Ship of Fools: Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?

Thread: Does the Bible teach abortion is murder? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030632

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

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

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Can you spell d-e-a-d h-o-r-s-e? Down you go.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

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?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

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.

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

@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?'

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

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.

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :

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]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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 ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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]

Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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."

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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"?)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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"?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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"?

Now there's a protest/rally I'd love to see.

[ 12. April 2012, 05:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

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

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

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.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

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

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Let's face it, eukaryotes are basically great big bullies.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

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.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

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.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

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?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

'Does the Bible teach?'

The Bible is a collection of books, not a person.

So it does not 'teach' anything.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

If murder is illicit killing, does killing the Canaanites count as murder?

[ 13. April 2013, 23:18: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

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.

And, in the light of what i've read further up the thread, it doesn't seem that obvious to me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If murder is illicit killing, does killing the Canaanites count as murder?

Oh God don't start that one again!

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't usually talk about the cells inside my left elbow being alive as distinct from me being alive.

You might if you were a biologist or a doctor. There is a clear difference between live tissue, that is part of your body, and dead tissue that is part of your body.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... 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.

Yes they are. Legally protected I mean. If I go up to you and take bits off your elbow without your permission (or some very important reason) I can be tried in court and if convicted maybe even go to jail. Presumably for something like "actual bodily harm" if that still exists as a crime.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

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

Nononononononono.... chloroplasts are newer. Also there are about half a dozen kinds of them, all different. [Yipee]

All eukaryotes are descended from cells which had just one kind of mitochondria.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

A quick look at Wikipedia on Judaism and abortion shows that the Mishna states that the fetus should be aborted if bearing e the child would endanger the life of the mother. So they clearly were not reading the bible as prohibiting all abortion.

This different approach carried a long way. I remember woman explaining in New York that most of the Obstetricians were Jewish, because even a catholic women wanted to have a doctor that would prioritize saving the women over saving the fetus.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

To cross post on a tangent, I recall reading in The Economist that the genetic diversity of mitochondia was insufficient and with asexual reproduction they would eventually go extinct.

That animal kingdom; flashy and fun while it lasts but not practical in the long term.

And here I was worrying about the Heat Death of the Universe.

[ 16. April 2013, 06:09: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

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.

I live in Australia, what's the connection, I don't understand.

Mousethief

Which question?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:

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.
I live in Australia

So does Orfeo.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Mousethief

Which question?

"Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

orfeo / Karl
So a comment about the relationship between Scripture and Ethics in modern Australian law? But whatever the Bible teaches about abortion would apply equally throughout the world.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Mousethief

Which question?
"Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"

Yes.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh for goodness' sake. Let met spell it out for you. I'm not talking about 'modern' Australian law.

You think it's so obvious that abortion is murder? Then why haven't Christian countries put this view into laws over the last several centuries?

The laws of England, the ones that the Australian legal system is based on, never accepted that abortion was murder. It's only in the last decade or two that it's even been suggested that murder laws should apply to causing the death of an unborn child. Okay? Centuries of law that said you cannot be convicted of murder for causing the death of an unborn child.

That's from a legal system that was fundamentally based on Christian values. That used Biblical principles as its starting point.

So if it's now obvious that abortion is murder, congratulations. You've spotted something that eluded generation upon generation of Christians before you living in an avowedly Christian society.

[ 18. April 2013, 09:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
orfeo / Karl
So a comment about the relationship between Scripture and Ethics in modern Australian law? But whatever the Bible teaches about abortion would apply equally throughout the world.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Mousethief

Which question?
"Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"
Yes.

Where?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
orfeo / Karl
So a comment about the relationship between Scripture and Ethics in modern Australian law? But whatever the Bible teaches about abortion would apply equally throughout the world.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Mousethief

Which question?
"Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"
Yes.
Where?

Exactly the question this thread was opened to answer. Merely saying "Yes" not only doesn't answer the question, it doesn't even advance the conversation. It's a waste of electrons.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

... So
Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?
No.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... So
Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?
No.

I can't come to any other conclusion, as nobody is able to tell us where it does so, nor have I ever seen anybody tell us where it does so. Either there is no argument for that conclusion, or it's in some watertight box somewhere and nobody has access to it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
To cross post on a tangent, I recall reading in The Economist that the genetic diversity of mitochondia was insufficient and with asexual reproduction they would eventually go extinct.

That animal kingdom; flashy and fun while it lasts but not practical in the long term.

And here I was worrying about the Heat Death of the Universe.

Fear not. The relevant genes are being incorporated in our chromosomal geneomes and the gene productscan be translocatred into the mitochondria. Itsa been going on for a while.

Mammalian mitochondria have about 13 protein-coding genes and 24 RNA-coding ones in less than 17,000 DNA base pairs.

Typical free-living bacteria of the kind thought to be most closely realted to mitochiondria have anythign from a million to three million base pairs, coding for 500-2000 proteins, and a few hundred RNAs

So we already ate 99% of our mitochindrial genomes. Maybe in another few hundred million years we'll have absorbed them all. But things will still work because whatever genes are actually needed will still be available, whether in a mitochoindrial or nuclear chromosome.

At maybe one to two billion years so far this must be just about the slowest-digested meal ever.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's still faster progress than Dead Horses usually makes.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Mousethief

Which question?
"Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"
Yes.

[Citation Needed]

And not just because the thread opened with the bible teaching that abortion was not murder.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

orfeo, that the majority believes something or other is an observation not a valid argument.

mousetheif, perhaps you missed my earlier comment: I suggested Exodus 20:13 as a great starting point. I then noted that the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:25) is an important step in establishing the beginning of human personhood. Interestingly, it's the beginning of the Son taking on a human nature.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
mousetheif, perhaps you missed my earlier comment: I suggested Exodus 20:13 as a great starting point.

And mousethief voiced everyone else's thoughts when he pointed out that you were begging the question.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
orfeo, that the majority believes something or other is an observation not a valid argument.

mousetheif, perhaps you missed my earlier comment: I suggested Exodus 20:13 as a great starting point. I then noted that the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:25) is an important step in establishing the beginning of human personhood. Interestingly, it's the beginning of the Son taking on a human nature.

So your exodus summary is a cliff-notes matter and you use the oversimplification to beg the question. Despite abortion and induced miscarriage being clearly distinguished from murder elsewhere - as this thread opened by pointing out. And I await the Christians who take Exodus 20:13 as broadly as you want them to - and behave like Jains. If they don't do that, not killing any animals, they clearly aren't taking Exodus 20:13 without a context around it of who it should be applied to - which means that you can not take Exodus 20:13 as other than a summary.

And I assume you mean Luke 1:35 rather than Luke 1:25?

("35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." makes some very vague sense as an argument, "25 Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men." doesn't appear to.) Luke 1:35 merely says that there shall be a child born who shall at some point in the future be called the Son of God. Utter irrelevance.

So neither passage is actually useful for your argument. Try again.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

quote:
posted by Luke
I suggested Exodus 20:13 as a great starting point. I then noted that the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:25) is an important step in establishing the beginning of human personhood.

So people only began to be people with Jesus?

Or people only had personality from that time?

[Confused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
mousetheif, perhaps you missed my earlier comment: I suggested Exodus 20:13 as a great starting point.
And mousethief voiced everyone else's thoughts when he pointed out that you were begging the question.

Q: Does the Bible say abortion is murder?
A: The Bible condemns murder in Exodus 20:13.

Luke, do you seriously not see the problem here?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
orfeo, that the majority believes something or other is an observation not a valid argument.

Centuries of your forebears disagreeing with you should at least dent your self-confidence slightly.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

mousetheif, Why is the normative principle, which basically says "if it's not explicitly prohibited then it's permissible", the only way to read the Bible?

The Westminster Confession says everything we need for life and salvation is in the Bible or "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." (WCF 1.6) That abortion is murder is a good and necessary consequence of Scripture! Which brings me to dealing with orfeo.

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

orfeo for your education and edification I typed up a couple of quotes from Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World by Michael Gorman, for you.

From the section (p35-36) outlining the Jewish views on Scripture and abortion:

quote:
Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - AD41) adapts the Septuagint version of Exodus 21 still further. In his Special Laws, which is an exposition of the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws, Philo includes the following discussion under his section on the commandant 'Thou shalt not kill': ... quote from Philo's Special Laws ... Philo changes the struggle between two men, resulting in accidental injury to a fetus, into one man's deliberate attack on a pregnant woman. He maintains the Septuagiant's distinction between the unformed and formed foetus and consequently, between the penalties of a fine and death.

From the section (p49) outling the Early Church's view on Scripture and abortion from the Didache:

quote:
The list of prohibitions includes murder, adultery, sodomy, fornication, theft, the use of magic and philters, infanticide and abortion. Literally it declares: "Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion/destruction." Similarly, the Epistle of Barnabas in its practical section on the Way of Light repeats the exactly the same words in a list of "thou shalt (not)" statements including, just before the abortion prohibition, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour more than thy own life." The foetus is seen, not as a part of its mother, but as a neighbour. Abortion is rejected as contrary to other-centred neighbour love.

And one more bonus quote (p55) from the early church father Tertullian (160-240) who says in Apology:

quote:
In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Luke
At the risk of repeating myself, the original thread was
Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?
You can quote all the early church fathers and Jewish philosophers you like and maybe even debate the veracity of basing an argument on translations of translations of works where the original no longer exists - none of that answers the question:
Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?
to which the answer is NO.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
mousetheif, Why is the normative principle, which basically says "if it's not explicitly prohibited then it's permissible", the only way to read the Bible?

It's a fairly typical way to read the Bible. For instance, the Bible has no prohibition against vaccinations so most Christians feel free to protect themselves against disease in this manner. I guess if you were to take the alternative approach, "that which is not explicitly permitted is prohibited", this would not be the case.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:

quote:
Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - AD41) adapts the Septuagint version of Exodus 21 still further. In his Special Laws, which is an exposition of the Ten Commandments and other Jewish laws, Philo includes the following discussion under his section on the commandant 'Thou shalt not kill': ... quote from Philo's Special Laws ... Philo changes the struggle between two men, resulting in accidental injury to a fetus, into one man's deliberate attack on a pregnant woman. He maintains the Septuagiant's distinction between the unformed and formed foetus and consequently, between the penalties of a fine and death.

I'll just note that 1) Philo's Special Laws aren't traditionally considered part of the Bible, and 2) Philo still doesn't consider most abortions murder. Although it's a little vague, he seems to be drawing the line at quickening, not conception.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
From the section (p49) outling the Early Church's view on Scripture and abortion from the Didache:

The Didache is not part of the Bible, unless you're a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
And one more bonus quote (p55) from the early church father Tertullian (160-240) who says in Apology:

None of Tertullian's works are part of the Bible, and Tertullian himself was an heretical Montanist.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Croesos

[Overused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
mousetheif, Why is the normative principle, which basically says "if it's not explicitly prohibited then it's permissible", the only way to read the Bible?

Luke, Luke, Luke. We're not talking about normative ways of reading the Bible. We're asking, "Does the Bible teach abortion is murder?"

Not, "Does Tertullian teach abortion is murder?"

Not, "Does Philo of Alexandria teach abortion is murder?"

Not, "Does the Didache teach abortion is murder?"

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

I'm happy with what I said earlier:

quote:
The Westminster Confession says everything we need for life and salvation is in the Bible or "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." (WCF 1.6) That abortion is murder is a good and necessary consequence of Scripture!

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :

I can't help myself: Chief of sinners asked at the beginning of the thread:

quote:
But does the bible really teach that abortion, the killing of an unborn child is the same as murder.

To which the answer is yes: "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

But you naughty liberals don't think that this command applies to unborn people. (#Gosnell) So what you should really be asking but are too scared of asking is "how does the Bible define people?" No doubt in part because you don't have an adequate definition of what a human being is yourselves!

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I'm happy with what I said earlier:
quote:
The Westminster Confession says everything we need for life and salvation is in the Bible or "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." (WCF 1.6) That abortion is murder is a good and necessary consequence of Scripture!

In the spirit of the discussion above, one might also suggest: the Westminster Confession is not the Bible.

Where does the Bible say that "everything we need for life and salvation is in the Bible" or deducible therefrom? The fact that some Calvinist divines made statements about the Bible does not make those statements biblical. They are extra-biblical, and it seems perverse to bolster the claim that the Bible is all-sufficient by going outside the Bible to support it. Surely a statement that the Bible is sufficient should come from the Bible itself - by definition?
[Confused]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
So what you should really be asking but are too scared of asking is "how does the Bible define people?"

Excellent question. How does the Bible define 'people'?
I'm afraid the verse that starts, 'people (noun),...' has been left out of my copies no doubt as the result of godless liberal tampering.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Luke:

Your habit of not answering questions is irksome.

Calling those of us you may disagree with "naughty liberals" is belittling and rude.

Unless, that is, you would like us to respond in kind?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I honestly don't think Luke can see the circularity of arguing that "abortion is murder because I already know that the word abortion defines a particular type of murder".

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There are places - the 10th commandment, for example, where it isn't clear that the Bible defines women as people. Which could be part of the problem here.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Luke:

Your habit of not answering questions is irksome.

Calling those of us you may disagree with "naughty liberals" is belittling and rude.

Unless, that is, you would like us to respond in kind?

hosting

quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person

Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.

4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell

If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

Any replies 'in kind' concerning a particular shipmate and not a general group must be taken to the Hell board and not posted here. The same goes for personality conflicts where the issue becomes another poster and their habits and not the matter in hand.

Many thanks!

Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0