What Does The Bible Say About Elective Abortion?

[Miles]

.

I ask because I can't find a darn thing. And if it isn't addressed in the Bible how important can it be?

.

[Difflugia]

Life for life is included even in your preferred translation, if it was the unborn baby's life that was lost then the person's life who caused the death is forfeit if unintentional. I don't see how all this you said here gives a person that intentionally kills a unborn child a pass from judgement.

It doesn't give them a pass from "judgement" (they have to pay the father the value of the unborn baby), but the "life for life" is in reference to the mother. If the baby is miscarried, then the offender owes the father compensation. If the mother is injured as a result, then the offender must be punished with a similar injury.

The alternative reading is that causing a birth (it doesn't say "premature," that's an inference by the translator) without any harm to either the mother or the child is still punished with whatever the father demands and judges approve. I've seen pro-life apologists try to argue that meaning based on future health problems for premature children and whatnot, but that requires reading far more into the text than "her boy goes out" justifies.

[PinSeeker]

There is no intimation of "homicide" or murder.

Homicide is the killing of a human being, murder is the unsanctioned killing of a human being. If human beings put someone to death, it's homicide. If it's legal (in this case, at the direction of their god), it's not murder. That's exactly what my point was; there are homicides in the Bible that are sanctioned...

Very well. Just so we're clear. My point was that though a homicide occur, it only may or may not be murder, and the two should not be conflated, inadvertent or otherwise. Homicides may be lawful, even today.

...therefore the verse merely proscribing "murder" doesn't establish whether causing a miscarriage would be murder.

But the other verses I cited establish very clearly that unborn children are people, Even many courts today have ruled that murder was committed upon the unborn child of a "harmed" woman. Case in point: Scott Peterson, who was convicted of first-degree murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and the second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner, in Modesto, California. In 2005.

That's even if the Bible considers an unborn child to be within the definition of "human being," which I'd argue against based on the Exodus verses.

You can make that argument if you want, wrong as it is (as demonstrated above). As I said, it's mere rationalization on your part.

Remember, the Bible defines bats as being kinds of birds, so our definitions and the Bible's definitions don't necessarily coincide (hubris notwithstanding).

Oh yes, I remember. But Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. In those days, classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the Hebrew word we render 'birds' means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects.

So, with this in mind (function/form), we can work back up to the matter at hand and say that men, women... and children born and unborn... are human beings. And murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought but surely not excluding other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Glad you brought this up, obscure as it was.

Grace and peace to you.

[Difflugia]

Very well. Just so we're clear. My point was that though a homicide occur, it only may or may not be murder, and the two should not be conflated, inadvertent or otherwise. Homicides may be lawful, even today.

Yes? Then we made the same point.

But the other verses I cited establish very clearly that unborn children are people,

No, they don't. You misread Exodus 21:22-25 in exactly the same way that 2timothy316 did and then provided a verse that supports God being responsible for the formation of children in the womb. Unless God is not responsible for the formation of chicks in their eggs or dandelions in their seeds, you haven't established that fetal children can biblically be subject to homicide.

Even many courts today have ruled that murder was committed upon the unborn child of a "harmed" woman. Case in point: Scott Peterson, who was convicted of first-degree murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and the second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner, in Modesto, California. In 2005.

Modern courts also consider bats to be mammals, not birds.

You can make that argument if you want, wrong as it is (as demonstrated above).

Even in TD&D, you need more than mere assertion to be justified in claiming that you've "demonstrated" something. All you've "demonstrated" is that you're so sure of your conclusion that any verse can be confidently asserted as a proof-text.

As I said, it's mere rationalization on your part.

You've said lots of other things without justification, too.

Oh yes, I remember. But Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. In those days, classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the Hebrew word we render 'birds' means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects.

So, with this in mind (function/form), we can work back up to the matter at hand and say that men, women... and children born and unborn... are human beings. And murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought but surely not excluding other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Glad you brought this up, obscure as it was.

Once again, assertion is not support. You certainly "say" lots of things, but you haven't in any way shown how you "work back up to the matter at hand" to arrive at your conclusion. All you've said is that you think it's self-evident. I've no doubt that it is to you and you think it should be for the rest of us, but that's hardly a robust exegetical method.

[2timothy316]

Life for life is included even in your preferred translation, if it was the unborn baby's life that was lost then the person's life who caused the death is forfeit if unintentional. I don't see how all this you said here gives a person that intentionally kills a unborn child a pass from judgement.

It doesn't give them a pass from "judgement" (they have to pay the father the value of the unborn baby), but the "life for life" is in reference to the mother.

Huh?
The scripture says, "If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results..."
Clearly the baby's health and the mother's health is included in the fatality results. Because if she gives birth and the baby is dead or she dies...isn't that a fatality?

Also let's take into consideration the OP. You said that killing an unborn baby doesn't give a person a pass on judgement. Are you agreeing that the Bible does have a principle against abortion, all they way up to life for a life?

[Miles]

Commandment number six (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) covers any and all types of murder of people of any age. Just four short words are sufficient: "You shall not murder."

That's alright because in the USA, at least, abortion is not considered murder. And who determined that an embryo or fetus is people (a person)? The word certainly doesn't fit the definition.

Mere rationalization.

Rationalization????? In what way is a recognized fact---abortion is not considered murder in the United States---rationalization?

At any rate, God says He formed us all in our mother's wombs.

When did he tell you this?


.

[PinSeeker]

Very well. Just so we're clear. My point was that though a homicide occur, it only may or may not be murder, and the two should not be conflated, inadvertent or otherwise. Homicides may be lawful, even today.

Yes? Then we made the same point.

It seemed you were making the opposite point -- or at least insinuating no distinction between homicide and murder -- but okay.

But the other verses I cited establish very clearly that unborn children are people,

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

You misread Exodus 21:22-25 in exactly the same way that 2timothy316 did and then provided a verse that supports God being responsible for the formation of children in the womb.

No, we just both accept those verses for what they are, and you apparently do not. So be it.

Unless God is not responsible for the formation of chicks in their eggs or dandelions in their seeds, you haven't established that fetal children can biblically be subject to homicide.

God is responsible for all life. And, all of life can be subject to homicide.

Even many courts today have ruled that murder was committed upon the unborn child of a "harmed" woman. Case in point: Scott Peterson, who was convicted of first-degree murder of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and the second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner, in Modesto, California. In 2005.

Modern courts also consider bats to be mammals, not birds.

Ah, doubling down on your own misguided "point." Again, regarding the Bible, the Hebrew word we render 'birds' means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. That was true then, and it is true now. Linnaean classification, while very useful, has no relevance.

All you've said is that you think it's self-evident. I've no doubt that it is to you and you think it should be for the rest of us, but that's hardly a robust exegetical method.

I think purposeful blindness is far, far worse. Especially regarding a person of obvious intelligence.

Grace and peace to you, Difflugia.

[PinSeeker]

Rationalization?????

Yes!!!!

In what way is a recognized fact---abortion is not considered murder in the United States---rationalization?

Ohhhhh, you're either misunderstanding, or twisting my words; neither is good. That aside, that abortion is not considered murder in the United States is not quite true, is it, Miles? Many, many people in the United States disagree concerning a lot of different laws, abortion is only one example. And concerning the law itself, it actually makes no statement concerning whether abortion is murder or not; the only definitive statement it makes is that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The interesting thing is that it also says that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life -- it actually acknowledges that even prenatal life is life.

At any rate, God says He formed us all in our mother's wombs.

When did he tell you this?

Several times; see above Biblical references.

Grace and peace to you, Miles.

[Difflugia]

It doesn't give them a pass from "judgement" (they have to pay the father the value of the unborn baby), but the "life for life" is in reference to the mother.

Huh?

The scripture says, "If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results..."

No, that's not what scripture says. The NWT says that, but it's an unsupported translation working backwards from the desired meaning of the passage. Even if we allow "they are born" as the reasonable reading of יָצְא֣וּ, "premature" is still interpolated by the translators and "fatality" is not supported at all:





If we go, then, with "gives birth" in the sense of a living, healthy ("no injury") child in your contextual interpretation, what is the child's father being compensated? In each of the surrounding rules, the damage is limited to practical loss. If a man is injured badly enough to be confined to bed, the one who injured him must restore the value of the injured man's actual lost time. If a slave is beaten so badly that he or she is bedridden, then there's no compensation because the slave's time belongs to the master in the first place. If a slave loses an eye, the slave's owner has to let him or her go free in compensation. In your reading, what actual damage justifies the fine for causing a healthy birth?

Clearly the baby's health and the mother's health is included in the fatality results. Because if she gives birth and the baby is dead or she dies...isn't that a fatality?

The word "clearly" didn't actually add any evidence to your assertion. You're going to need a lot more than "clearly" to get from A to B.

Also let's take into consideration the OP. You said that killing an unborn baby doesn't give a person a pass on judgement. Are you agreeing that the Bible does have a principle against abortion, all they way up to life for a life?

Of course not. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

If you negligently kill someone else's unborn child, you have to pay the child's father restitution for the loss.

[2timothy316]

Also let's take into consideration the OP. You said that killing an unborn baby doesn't give a person a pass on judgement. Are you agreeing that the Bible does have a principle against abortion, all they way up to life for a life?

Of course not. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

Because you said,

Life for life is included even in your preferred translation, if it was the unborn baby's life that was lost then the person's life who caused the death is forfeit if unintentional. I don't see how all this you said here gives a person that intentionally kills a unborn child a pass from judgement.

It doesn't give them a pass from "judgement"...

And you used a scripture that said a life for a life and agreed that a person that intentionally kills an unborn child wouldn't get a pass from judgement. I really don't know your view point anymore. It changes from post to post.

[Difflugia]

It seemed you were making the opposite point -- or at least insinuating no distinction between homicide and murder -- but okay.

This may be belaboring the point now, but I explicitly differentiated the two and explained the difference at some length.

Yes, they do.

No, we just both accept those verses for what they are, and you apparently do not. So be it.

Is there more to your argument than that you just somehow know?

Unless God is not responsible for the formation of chicks in their eggs or dandelions in their seeds, you haven't established that fetal children can biblically be subject to homicide.

God is responsible for all life. And, all of life can be subject to homicide.

I'm concerned that you and I aren't even using English the same way. In the English I'm familiar with, "homicide" only applies to human beings. Regicide is the killing of a king (Latin rex), fratricide is the killing of a brother (Latin frater), and homicide is the killing of a man (Latin homo of Homo sapiens and "Ecce homo").

Even many courts today have ruled that murder was committed upon the unborn child of a "harmed" woman.

Modern courts also consider bats to be mammals, not birds.

Ah, doubling down on your own misguided "point." Again, regarding the Bible, the Hebrew word we render 'birds' means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. That was true then, and it is true now. Linnaean classification, while very useful, has no relevance.

The point that I'm "doubling down" on is that Hebrew words don't always have the same meaning as a Western understanding of the corresponding English term. Your attempted rebuttal actually illustrates my point exactly. You tried to map a modern understanding of "murder" onto Hebrew, but have now followed up with exactly why that was invalid.