The Bible and Abortion

[MaryContrary]

Harm? To whom?
To the mother or to the child?

They speak of "give birth prematurely", not "miscarry". I can only assume that the choice of words by the translator is deliberate, because a premature birth and a miscarriage are different things.

If "harm" refers to the mother, the child isn't even taken in consideration by the Bible.

If "harm" refers to the child, it gets tricky. A premature birth "harms" the child whether he survives the ordeal or not (though it's more harmful if the child doesn't, obviously).

I said, "considering what Knight points out in regards to Exodus 21:22" in order to draw your attention to what Knight points out in regards to Exodus 21:22. I think he covered it pretty well. If you disagree, you can always explain where and why.

There's a lot of scholastic exegesis of this particular verse. I'm not sure.

Then why make note of what "many medieval church fathers" thought? As a protestant Christian I don't really care what they thought, nor would I expect many other Christians to. Their arguments might be persuasive but you haven't presented any. I assume then you believe simply their declaring this would be persuasive of itself. If you're not sure what the biblical position on abortion is, then why present something you think will persuade one way or the other? That strikes me as pretty dishonest.

 

[Nydhogg]

I said, "considering what Knight points out in regards to Exodus 21:22" in order to draw your attention to what Knight points out in regards to Exodus 21:22. I think he covered it pretty well. If you disagree, you can always explain where and why.

Then why make note of what "many medieval church fathers" thought? As a protestant Christian I don't really care what they thought, nor would I expect many other Christians to. Their arguments might be persuasive but you haven't presented any. I assume then you believe simply their declaring this would be persuasive of itself. If you're not sure what the biblical position on abortion is, then why present something you think will persuade one way or the other? That strikes me as pretty dishonest.

No love lost for St. Agustine et al, then?

Not that he was living Scripture, but he had a reputation for good exegesis.

 

[MaryContrary]

No love lost for St. Agustine et al, then?

Not that he was living Scripture, but he had a reputation for good exegesis.

Never mind, then.

 

[Nick M]

Then why does God demand life for life punishment if an unborn child is killed?

Since this wasn't answered, one more time.

Harm? To whom?
To the mother or to the child?

Are you really that stupid? It has already been established the mother has been harmed.

Then the text says if no harm then no harm when talking about the child. The punishment of life for life is for the child.

 

[Nydhogg]

The exegesis of that particular Bible verse is complicated.

For example, this very interpretation:

Manslaughter is not murder. A person being accidentally hurt during a fight between third parties would be manslaughter, not murder, according to traditional Biblical law.

In fact, it is assuming that the child is born alive, or else it would use the word "miscarry" and not "premature birth".

Whether "harm results" could perfectly refer to whether the woman is killed. Accidental manslaughter is not murder, but if a pregnant woman is killed by accident, THEN it calls blood for blood.


It is a plausible interpretation, and one of the interpretations that I've read.



It might not be the CORRECT one, but it's plausible.


If the killing that deserves blood for blood is that of the unborn, why is that unborn more than other victim of manslaughter?

Why doesn't use "miscarry" when it refers to the baby who would be dead, and "premature birth" when it results in a live baby. Y'know, instead of an obscure "harm is/is not done" unless it's referring to whether the harm is for the mother?

 

[Nick M]

The exegesis of that particular Bible verse is complicated.

Exegesis? Exegesis?

Try believing the Bible rather than try and say what it really means. It says life for life. Why don't you just believe what it says? It has already been established that the mother is harmed. It then says if no harm then no harm. God is no longer talking about the mother. This isn't hard. In fact, this is just like the perverts that try and distort the gospel. You are the same kind of snake.

 

[Nydhogg]

Hey, I don't even believe the Bible. I was challenged to state a coherent Biblical position according to Exodus that doesn't mean what Knight says it means, and I did.

Just for the sake of argument.

I'd kinda like for Knight to argue my interpretation and I'm quite willing to accept defeat if my points are rebutted.

 

[keypurr]

I am still waiting for someone to define PERSONHOOD in scripture. What is personhood?

Once that is established then we could discuss abortion. Which I do not support in all cases.

 

[Stripe]

I am still waiting for someone to define PERSONHOOD in scripture.

You'll be waiting a long time for an acceptable answer.

Personhood is not "defined". It is conferred. By God. What God has called good let no man call waste.

 

[Nydhogg]

Mainstream Jewish theology hold that abortion in case of risk of death to the mother is mandatory. Even Orthodox judaism teaches it.

Which would more than likely suggest that "harm" referring to the mother is certainly a mainstream interpretation. The vast majority of modern Jewish theologians and medieval Church fathers interpreted "harm" as referring to the mother.

It's the manslaughter of the pregnant mother which calls blood for blood instead of the traditional exile, not the manslaughter of the unborn child.

If it were, the second part of the passage would use the Hebrew word for manslaughter and not the Hebrew word for "birth".

 

[Stripe]

Mainstream Jewish theology hold that abortion in case of risk of death to the mother is mandatory. Even Orthodox judaism teaches it.

Mainstream Jewish theologians also think men evolved from fish, so I wouldn't put too much stock in their ability to properly convey God's word. :nono:

 

[Nydhogg]

They've got a 3000 year head start in butting heads with the OT. I'd gladly lend them the utmost credence in that particular thing.

Not to mention that Biblical literalism is a 19th century fad, and most folks have usually interpreted Genesis allegorically.

By the way, we DID evolve from fish, albeit it was a long, long time ago.

 

[Stripe]

They've got a 3000 year head start in butting heads with the OT. I'd gladly lend them the utmost credence in that particular thing.

Long time to let tradition and compromise rot the brain. :up:

Not to mention that Biblical literalism is a 19th century fad

:rotfl: You just made that up.

Most folks have usually interpreted Genesis allegorically.

Atheists love to appeal to the popularity of something as if it was evidence. lain:

By the way, we DID evolve from fish, albeit it was a long, long time ago.

You say that like it's a fact. Evolution is just a theory.

 

[Nydhogg]

Evolution is just a theory.

My favorite.

Are you familiar with the scientific definitions of conjecture and theory?

A theory, in science, means a conceptual model of reality that fits the existing evidence and is internally consistent. Theories are held as true until new, hard evidence falsifies them, or a new conceptual model better explains the facts.

A theory is the HIGHEST degree of "truth" the scientific method (with its inherent systematic skepticism) allows.


The equivalent in scientific terms to what is vulgarly called "theory" is "conjecture.", which is akin to saying "hey guys, perhaps it works this way."

The intermediate term between the "guess" (conjecture) and the "fact" (theory) is the hypothesis.

In scientific terms you meant: But evolution is just a conjecture! And sorry to disappoint you, but a conjecture it ain't.

It graduated from that a while ago from conjecture to full-fledged theory. Like Gravitation, Thermodynamics or General Relativity.

 

[Stripe]

My favorite. Are you familiar with the scientific definitions of conjecture and theory? A theory, in science, means a conceptual model of reality that fits the existing evidence and is internally consistent. Theories are held as true until new, hard evidence falsifies them, or a new conceptual model better explains the facts. A theory is the HIGHEST degree of "truth" the scientific method (with its inherent systematic skepticism) allows. The equivalent in scientific terms to what is vulgarly called "theory" is "conjecture.", which is akin to saying "hey guys, perhaps it works this way." The intermediate term between the "guess" (conjecture) and the "fact" (theory) is the hypothesis. In scientific terms you meant: But evolution is just a conjecture! And sorry to disappoint you, but a conjecture it ain't. It graduated from that a while ago from conjecture to full-fledged theory. Like Gravitation, Thermodynamics or General Relativity.

So you really think evolution is a fact? lain:

 

[Nydhogg]

Yes. The theory fits the facts. Not being a fundamentalist Christian (or a christian at all for that matter) I don't reject science's reasoned claims in favor of dogma.

We know genetics and mutation. We know natural selection to be true.

We have even observed the beginning of speciation in a bird species, which is highly exciting! Separate populations of a certain species of seagull have stopped being able to mate with each other because they no longer recognize each other's mating signals.

Those populations, even if they coexist, can't miscegenate anymore. They're rather small, so we now have isolation+small gene pool to get variation to really kick in!

In a few hundred of generations, if someone crossed a member of population A and a member of population B artificially he would not be able to get fertile offspring out of that. Speciation achieved.

 

[Stripe]

Yes.

There's no possible way it could be false?

 

[keypurr]

You'll be waiting a long time for an acceptable answer.

Personhood is not "defined". It is conferred. By God. What God has called good let no man call waste.

Where?

I got the time to wait.

What is a person?

 

[Stripe]

Where?

What where?

I got the time to wait.

OK. :idunno:

What is a person?

I will not define what is and is not a person. I will simply recognise that God created people called Adam and Eve and commanded them to multiply.

If you have some evidence that their offspring are not people, then I'll reject it in the order you present it.

And until you bring evidence to a discussion, I am perfectly justified in sticking with the "status quo."

Even if I'm wrong, what harm might that do?

What harm might you do if you are wrong?

 

[Nick M]

I was challenged to state a coherent Biblical position according to Exodus that doesn't mean what Knight says it means, and I did.

So life for life doesn't mean life for life. I rest against you.

Just for the sake of argument.

No, for the sake of the child.

I'd kinda like for Knight to argue my interpretation and I'm quite willing to accept defeat if my points are rebutted.

Interpretation? It is already in English. You don't need a hebrew interpreter.