What is the basis for the belief that abortion is murder?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Since we're lacking a direct "Thou Shalt Not have abortions" commandment, we need to explore everything we can to understand how ancient Hebrew Theology would have been
applied.

Why, because in your limited understanding you don't realize that The Spirit of Truth is even more available to us today than He was to the ancient Hebrews? We need to seek God, so that the people who are lost will fall under conviction, not try to battle against flesh-and-blood, as too many believe is their calling. The Lord will move, but only when His people tell Him to, with their whole hearts. The fact that abortion is covered under, "Thou shalt not murder," has completely escaped you, hasn't it?

Knowing what I do about scripture, I would summize that abortion might have been accepted in cases where the mother's life was at stake, i.e. choosing between the life of
the mother and the life of the child.

That's not abortion, that's saving the life of the mother, to be able to possibly give birth to more of God's sweetest gifts: babies. Also, there isn't a single case where this occurred in 'ancient' times, except for convenience. There wasn't enough anatomical or medical knowledge to determine this type of case.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Knowing what I do about scripture, I would summize that abortion might have been accepted in cases where the mother's life was at stake, i.e. choosing between the life of
the mother and the life of the child.

That's not abortion, that's saving the life of the mother, to be able to possibly give birth to more of God's sweetest gifts: babies. Also, there isn't a single case where this occurred in 'ancient' times, except for convenience. There wasn't enough anatomical or medical knowledge to determine this type of case.

I think we're in complete agreement here. I'm not trying to build
a scriptural case for abortion here, I'm just trying to say that in the
eyes of OT theology, if the choice must be made between the life
of a mother vs the life of an unborn child, the life of the mother
is more important.

The only thing that really bugs me about the whole modern abortion
debate is the complete lack of discussion of or regard for the
well being of the women who are carrying these babies and
considering abortion.

Tell me that not only is the life of a child lost, but abortion also
affects the long term well being
of women who have abortions, and I'll agree whole heartedly.
Its insensitive and wrong to talk about the well being of a child
without discussing the well being of the mother who, for a time,
is biologically and spiritually tied to the life of the child.

djm

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I think we're in complete agreement here.

That sounds nice.

The only thing that really bugs me about the whole modern abortion debate is the complete lack of discussion of or regard for the well being of the women who are carrying these babies and considering abortion.

The only thing that bugs me about the current debate on abortion is the fact that babies are being murdered every single day.

Its insensitive and wrong to talk about the well being of a child without discussing the well being of the mother who, for a time, is biologically and spiritually tied to the life of the child.

Yes, but even more insensitive to murder the child, whether it's discussed or not. The mother should have thought about the possible consequences of her activities before she allowed a human life to form in her belly. Life's tough all over, but we shouldn't offer 'no-one-need-ever-know' abortions to children, especially without their parents' consent.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Originally posted by Aimiel

The mother should have thought about the possible consequences of her activities before she allowed a human life to form in her belly.

Nice guy. Really understanding. Glad I'm not your daughter.

Life's tough all over, but we shouldn't offer 'no-one-need-ever-know' abortions to children, especially without their parents' consent.

That I agree with, parents should be informed of the state
of their children's health.

 

[keypurr]

I am not for aboration however I have a lingering question in my mind.

Where in scripture does it say when a fetus becomes a person and is covered under the law? When does a human become a human? Adam became a living soul after the breath of life was given him. Maybe this should have a thread of its own.

As I said before I do not condone the killing of a promise of a life unless the health of the mother is at risk.

 

[firechyld]

It's been seven days, firechyld. Where's that verse?

No, the one firechyld can't seem to place is the one supporting this statement: "Spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. It's considered an offence."

Sorry, peeps. I've been home sick for a fortnight.

Gen 38:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.

The issue here is not the spilling of the seed, its denying the
brother's wife, and the dead brother, continuation of the family. This was important to the woman because without male children
to support them, women were doomed to destitution, as they
were considered property, and could not own land or make a
living.

While I agree with your interpretation of the verse, that doesn't change the fact that Jews consider the spilling of seed to be a source of tum'eh. The belief can be traced to the story of Onan, but is clarified as a specific sin in Maimonides. Bear in mind that, as far as Judaism is concerned, religious instruction doesn't begin and end with Scripture.

So, to answer your question, spilling of seed has been officially recognised as a "bad thing" in Judaism since medieval times, but was clearly regarded as negative prior to Maimonides writings, as he is considered to be an author of clarification.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sick?

I was wondering where you were. I'm glad you feel better. I missed you.

 

[firechyld]

Yeah, a particularly nasty lung infection. Decidedly unpleasant.

Thanks for the concern. I missed all of you as well.

 

[firechyld]

Come on, lighthouse. You nagged me for two weeks when I wasn't even online about this thread, and you haven't even addressed my response. Can I at least get an acknowledgement?

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm still waiting for the verse. If you don't have one, then where did you get the information from?

 

[firechyld]

I gave you exactly what I promised.... the source for the belief in Judaism that spilling of seed is a source of tum'eh. Not all Jewish beliefs are based solely on Scripture.

The belief can be traced to the story of Onan, and is clarified as a precept of Judaism in the writings of Maimonides.

 

[Lighthouse]

And what does tum'eh mean again?

 

[Redfin]

Originally posted by keypurr

I am not for aboration however I have a lingering question in my mind.

Where in scripture does it say when a fetus becomes a person and is covered under the law? When does a human become a human?

How about Isaiah 44:2 - "Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you..."

Or Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Who is the "you" that the Lord formed "in the womb" in each of these instances?

But it's not just a Scriptural question. It is also a scientific one.

A human being is conceived when a human sperm containing 23 chromosomes, fuses with a human egg also containing 23 chromosomes (albeit of a different kind), producing a single-cell human zygote containing, in the normal case, 46 chromosomes that are mixed differently from the 46 chromosomes as found in the mother or father.

Unlike the gametes (that is, the sperm and egg), the zygote is genetically unique and distinct from its parents. Biologically, it is a separate organism. It produces, as the gametes do not, specifically human enzymes and proteins. It possesses, as they do not, the active capacity or potency to develop itself into a human embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent, and adult.

Assuming that it is not conceived in vitro, the zygote is, of course in a state of dependence on its mother. But independence should not be confused with distinctness. From the beginning, the newly conceived human being, not its mother, directs its integral organic functioning. It takes in nourishment and converts it to energy. Given a hospitable environment, it will develop continuously without any biological interruptions or gaps, through the embryonic, fetal, neo-natal, childhood and adulthood stages, until its death.

That's the "you" to whom the Scriptures were referring. :thumb:

 

[firechyld]

And what does tum'eh mean again?

Ritual uncleanliness. Basically means that spilling seed is a "sin"... something which renders you ritually unclean.

 

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

I'm fine with that being your personal conviction, but that's not
what scripture says. The life of an unborn child is not given
equal value of that of the mother. If the mother is killed
or injured during a fight, its life for life, limb for limb. If the mother
miscarries, money or property is exchanged as payment.

Here's another example, from scripture, at least a metaphorical
parallel:

Dtr 22:6
If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.

The life of the mother is sacred, moreso than the life of the
eggs or young.

djm

I know that this post is a couple of weeks old, but I was just reading through this thread for the first time, and your interpretation of this verse struck me as wrong.
I have heard it said that the ancient rabbis considered this the "least" of the commands in the Torah! When Yeshua referred to the breaking of the "least" of the commands this is probably the one that He meant.
Here is how the ancient rabbis, interpreted and commented on this verse.
"The Torah forbids one to take an ownerless mother bird when it is sitting on its eggs and young. One must send away the mother bird--even many times if it keeps returning to the nest-- and only then is one permitted to take the eggs or young."
Rambam said, "that the reason for this commanment, as for the prohibition against slaughtering a mother animal and its young on the same day{Lev 22:28}, is because it is cruel to do so, especially since animals instinctively love their young and suffer when they see them slaughtered or taken away. Another reason is to symbolize that people should avoid doing things that will destroy a species, for to slaughter mother and children on the same day is akin to mass extermination."
"These commandments are meant to inculcate compassion in people, not as some think, that God himself pities the birds and the animals. It is forbidden to say so because God permits people to use and slaughter animals for their own needs. Rather such commandments teach that people should accustom themselves to act mercifully."


It is apparent that we are teaching young teenage mothers more about sex, than we are about love. Perhaps instead of teaching them all about condoms, we should teach them about the instinctive love of a mother bird, for her unhatched young in their eggs. Perhaps a little field trip, would do more to teach her the worth and value of her young, and of herself, than a clinical analysis of body parts, with no soul.
Why does a bird have more "compassion" for her eggs, than a human mother for her little one inside of her? And why do we permit such a mother to "eat" her own?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by firechyld

Ritual uncleanliness. Basically means that spilling seed is a "sin"... something which renders you ritually unclean.

Well I knew that the law said a man was to be cleansed when he had an emission. But I don't see hw that would make the emission a sin. Just that not cleansing yourself would be the sin. Do you think that the Jews considered a woman to be sinning when she was on her period?

 

[firechyld]

Well I knew that the law said a man was to be cleansed when he had an emission. But I don't see hw that would make the emission a sin. Just that not cleansing yourself would be the sin.

It's ritual uncleanliness. He was unclean until nightfall.

Do you think that the Jews considered a woman to be sinning when she was on her period?

No, but she was a source of tum'eh. Contact with her was a "sin".

Deliberately causing seed to be spilled was considered a "sin", just like having interactions with a menstruating woman.

I don't like using the word "sin" in this context, as the Jewish interpretation and the Christian interpretation are quite different. Suffice to say that spilling of seed is detailed as a "no-no"... it's something to be avoided, and causing it to happen is considered wrong.

 

[billwald]

"Why, because in your limited understanding you don't realize that The Spirit of Truth is even more available to us today than He was to the ancient Hebrews?"

Who is "us," Kemosabe?



"How about Isaiah 44:2 - "Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you..."

"Or Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Verses teach predestination, not biology. The same information was available to God before he created the universe.


"Who is the "you" that the Lord formed "in the womb" in each of these instances?"

The person who God predestined before the foundation of the universe.

"But it's not just a Scriptural question. It is also a scientific one."

Is God traducian or creationist?

 

[Lighthouse]

firechyld-
Okay. I got ya. I agree. Sin is transgression of the law, so that would actually have been considered sin, while the symbolic laws were still in effect. Of course, having relations with a woman on her cycle is a little gross.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by lighthouse

dave-
I've agreed with you on many subjects, but you've lost it! :kookoo:

You should see what he has to say about homosexuality. :freak: