Personally, I believe the bible is silent about abortion, therefore any attempts to bible-thump on the issue are misguided.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The Exodus passage doesn't really help either way - both the women ians child are collateral damage - neither is the direct object of attack.
I'm not sure that's necessarily correct - at best, I think you're making an assumption about how and why a pregnant woman would be hurt. It's perfectly possible to hurt a pregnant woman with the intent of hurting the foetus inside. In fact, it was a case of that very nature that prompted a rethink in at least one Australian state. A man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, not because he wanted to hurt the woman but because he wanted to kill or injure the foetus.
This answer also misses the (to me) obvious point that the OT has a mechanism for dealing with a killing that is unintentional, what we today (at least in the US) would call involuntary manslaughter. And this verse does not call for that penalty/outcome, but rather that of property loss.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
I don't think the Bible specifically teaches that abortion is murder, but I also don't think the lack of such a condemnation really matters. I mean it doesn't specifically teach that killing redheads is murder either. But it's a reasonable conclusion.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Mousetheif. Helpful comment on the involuntary assumption in the Exodus passage. Still interested in views on my question above to the Chief
'But maybe we can go back a step. You say we could describe abortion as 'not good' and potentially objectionable on 'moral grounds.' What moral principle (and in particular what Biblical moral principle) might it violate?'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
I'd say it doesn't.
I think looking at what Jews at the time believed is very useful and not done often enough.
quote:
Similarly, Josephus states that a person who causes the abortion of a woman's fetus as a result of kicking her shall pay a fine for "diminishing the population," in addition to paying monetary compensation to the husband, and that such a person shall be put to death if the woman dies of the blow (Ant., 4:278). According to the laws of the ancient East (Sumer, Assyria, the Hittites), punishment for inflicting an aborting blow was monetary and sometimes even flagellation, but not death (except for one provision in Assyrian law concerning willful abortion, self-inflicted). In the Code of *Hammurapi (no. 209, 210) there is a parallel to the construction of the two quoted passages: "If a man strikes a woman [with child] causing her fruit to depart, he shall pay ten shekalim for her loss of child. If the woman should die, he who struck the blow shall be put to death."
Also, a bit later in time...
quote:
In talmudic times, as in ancient *halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the fetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh. Mishpatim 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.), hence, even if an infant is only one day old, his killer is guilty of murder (Nid. 5:3). In the view of R. Ishmael, only a *Gentile, to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the fetus (Sanh. 57b). Thus abortion, although prohibited, does not constitute murder
This article is good reading on the issue.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
quote:
But maybe we can go back a step. You say we could describe abortion as 'not good' and potentially objectionable on 'moral grounds.' What moral principle (and in particular what Biblical moral principle) might it violate?'
Abortion seems to leave an emotional scar on at least some of the women who have been through the procedure. I guess some may say that this is due to the condemnation of others, the nagging feeling that the preacher who called abortion murder may have been right. However it seems to me that at least some women feel guilty following an abortion and some carry this guilt for years, in this sense abortion is not good.
Abortion is not good in the sense that it is an invasive operation with the potential for something to go wrong damaging the future reproductive health of the woman.
My own view is that sometimes abortion is the least bad option, both for medical reasons and sometimes for social reasons. A teenage couple having to leave education to raise a child, a child who is unwanted and resented, or a child who is brought into a chaotic family where the child will be abused or neglected, in such cases abortion may be a less bad option.
Adoption in the UK does not offer an alternative, it is not possible to pre arrange an adoption, a child must be born and given up, a mother will not have the child removed as soon as it is born but will be ENCOURAGED to care for the child at least during her hospital stay.
I am fairly convinced that it doesn't breech a clear Bible injunction and I am not convinced that it is universally the wrong thing to do.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
No. There's no explicit statement addressing the question. Attempts to read an implicit position out of the Bible result in an ambiguous condemnation at strongest.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Just to pick at one thing: quote:
Abortion seems to leave an emotional scar on at least some of the women who have been through the procedure. I guess some may say that this is due to the condemnation of others, the nagging feeling that the preacher who called abortion murder may have been right. However it seems to me that at least some women feel guilty following an abortion and some carry this guilt for years, in this sense abortion is not good.
The same could be said of being a career soldier.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What moral principle (and in particular what Biblical moral principle) might it violate?
My personal feeling is that abortion should be condemned on a sliding scale-- in the earliest stages not at all; but as the fetus becomes recognizably human, and especially once it is viable, it deserves moral respect and, ultimately, even some legal protection. As I recall, this intuitive approach is also the position of Roe vs. Wade, which noted that there is no unanimity on this issue among Christian theologians or even the Fathers of the Church.
Murder being the serious crime that it is from the Bible forward, society should instill such an instinctive and visceral aversion to it as to shrink even from killing a creature that resembles a human being. Whether you wish to accord full humanity to it not, aborting or killing a well-developed fetus should be considered horrible for the same reasons as most of us would have more trouble killing a chimpanzee than a dog, or a dog than a lizard, or a lizard than a centipede.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
The Exodus passage doesn't really help either way - both the women ians child are collateral damage - neither is the direct object of attack.
I'm not sure that's necessarily correct - at best, I think you're making an assumption about how and why a pregnant woman would be hurt. It's perfectly possible to hurt a pregnant woman with the intent of hurting the foetus inside. In fact, it was a case of that very nature that prompted a rethink in at least one Australian state. A man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach, not because he wanted to hurt the woman but because he wanted to kill or injure the foetus.
This answer also misses the (to me) obvious point that the OT has a mechanism for dealing with a killing that is unintentional, what we today (at least in the US) would call involuntary manslaughter. And this verse does not call for that penalty/outcome, but rather that of property loss.
Well yes, the obvious point is actually that neither murder nor manslaughter penalties apply. Because an unborn child doesn't qualify as a person.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well yes, the obvious point is actually that neither murder nor manslaughter penalties apply. Because an unborn child doesn't qualify as a person.
What orfeo says is the gist of my incoherent post above...I must unfreeze my brain before posting.
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
So murder refers to the premeditated taking the life of a person outside the womb; killing had to do with the ritual slaughter of animals for sacrifice.
...and compose complete sentences. (sorry for quoting myself). ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Doesn't this thread need a definition of murder before we can decide whether it applies to abortion? Most people do not equate the termination of life with murder. Some examples, not all of which would be agreed are:
- self defense
- military action
- state execution
Some people deny that abortion is the termination of a life. I find that hard to understand. If nothing is done there will be another live person walking this earth, and the reason this is not the case is that the life has been terminated.
The one argument against it even being a termination of life is non-viability, in which case thew scenario above does not occur. But it most cases, I think it has to be classed as termination of a life, and a human life at that.
But is it murder? Well then it depends on what you class as murder. In law, it relates to legal rights, or so I believe. Morally I think you just have to take your choice.
BTW I generally agree that the lack of an explicit equation of abortion with murder is not the most important point. Murder is wrong, so if a responsible ethical analysis of abortion concludes it to be murder, then it comes under the overall prohibition. So we would not accept the OT leniency to those who killed slaves, for example.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Abortion seems to leave an emotional scar on at least some of the women who have been through the procedure. I guess some may say that this is due to the condemnation of others, the nagging feeling that the preacher who called abortion murder may have been right. However it seems to me that at least some women feel guilty following an abortion and some carry this guilt for years, in this sense abortion is not good.
This is, of course, highly situational. There are doubtless also women who are emotionally scarred by not having an abortion.
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Abortion is not good in the sense that it is an invasive operation with the potential for something to go wrong damaging the future reproductive health of the woman.
For the sake of consistency it should be noted that a full-term pregnancy is actually more dangerous to women than an early termination. Using the criteria of possible health risk to the woman and her future reproductive health, isn't a full-term pregnancy even more "not good" than abortion?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some people deny that abortion is the termination of a life. I find that hard to understand. If nothing is done there will be another live person walking this earth, and the reason this is not the case is that the life has been terminated.
Blogger Fred Clark refers to the idea that life begins at conception as "The ‘biblical view’ that's younger than the Happy Meal". I'm pretty sure that "without interference X will happen, therefore X has already happened" is not a Biblical view. It may be classified as "not inconsistent" with the Bible, but that's not the same as being something taught by the Bible.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some people deny that abortion is the termination of a life. I find that hard to understand. If nothing is done there will be another live person walking this earth, and the reason this is not the case is that the life has been terminated.
Regardless of my feelings on the subject, this logic does not follow. Preventing an event does not equate with the event itself having begun. If nothing is done there will be a birth. This doesn't mean that the birth has been terminated. You are presupposing as to when 'a life' begins, and it's perfectly possible to define 'a life' so that, at the time of the abortion, 'a life' hasn't started.
[ 10. April 2012, 15:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Doesn't this thread need a definition of murder before we can decide whether it applies to abortion?
It is helpful to bear in mind that secrecy was essential in the original meaning of "murder". It is a killing which has to be secret because one knows that those around one would disapprove and probably punish.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some people deny that abortion is the termination of a life. I find that hard to understand. If nothing is done there will be another live person walking this earth, and the reason this is not the case is that the life has been terminated.
If two people have sex at the right time of the month then another person will be walking the earth. So preventing this by contraception is to terminate a life. So those who say abortion and contraception are wrong are consisent up to a point, by not having sex then at the right moment prevents a person walking the earth so terminates a life. So everyone must have unprotected sex as much as possible or you are terminating lives.
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are presupposing as to when 'a life' begins, and it's perfectly possible to define 'a life' so that, at the time of the abortion, 'a life' hasn't started.
Is it possible to define 'a life' in such a manner that is consistent and not ad hoc?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You are presupposing as to when 'a life' begins, and it's perfectly possible to define 'a life' so that, at the time of the abortion, 'a life' hasn't started.
Is it possible to define 'a life' in such a manner that is consistent and not ad hoc?
Not without difficulty. Last time I heard anything on the subject, science had great difficulty actually defining what made something 'alive'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This answer also misses the (to me) obvious point that the OT has a mechanism for dealing with a killing that is unintentional, what we today (at least in the US) would call involuntary manslaughter. And this verse does not call for that penalty/outcome, but rather that of property loss.
Well yes, the obvious point is actually that neither murder nor manslaughter penalties apply. Because an unborn child doesn't qualify as a person.
That's what I was trying to say. Obviously I didn't do a very good job. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some people deny that abortion is the termination of a life. I find that hard to understand. If nothing is done there will be another live person walking this earth, and the reason this is not the case is that the life has been terminated.
But, but there is so much wrong with this statement. I know you refer to non-viability in your next paragraph, so there's that...but this still does not follow as an absolute. Not all viable pregnancies result in live births, not all babies become able to walk, and not all babies want to be born. No one ever considers the babies' perspectives. This is my foursquare stance and I could wear it as a T-shirt. If anyone had asked me, I would have opted out of being forced to be born.
Fill in the blanks with your own reasons that might be so. Not just for me, but for all the little ones who will be beaten, starved, deformed, suffer or live atop garbage dumps or in cholera sewers in Haiti. Not every child needs to be born and it can be a loving thing to decide to opt out on the victim child's behalf.
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The one argument against it even being a termination of life is non-viability, in which case thew scenario above does not occur. But it most cases, I think it has to be classed as termination of a life, and a human life at that.
Of course it is terminating a life. We terminate a life every time we swat a fly. And
we can conclude that it it is human life by a process of elimination, since it isn't any other species.
But so what? The argument is still just a rather equivocal and arbitrary playing with words. The obvious fact is that it is a human being under construction for nine months. Not even viability (under advanced, intensive medical care, of course) should be an absolutely decisive dividing line. I suppose people intend such an argument to be reverent of pregnancy and motherhood, but it's quite the opposite. It amounts to a claim that the final however-many weeks of gestation are redundant. They are not. A child born even a couple weeks premature is liable to have serious health complications lifelong. It confers handicaps and risks that never go away.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The obvious fact is that it is a human being under construction for nine months.
True, but not really significant. It is still under construction after it comes out of the womb. Legally, it's a human being under construction for the next sixteen and three quarter years (at least). From certain points of view, it's under construction for its whole life.
quote:
A child born even a couple weeks premature is liable to have serious health complications lifelong. It confers handicaps and risks that never go away.
Thirty six to thirty seven weeks is term.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not without difficulty. Last time I heard anything on the subject, science had great difficulty actually defining what made something 'alive'.
It does have some difficulty. But organisms of the size of a cell or greater are fairly clear instances of whatever it is.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not without difficulty. Last time I heard anything on the subject, science had great difficulty actually defining what made something 'alive'.
It does have some difficulty. But organisms of the size of a cell or greater are fairly clear instances of whatever it is.
Very much so. There is clearly no absence of life in the sperm or egg, and the cell they 'create' is likewise alive.
The question is when does that living organism become a person worthy of the rights we accord to the already born. Calling it a question of life or non-life is simply extremely sloppy use of our language, and should be avoided at all costs.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
There is clearly no absence of life in the sperm or egg
Whoa. See, right there you're already running into issues. Because a sperm or an egg doesn't have an independent genetic existence. I don't usually talk about the cells inside my left elbow being alive as distinct from me being alive.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I recently saw an article (wish I had kept the URL) that said "life begins at conception" was "the biblical teaching that's younger than the Happy Meal."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
There is clearly no absence of life in the sperm or egg
Whoa. See, right there you're already running into issues. Because a sperm or an egg doesn't have an independent genetic existence. I don't usually talk about the cells inside my left elbow being alive as distinct from me being alive.
What do you mean by "independent genetic existence"? If you mean having their own unique genetic code, as haploid cells, their genetic load is unique. (Something which can't be said of identical twins. Do twins have "independent genetic existence"?)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
There is clearly no absence of life in the sperm or egg
Whoa. See, right there you're already running into issues. Because a sperm or an egg doesn't have an independent genetic existence. I don't usually talk about the cells inside my left elbow being alive as distinct from me being alive.
What do you mean by "independent genetic existence"? If you mean having their own unique genetic code, as haploid cells, their genetic load is unique. (Something which can't be said of identical twins. Do twins have "independent genetic existence"?)
Duh. I clearly was half-awake when I wrote that, wasn't I.
But I think there's still really big questions around an assertion that my sperm are 'alive', because it appears to mean something different to me, as a person, being 'alive'.
A sperm isn't an organism. I suppose it's one half of a potential organism... but yes, let's go back to the inside of my elbow. No-one's agitating for the protection of the cells inside my elbow, and I'd like to know why.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
FREE THE MITOCHONDRIA!
Too long have they been oppressed slaves, toiling away to make energy for human beings.
Seriously, they have separate DNA from the humans they inhabit. Are they "alive"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
FREE THE MITOCHONDRIA!
Too long have they been oppressed slaves, toiling away to make energy for human beings.
Seriously, they have separate DNA from the humans they inhabit. Are they "alive"?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Now there's a protest/rally I'd love to see.
[ 12. April 2012, 05:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Am I the only person who has noticed a couple of references to paying a fine to the father for causing a miscarriage? This seems to suggest a fetus is the father's property, or at least some sort of future interest. This "Biblical view" would sure make things a lot simpler. The mother paying a fine to the father for an abortion would be like buying out his half of the "property". Before everyone stars screaming at me, I didn't write Exodus. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
There is clearly no absence of life in the sperm or egg
Whoa. See, right there you're already running into issues. Because a sperm or an egg doesn't have an independent genetic existence. I don't usually talk about the cells inside my left elbow being alive as distinct from me being alive.
What do you mean by "independent genetic existence"? If you mean having their own unique genetic code, as haploid cells, their genetic load is unique. (Something which can't be said of identical twins. Do twins have "independent genetic existence"?)
Every cancer could also be considered as having "independent genetic existence" and unique. We don't give cancer a right to life; quite the contrary.* I don't think the genetic argument leads us anywhere productive. OliviaG
*Objecting to my analogy on the grounds that cancer can injure, disable or kill the host would suggest abortion to prevent a woman's injury, disability or death is analogous to cancer treatment.*
**"Ah," you say, "but a cancer cannot grow into a human being." That suggests abortion might be acceptable for fetuses with fatal deformities or illnesses e.g. anencephaly or Tay-Sachs.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
FREE THE MITOCHONDRIA!
Too long have they been oppressed slaves, toiling away to make energy for human beings.
...
This overlooks the far greater and older enslavement of chloroplasts. That's animalianist. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Let's face it, eukaryotes are basically great big bullies.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
In talmudic times, as in ancient *halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the fetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh. Mishpatim 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.), hence, even if an infant is only one day old, his killer is guilty of murder (Nid. 5:3). In the view of R. Ishmael, only a *Gentile, to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the fetus (Sanh. 57b). Thus abortion, although prohibited, does not constitute murder
This article is good reading on the issue. [/QB]
Interestingly enough, viability (if I understand correctly, although I am not a lawyer) is the guideline for determining the latest legal date for abortion in the US as well.
Maybe part of the operative definition of a human life here is that it can continue to exist independently? Interesting implications for e.g., people on life support, as well.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:
Personally, I believe the bible is silent about abortion, therefore any attempts to bible-thump on the issue are misguided.
Quite, and also on contraception. Women have been trying to induce abortions, and men pressuring them to, for about as long as men have been geting women up the duff, and the same applies to contraception, so the silence on both subjects is significant.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
While there isn't a verse that says "thou shalt not have an abortion", "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) seems like an obvious injunction against abortion.
However you can also infer from the Bible that killing 'an unborn baby' is wrong. For example if an unborn baby of whatever size is an individual person, then it seems from the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:25) that people begin when they're conceived. Therefore if Mary took some first century abortifacient she'd be breaking the sixth commandment.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Take a broader view for a moment. Why do we undertake abortions? Socail or helth reasons generally - health reasons in the UK representing less than 2% of the total.
Whatever the reason, the net result is the same: cessation of life. If anyone is prepared to end life for social or health reasons, what stops us from applying the same principle to a person aged 3, 33, 73, 93, 103 (for example)? What happens when an indiviual of whatever age is a burden 9social or health) on his/her community? Applying th logic of abortion on such grounds - without considering the inherent worth of individuals - means that we legalise euthanasia.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While there isn't a verse that says "thou shalt not have an abortion", "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) seems like an obvious injunction against abortion.
And yet, as was pointed out earlier in this thread (a year ago), murder laws never applied to unborn children in this country. The same country you're in.
So what's so 'obvious' about it?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
I never come to this section of the Ship of Fools discussion boards, having been put off by the name given to this board, i.e., "Dead Horses"
I'm glad I did today. Reading the contributions to this thread has been very helpful to me in helping me clarify in my mind (and heart) a moral issue that is very much alive to me.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Take a broader view for a moment. Why do we undertake abortions? Socail or helth reasons generally - health reasons in the UK representing less than 2% of the total.
Whatever the reason, the net result is the same: cessation of life. If anyone is prepared to end life for social or health reasons, what stops us from applying the same principle to a person aged 3, 33, 73, 93, 103 (for example)? What happens when an indiviual of whatever age is a burden 9social or health) on his/her community? Applying th logic of abortion on such grounds - without considering the inherent worth of individuals - means that we legalise euthanasia.
The unborn fetus is unable to sustain life on its own without its mother. It is different from a person that is alive.
When thinking of the abortion issue, I considered what value we are supposed to ascribe to the unborn. I then realized that the value of the unborn is meaningless without taking into account the choice of its mother. If the mother doesn't want a child, then why exactly should anyone force her to do something against her wishes?
There is nothing selfish about family planning. There is nothing selfish about carefully discerning whether one is ready to have a child or not.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While there isn't a verse that says "thou shalt not have an abortion", "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) seems like an obvious injunction against abortion.
And yet, as was pointed out earlier in this thread (a year ago), murder laws never applied to unborn children in this country. The same country you're in.
So what's so 'obvious' about it?
The biggest problem with the whole "abortion is murder" position is that those claiming to hold that opinion don't really act like they believe it. Someone who believes that abortion is the equivalent to murder but should carry a lighter criminal penalty than jaywalking isn't someone who can be taken seriously.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
While there isn't a verse that says "thou shalt not have an abortion", "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) seems like an obvious injunction against abortion.
This is begging the question.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
