Biblical Phrases Against Abortion

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

Wisdom 12:5-7:

"...These merciless murderers of children, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers, that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worth colony of God's children."

Some might say, "Okay, obviously God disapproves of infanticide, but that doesn't say that the fetus is a human being."

Psalm 51:7:

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin if a fetus doesn't have a soul, and how can a fetus have a soul if a fetus is a blob of cells and not a human?

[MagusYanam]

So, if not for the creation of sign language, would a deaf person be considered soulless? What about a foreign man in a strange country? Is he considered to be soulless because of his inability to communicate?

No and no - though their capacity for self-expression is more limited than it would be otherwise, they are still able to posit themselves in relation to the world around them, and able to communicate through social interaction. Language is language, whether or not it is spoken, written or signed, and in whatever community it is spoken.

Webster's dictionary states that the soul is "the emotional part of human nature."

Here is the complete definition:

1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

2 a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe
b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b

3: a person's total self

4 a: an active or essential part
b: a moving spirit : leader

5 a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment
c: spiritual or moral force : fervor

6: person <not a soul in sight>

7: personification <she is the soul of integrity>

8 a: a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers
b: negritude
c: soul music
d: soul food
e: soul brother

I think we're looking at definitions 1, 2, 3 and possibly 6 here for stipulation - the others are nonsensical for our purposes. Emotion is a part of the soul, it's true - all beliefs and desires are - but it is not what the soul is for our purposes. The soul is, for our purposes, the entirety of the human self (definition 3), or at least that which gives it value. And value in human beings is the reflexive ability we have of positing ourselves linguistically in relation to the world around us. That isn't something we can prove that foeti can do.

Honestly, I think the arguments against abortion are barking up the wrong tree here. Abortion becomes wrong when it is motivated by bad relationships, convenience or selfishness - I cannot see how abortion is wrong when done in defence of a woman's life and health, or to liberate a woman from bearing responsibility for the consequences of rape or sexual abuse.

[KitsuneShoujoAi]

So you think it's fine that, while a rapist doesn't even get life, his child is sentenced to death by the mother without a trial, without a lawyer, with less rights than the father for the crime of being conceived?

I can't imagine going through rape, and on top of it carrying the rapist's child. By the child is just as much the woman's, and it's not fair to the baby to be killed.

[MagusYanam]

The rapist should be locked away or sent into therapy, naturally, but you seem to want to punish and control the woman here - the woman bears no responsibility for having been raped, and is perfectly justified in not wanting to bear any, full stop! The woman's life and integrity are infinitely more valuable than anything foisted upon her without her consent.

If you wouldn't go through it yourself, do not ask others to. That was the way of the Pharisees (St Matthew 23:4).

[scourge99]

Psalm 51:7:

"True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Now, how can a fetus have sin if a fetus doesn't have a soul, and how can a fetus have a soul if a fetus is a blob of cells and not a human?

So where was the soul prior to conception?
Was it in the food and air our parents breathed that later was made into haploid cells (sperm and egg)? Is it not equally likely that the soul is in these things or perhaps the soul is transferred to the body at anytime before birth or sometime after? What makes you so certain that this passage was written by someone that was told by God that the soul is present at conception?

You seem to be of the belief that this passage is making a claim that the soul is present in the zygote at conception. I wouldn't be so bold though. This passage is simply claiming that the soul is in a sinful state at the start of the creation of the body.

[Jrosemary]

I'm new to this forum, so I don't know if the traditional Jewish teaching has been brought up on other threads or not. That teaching is that while the fetus is certainly precious, the life and health of the mother always come first. If the mother's life is at risk, she should have the abortion. If the mother's health (usually physical but sometimes mental) is at risk, she's permitted to have an abortion. If neither the life nor the health of the mother is at risk, there should be no abortion.

One of the places Judaism looks is a passage in the Torah, Exodus 21:22-23:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

So if two guys get into a fight, and one of them knocks into a pregnant woman, and she miscarries, he has to pay a fine. But if she falls from his shove and breaks her neck, he pays with his life. (In theory--in practice death sentences were never liberally handed out.)

It's clear from this passage that in the eyes of the Torah the mother's life is more valuable than a fetus. In all the centuries and centuries of rabbinic commentary, there's nothing the rabbis have found to overturn this. On the contrary, the rabbinic commentators considered the fetus a potential life rather than a full-fledged life. Again, that potential life is precious. But, according to traditional Judaism, you sacrifice that potential life if it threatens an existing life.

Obviously this is not an argument for abortion-on-demand, which traditional Judaism does not permit. (Again, if the life or health of the mother is not at stake, there should be no abortion.) But I don't see anything in the Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible (roughly the Old Testament to Christians) that would justify equating the potential life of a fetus with an existing life. Hence the principle of putting more value on the mother's life than on the fetus.

[scourge99]

On the contrary, the rabbinic commentators considered the fetus a potential life rather than a full-fledged life. Again, that potential life is precious. But, according to traditional Judaism, you sacrifice that potential life if it threatens an existing life.

Obviously this is not an argument for abortion-on-demand, which traditional Judaism does not permit. (Again, if the life or health of the mother is not at stake, there should be no abortion.) But I don't see anything in the Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible (roughly the Old Testament to Christians) that would justify equating the potential life of a fetus with an existing life. Hence the principle of putting more value on the mother's life than on the fetus.

I find the argument of "potentiality" lacking in many respects. Why aren't individual sperm and eggs equally potential humans? Wouldn't these "people" want to live if they were born? Also, as an extreme hypothetical, if a human being wasn't ever conceived or born in the manner we are familiar with, would that make it alright to kill this person?

I find that many people overlook the questions that are begged when conception is chosen as the critical point for deciding the morality of an abortion.

Personally, I find the arguments that hinge on self-determination, conscious thought and other such mental faculties to be far more sound and therefore compelling rather than arbitrary and dubious states in the human development process.

[Jrosemary]

On the contrary, the rabbinic commentators considered the fetus a potential life rather than a full-fledged life. Again, that potential life is precious. But, according to traditional Judaism, you sacrifice that potential life if it threatens an existing life.

Obviously this is not an argument for abortion-on-demand, which traditional Judaism does not permit. (Again, if the life or health of the mother is not at stake, there should be no abortion.) But I don't see anything in the Torah or the rest of the Hebrew Bible (roughly the Old Testament to Christians) that would justify equating the potential life of a fetus with an existing life. Hence the principle of putting more value on the mother's life than on the fetus.

I find the argument of "potentiality" lacking in many respects. Why aren't individual sperm and eggs equally potential humans? Wouldn't these "people" want to live if they were born? Also, as an extreme hypothetical, if a human being wasn't ever conceived or born in the manner we are familiar with, would that make it alright to kill this person?

I find that many people overlook the questions that are begged when conception is chosen as the critical point for deciding the morality of an abortion.

Personally, I find the arguments that hinge on self-determination, conscious thought and other such mental faculties to be far more sound and therefore compelling rather than arbitrary and dubious states in the human development process.

Hi Scourge,

Just a reminder to the nature of this thread--the original poster seemed to be interested in biblical passages that have a bearing on the question of abortion. That's why my post above was centered around the passage in Exodus I quoted.

I was also giving the traditional Jewish teaching on abortion and how rabbinic Judaism has used that passage in Exodus to help determine that teaching.

Re an individual sperm and egg: this seems to me an issue of contraception. Traditional Judaism tends to frown on contraception. A husband and wife, ideally, would be open to their sperm and egg connecting and ultimately creating new life. There are cases, however, in which birth control is permissable. I don't know what the halachic decisions regarding things like stem cell research are--that goes far beyond my halachic knowledge. (I suspect Orthodox Judaism may have different teachings than my own Conservative branch on this matter--or both may still be debating the issue.)

Please note that at no point have I given my personal opinion on abortion here--again, I've merely been showing how traditional Judaism uses one biblical passage as part of dealing with questions concerning abortion. (For what it's worth, I tend to agree with traditional Jewish teachings, except that I'm more open to contraception.)

Re a human being who's not conceived or born in the usual way--well, the fetus would never threaten the life of its mother, so how could one (again, going by traditional Jewish teachings) justify putting a period to its existence?

Re deterministic arguments: by all means make them--but it seems to me that the nature of this thread requires you to make them starting from biblical passages or biblical interpretations and exegesis. You may or may not view that approach as valid, of course, but I think it's the purpose of this thread.

~Rose

[elle]

As someone who finds the argument of "potentiality" rather persuasive, I thought I would jump in.

I find the argument of "potentiality" lacking in many respects. Why aren't individual sperm and eggs equally potential humans?

Because biologically, they just aren't. They have to be joined together (fertilized) before a potential human being begins to develop. Otherwise, they are just cells that our bodies excrete naturally as waste.

Wouldn't these "people" want to live if they were born?

A "sperm" or an "egg" is not a "person" and I cannot think of a possible logical argument to support that position. I may be misunderstanding what you're getting at here.

Also, as an extreme hypothetical, if a human being wasn't ever conceived or born in the manner we are familiar with, would that make it alright to kill this person?

Of course not. Whether or not you believe a zygote or fetus is a person, it is indisputable that a baby is a person once it is born. Killing a person for no other reason than it was conceived by "unnatural" means (i.e. in vitro fertilization) or born "unnaturally" (i.e. Cesarean section) would be obviously immoral. We are talking about before the fetus is born.

I find that many people overlook the questions that are begged when conception is chosen as the critical point for deciding the morality of an abortion.

Are you referring to the questions you've already asked in this post or some other questions?

Personally, I find the arguments that hinge on self-determination, conscious thought and other such mental faculties to be far more sound and therefore compelling rather than arbitrary and dubious states in the human development process.

That's an interesting take on the issue. How do you determine then when the fetus/child has reached a point when it has conscious thought and self-determination? Wouldn't this be a point long after the child had been born? Also, how would you argue against the killing of a child with mental handicaps or deficiencies that precluded him from exhibiting evidence of self-determination or thought processes?

[scourge99]

I find the argument of "potentiality" lacking in many respects. Why aren't individual sperm and eggs equally potential humans?

Because biologically, they just aren't.

Yes, yes they are.

They have to be joined together (fertilized) before a potential human being begins to develop.

So? That doesn't make them any less potential humans. In other words, simply because we know that cells begin to multiple following conception does NOT refute my claim that a sperm and an egg is a potential human.

Otherwise, they are just cells that our bodies excrete naturally as waste.

Which are potential humans. I know its hard to accept that daily men commit mass genocide and woman kill once a month but its true. All those sperm and eggs are potential humans that would be happy to live if they had been conceived and born. Furthermore the permutations of genetic sequences the exist in sperm and egg are immense. And that is not even taking into account the different environment and development conditions that cause even greater possibilities for unique humans.

Wouldn't these "people" want to live if they were born?

A "sperm" or an "egg" is not a "person" and I cannot think of a possible logical argument to support that position. I may be misunderstanding what you're getting at here.

Technically they are "half" people. Technically they are not a living organism. But technically they are a potential person. 1 sperm + 1 egg = person -> 1 sperm + 1 egg = potential person. Its that simple. Really, it is.

Also, as an extreme hypothetical, if a human being wasn't ever conceived or born in the manner we are familiar with, would that make it alright to kill this person?

Of course not. Whether or not you believe a zygote or fetus is a person, it is indisputable that a baby is a person once it is born. Killing a person for no other reason than it was conceived by "unnatural" means (i.e. in vitro fertilization) or born "unnaturally" (i.e. Cesarean section) would be obviously immoral. We are talking about before the fetus is born.

How about aborting this potential human before its born when it doesn't originate from a sperm and an egg? Why is the morality of it all predicated upon conception?

Personally, I find the arguments that hinge on self-determination, conscious thought and other such mental faculties to be far more sound and therefore compelling rather than arbitrary and dubious states in the human development process.

That's an interesting take on the issue. How do you determine then when the fetus/child has reached a point when it has conscious thought and self-determination?

We are at the point in our scientific knowledge that we know that certain mental capacities cannot occur without certain organs and certain parts of those organs developed to a particular point. Specifically the nervous system and the brain.

Wouldn't this be a point long after the child had been born?

Depends on what one's requirements are. Some people find infanticide moral (I don't). Some people think 4 weeks is the cut off point. There are differing arguments and justifications for each. Some good, some bad.

Also, how would you argue against the killing of a child with mental handicaps or deficiencies that precluded him from exhibiting evidence of self-determination or thought processes?

I would argue that such people have sufficient mental capacity to be entitled a right to life. However, brain dead people do NOT.

[scourge99]

Just a reminder to the nature of this thread--the original poster seemed to be interested in biblical passages that have a bearing on the question of abortion.

Re deterministic arguments: by all means make them--but it seems to me that the nature of this thread requires you to make them starting from biblical passages or biblical interpretations and exegesis. You may or may not view that approach as valid, of course, but I think it's the purpose of this thread.

I am exposing the flaws and unresolved problems that are associated with these beliefs. Sometimes they are along secular lines sometimes they are supported by other religious beliefs, sometimes by Biblical interpretation.

I was also giving the traditional Jewish teaching on abortion and how rabbinic Judaism has used that passage in Exodus to help determine that teaching.

Thank you. It was educational.

Re an individual sperm and egg: this seems to me an issue of contraception. Traditional Judaism tends to frown on contraception. A husband and wife, ideally, would be open to their sperm and egg connecting and ultimately creating new life.

And the question is: why? Is a 1/2 soul in each sperm and egg?

There are cases, however, in which birth control is permissable. I don't know what the halachic decisions regarding things like stem cell research are--that goes far beyond my halachic knowledge. (I suspect Orthodox Judaism may have different teachings than my own Conservative branch on this matter--or both may still be debating the issue.)

Let me know what you find out if you ever look into it. I'd like to know.

Re a human being who's not conceived or born in the usual way--well, the fetus would never threaten the life of its mother, so how could one (again, going by traditional Jewish teachings) justify putting a period to its existence?

Was the fetus a potential life or more simply viewed as property of the husband? My understanding of a Jewish belief comes from a Supreme Court Justice:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 13_ZO.html
"It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [n56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith."

Blackmun wasn't a Jew so I suppose he could have been inaccurate or wrong. Was he?