God-ordered abortion

[DeBunkem]

Actually, there are several examples of Yahweh ordering the murder of fetuses. One that may not have been mentioned is the Torah's command to stone women for adultery. In "crimes" such as this, conception as a result is a foregone conclusion. Barbarism from the "God of Love." We rightly condemn it in Sharia Islam as well, but mark well where the practice started.

[Jester]

I do not see this passage as overt biblical support for abortion - as I am not even sure if the idea of abortion had taken root yet during that time. What I do take from this passage is the biblical sense of the worth of a fetus. They had least had an idea of the gestation and growth of the fetus, and the resulting birth. However, in the context I provided, you can see that the bible does not assign the same weight of punishment to a fetus as it does to a "person" - despite the fact that this is the number one reason Pro-Lifers use to argue against abortion.... that it is "murder" (i.e. the killing of a "person").

I can see how others would translate this passage differently, although when reading other parts of the bible such as those I presented earlier, it would not be far fetched at all that the biblical writers meant exactly what I glean from their writings (no matter the fact that later versions of the bible were "re-translated" to fix this little "off-message" moment in what Pro-Lifers (who just happen to be majority Christian) thinks the bible SHOULD say).

In that case, I would suggest that you recheck your Strong's Concordance:

The word translated "depart" is יצ�, means: appear, assuredly, bear out, begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, or come (abroad, out, thereat, without). It is used, among other ways, to refer to normal birth.

There is indeed another word, ש�כל, which translates as: to miscarry, that is, suffer abortion; by analogy to bereave (literally or figuratively): - bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that some conspiracy is trying to change the meaning of this text to fit pro-life viewpoints. The translation is correct.

[chris_brown207]

In that case, I would suggest that you recheck your Strong's Concordance:

The word translated "depart" is יצ�, means: appear, assuredly, bear out, begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, or come (abroad, out, thereat, without). It is used, among other ways, to refer to normal birth.

There is indeed another word, ש�כל, which translates as: to miscarry, that is, suffer abortion; by analogy to bereave (literally or figuratively): - bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that some conspiracy is trying to change the meaning of this text to fit pro-life viewpoints. The translation is correct.

Yes, I have seen the same explanation from Christian websites and the linguists that they cite... The problem I have with this is I am not a hebrew expert. I am fairly certain neither are you (although I am making an assumption, and allow me to apologize beforehand if I am mistaken).

So we are at the mercy of the translations made by those who are experts at Hebrew - and from what I understand they are fairly few and far. Not to mention, that as I understand it, very little of the original documents remain in intelligible condition. The document we have today has been translated, and retranslated many times - and what is to stop someone from adding in their own little take on what they read?

I suspect that if you cite your sources, chances are these are not from a purely academic or linguistic organization, but one directly related to the church (who may very well have a bias on the matter seeing as how the church's stance on abortion is well known)...

[Jester]

Yes, I have seen the same explanation from Christian websites and the linguists that they cite... The problem I have with this is I am not a hebrew expert. I am fairly certain neither are you (although I am making an assumption, and allow me to apologize beforehand if I am mistaken).

So we are at the mercy of the translations made by those who are experts at Hebrew - and from what I understand they are fairly few and far. Not to mention, that as I understand it, very little of the original documents remain in intelligible condition. The document we have today has been translated, and retranslated many times - and what is to stop someone from adding in their own little take on what they read?

I suspect that if you cite your sources, chances are these are not from a purely academic or linguistic organization, but one directly related to the church (who may very well have a bias on the matter seeing as how the church's stance on abortion is well known)...

Indeed I am not an expert on Hebrew, and am therefore indebted to the experts.
In general, my response would be centered around the issue of burden of proof. With no legitimate Hebrew scholar making a strong case that this refers to a miscarriage, I would be disinclined to accept the claim that it does.

[chris_brown207]

Indeed I am not an expert on Hebrew, and am therefore indebted to the experts.
In general, my response would be centered around the issue of burden of proof. With no legitimate Hebrew scholar making a strong case that this refers to a miscarriage, I would be disinclined to accept the claim that it does.

I suspect by your response, that you sources were indeed religious in nature. I don't think there is some vast conspiracy here, I just suspect that some verbage has been tweaked over time to fit what the religious today feel the message should be.

Very similar to how at one point in our history biblical passages were used to justify the geocentric model of the universe.

But, those are just my suspicions. I certainly don't base my feelings about abortion off a single passage in one book.

As for whether, there are passages which justify abortion in a bible - I don't think that any single books justifies having an abortion, that is a very personal choice. And I think it should remain a personal choice, and there are no passages in a book which make me think otherwise.

[Jester]

I suspect by your response, that you sources were indeed religious in nature. I don't think there is some vast conspiracy here, I just suspect that some verbage has been tweaked over time to fit what the religious today feel the message should be.

As to my sources, it is indeed Strong's Concordance, which has always been accepted among scholars.
Also, there is the matter of the use of the word in places which clearly do not refer to miscarriage or abortion (i.e. Jeremiah 1:5).
Primarily, accusations of a misrepresentation of facts by multiple sources would definitely need to be supported with something other than suspicion. I don't see that we should conclude that your understanding of the verse is correct until I can show otherwise.

As for whether, there are passages which justify abortion in a bible - I don't think that any single books justifies having an abortion, that is a very personal choice. And I think it should remain a personal choice, and there are no passages in a book which make me think otherwise.

Whether or not you accept any particular standard of morality is, of course, your choice in the end. I don't know that any moral, however, is simply a matter of personal choice. That sounds a bit like relativism.

[DeBunkem]

There was no allowance for a stay of execution to determine whether conception had occurred. There were no jails...punishment was dealt out speedily.(Deuteronomy 22:21 ff, John 8:4,5).

I see nothing in either of these verses referring to the speed of the execution. Is this the argument that, because we are not directly aware of whether or not they waited, we should assume that they did not?
If it isn't, it doesn't seem to be much in the way of support that this is 'God-ordered abortion'.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction: Blaise Pascal

I would completely agree so long as we, like Pascal, recognize that this need not be a part of religious practice.

I'm sure there's a latin term for the flaw in your logic, but we cannot disregard Bible texts because we assume there are unwritten restrictions and disclaimers. To do so would bring every verse under the same standard. If you fail to see my argument that stoning adulteresses resulted in killing also the unborn, then you must show written Biblical evidence that exceptions were made, not simply imply that these disclaimers and waiting periods existed.

Example:

Psalm 137 >>
New American Standard Bible

1By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down and wept,
When we remembered Zion.
2Upon the willows in the midst of it
We hung our harps.

3For there our captors demanded of us songs,
And our tormentors mirth, saying,
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.�

4How can we sing the LORD’S song
In a foreign land?

5If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
May my right hand forget her skill.

6May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
If I do not remember you,
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
Above my chief joy.

7Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it
To its very foundation.�

8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.

9How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

Can it be argued that this verse actually only applies to braining midgets and dwarves based upon some assumed unwritten disclaimer?


We have enough religion to make us hate, but not
enough to make us love one another: Jonathan Swift :
Irish author and foremost prose satirist, 1667-1745

[Jester]

There was no allowance for a stay of execution to determine whether conception had occurred. There were no jails...punishment was dealt out speedily.(Deuteronomy 22:21 ff, John 8:4,5).

I see nothing in either of these verses referring to the speed of the execution. Is this the argument that, because we are not directly aware of whether or not they waited, we should assume that they did not?
If it isn't, it doesn't seem to be much in the way of support that this is 'God-ordered abortion'.

I'm sure there's a latin term for the flaw in your logic, but we cannot disregard Bible texts because we assume there are unwritten restrictions and disclaimers. To do so would bring every verse under the same standard. If you fail to see my argument that stoning adulteresses resulted in killing also the unborn, then you must show written Biblical evidence that exceptions were made, not simply imply that these disclaimers and waiting periods existed.

I don't see a fallacy. You seem to be claiming that I somehow have the burden of proof because I don't accept an extra assumption not based on the texts.
There is no evidence at all that these executions took place before the birth of the child.

Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it
To its very foundation.�

8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.

9How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

Can it be argued that this verse actually only applies to braining midgets and dwarves based upon some assumed unwritten disclaimer?

I have no such position on this.
This position seems to be taking a very different reading than I would consider to be valid. But, so as to stay on topic, I'll not outline the difficulties and instead point out the more directly clear fact that it has nothing to do with abortion.

We have enough religion to make us hate, but not
enough to make us love one another: Jonathan Swift :
Irish author and foremost prose satirist, 1667-1745

I agree with this one as well. Actually, I'm a big fan of Swift.
I do indeed believe that a little religion is quite a different thing from a deeper understanding of the spiritual truths inherent.

[chris_brown207]

As to my sources, it is indeed Strong's Concordance, which has always been accepted among scholars.

I apologize for the lag in time, it has been an extremely long work week and work weekend.
As for the conversation, I am not familiar with Strong's Concordance. Please site references - other than religious - of the academic support of this source.

Primarily, accusations of a misrepresentation of facts by multiple sources would definitely need to be supported with something other than suspicion. I don't see that we should conclude that your understanding of the verse is correct until I can show otherwise.

I would agree, in the same way that I would ask you to prove that Exodus Ch.21 verse 22 was not intended exactly how I read it to mean. Or to prove that there was some other purpose besides the murder of pregnant women behind the previous "calls to war" as you labeled them.

Whether or not you accept any particular standard of morality is, of course, your choice in the end. I don't know that any moral, however, is simply a matter of personal choice. That sounds a bit like relativism.

All morals are a matter of personal choice. There are off course consequences for all actions, but every day it is our own personal choice whether we choose to follow "morals" or not.

Regardless, I do not find abortion to be a question of morality - but rather a question of when does a fetus become a viable person with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

Until the moment that the fetus achieves this milestone, I believe it is purely a matter of personal choice for the woman. After this milestone is achieved, then yes the issue of "right to life" can certainly be raised.

[Jester]

I apologize for the lag in time, it has been an extremely long work week and work weekend.

No worries; I understand that life happens.

As for the conversation, I am not familiar with Strong's Concordance. Please site references - other than religious - of the academic support of this source.

Of course: Strong's Concordance is a very well known and widely accepted source for definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words used in the Bible.
That, and the use of the word in question in places which do not refer to abortion or miscarriage (in spite of having that term available) would be the basic reason I am inclined against the idea that this verse refers to miscarriage.

Primarily, accusations of a misrepresentation of facts by multiple sources would definitely need to be supported with something other than suspicion. I don't see that we should conclude that your understanding of the verse is correct until I can show otherwise.

I would agree, in the same way that I would ask you to prove that Exodus Ch.21 verse 22 was not intended exactly how I read it to mean. Or to prove that there was some other purpose besides the murder of pregnant women behind the previous "calls to war" as you labeled them.

As an aside, I did want to affirm the idea that both participants should defend their positions - whether acceptance or rejection of a claim.
To that end, the two matters listed above seem to be good reason to question the interpretation that this verse considers a fetus of lesser value than an adult.

Whether or not you accept any particular standard of morality is, of course, your choice in the end. I don't know that any moral, however, is simply a matter of personal choice. That sounds a bit like relativism.

All morals are a matter of personal choice. There are off course consequences for all actions, but every day it is our own personal choice whether we choose to follow "morals" or not.

Regardless, I do not find abortion to be a question of morality - but rather a question of when does a fetus become a viable person with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.

Until the moment that the fetus achieves this milestone, I believe it is purely a matter of personal choice for the woman. After this milestone is achieved, then yes the issue of "right to life" can certainly be raised.

You are certainly allowed that position. I myself have never received a definition of life, human, or person that would include a newborn, exclude a fetus, and would be the most accurate definition available. Thus far, all the most defensible definitions I've encountered would indeed include a fetus.

[chris_brown207]

Of course: Strong's Concordance is a very well known and widely accepted source for definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words used in the Bible.
That, and the use of the word in question in places which do not refer to abortion or miscarriage (in spite of having that term available) would be the basic reason I am inclined against the idea that this verse refers to miscarriage.

Cool, thank you for the informative links.

As an aside, I did want to affirm the idea that both participants should defend their positions - whether acceptance or rejection of a claim.
To that end, the two matters listed above seem to be good reason to question the interpretation that this verse considers a fetus of lesser value than an adult.

The first passage, if it did follow my understanding and not yours, would seem to indicate that the bible inferred that the killing of a fetus did not equate to murder of a person in the punishment that is dealt.

The second group of passages is just to show that women with child were given no special privilege when faced with the biblical god's wrath. Even in the most medieval cultures, women with children are often given special consideration, even in times of war.

You are certainly allowed that position. I myself have never received a definition of life, human, or person that would include a newborn, exclude a fetus, and would be the most accurate definition available. Thus far, all definitions I've encountered would indeed include a fetus.

Anecdotally, we speak of the life growing in the belly.

Legally, it is traditionally the parents which assign the value of such life. In most courts, if an incident were to result in the loss of a fetus in the first trimester, the parties involved are not prosecuted for murder.

Likewise, while we have very specific requirements for the burial and recognition of the deaths of people. Fetuses - especially in the first trimester - do not have such requirements.

I am in no way trying to cheapen the value of the fetus. I am merely trying to demonstrate that it is the family, and more specifically the parents which assign value to the fetus during the early moments of pregnancy.

I happen to agree with the majority of Americans that believe that abortions should remain legal and readily available, at least until the moment at which the fetus could survive on its own outside the womb. Then it would require some fairly exigent circumstances to justify.

Definitely not a black and white issue - and that was my over all intent for citing those passages from the bible in which fetuses were killed.