Pond-------It might seem at first glance that you and I are at odds in this line of thinking. This is not necessarily the case. One of the purposes that breathing serves is to receive oxygen and to release carbon dioxide. If a person is being mechanically assisted in this process via a respirator, the process is still taking place. This might be likened to a person using crutches to walk. Crutches or not, they are still walking. A fetus,however, partakes of this oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange by way of the placenta. The two blood systems never actually co-mingle. Some(including VPW) have even argued that this explains why GOD is refered to in the masculine gender but that is another topic altogether. A change in fluid pressure between the left and right side of the heart is what sets the external breathing process into motion. Now before you think we are at odds again, please consider this: Lev. 17:11 says the life of the flesh is in the blood. The fetus does indeed have blood. The question is this: Is this blood the same as that being referenced in Leviticus?
then the blood would be life and a abortion would be the termination of a life but does that make it murder?
so if life begins at conception is it necesarily murder to have an abortion?
any scripture regarding this or not?
I do think the fact God breathed life into Adam may be because he was the first creation.. like jesus and the virgin birth. was an extrordinary thing He did ya know for the needs of the moment type thing.
God can do that but it doesnt mean that every man that follows will have the same "rule' to be alive does it?
i do think if a person believes it is murder than it would be for them .
(I am a conservative Jew, and thought someone would find this helpful)
Exodus 21-22 says:
When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensuse, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.
"Other damage to the woman. Based on reckoning : perhaps reckoning the age of the fetus, but both this translation and the alternative"as the judges determine" are questionable. Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."
quoted from "The Jewish Study Bible"
Traditionally, when the head of the newborn has completly emerged from the birth canal, Jewish law considers it to have status of a full human being. Jewish law insist apon abortion if the mother's life is endangered under the doctrine of pikuakh nefesh, saving a life. Many Rabbi's have extended this to to take into account the psycholgical damage a woman could suffer if giving birth to a severly deformed child.
Please do not take this to mean that Jews "approve" of abortion, the argument that is a woman's right to control her own body does not apply as Jewish tradition states our bodies are on "bailment" from G-d, and should be treated as a temple. So "unwanted" or "accidental" pregnancies should not occur.
The *first breath* being alive teaching is a pretty far stretch in the manipulation of scriptures.
Come on logically....What does breathing do? It introduces oxygen to our blood stream...right??
So guess what? the baby has been recieving oxygen via the mother all along!!
By the same token ...they taught us that because cancer requires oxygen and blood flow to grow...it was considered *alive* ..thus the demon posessed garbage for any who were ill.
Wierwille imo, needed a convenient justification to bully people into aborting, after all ...couldn`t have all of that evidence of sexual immorality bearing mute testimoney to those who weren`t spiritual enough to handle their *freedom in Christ*
So he tortures scripture to say what he wants it to....just like with all of the women in the kingdom and every part of the body being equal (no difference between penis and finger etc)
We couldn`t let these corpes/wow gals side lined with responsibility that would detract from their duty to the ministry <_<
Maybe you have to have carried a baby to term in your womb, experienced the personality, the habits of each individual child....how they jump when startled, they turn towards sound and stinulous, they suck their thumb, swallow, breath, to understand just how alive they are.
One of mine would consistantly turn when being poked and push back from the other side.....
I only know that for myself and most whom I speak with....those whom were bullied and badgered by those *biblical* arguments , that it is a decision that never stops haunting us.
I would think that if it just didn`t matter, if it were nothing more than a bunch or paracitical cells as we were taught....or that it really was a trick from satan to keep us from honoring our spiritual duty...... that we would feel PROUD of what we did for God....OR.... that we would just be able to conveniently chalk it up like every other foolish thing that we have done in our youth ..... and simply dismiss it as just one of the more stupid things that we did when we were younger.
All I can say is that this is different. You can`t fix it. You just try to find a way to live with the choices that you have made.
I stand on the idea that to be a living soul we must breath air.
It seems to me that all attempts to justify vpw's position...
As for 'defending' VPW. I have no desire to defend the man, nor have I ever.
Wordwolf remarked on defending Wierwille's position, not the man himself.
Galen says he stands on the idea that to be a "living soul" one must breath air, which is Wierwille's position.
Wordwolf:
It is frustrating, isn't it, to try to get a discussion going when some just want to spout platitudes?
The purpose of the thread was to find out what God said about abortion; if one believes that the bible, as originally revealed is the inerrant Word of God, and that bible also contains "all that pertains to life and godliness", then surely one could determine what God thought about abortion.
Wierwille made some statements about abortion that, whatever his reasons, don't hold up to scrutiny.
Galen-------------The scriptures clearly do not address what we today refer to as abortion.Many questions still remain, Among them are: Are there scriptures that deal with a biblical equivalent of abortion?, Is soul life synonymous with breath life? Is receiving oxygen from the placenta the same as receiving it through respiration?,Is the circulatory path a factor since it changes once the first breath is taken? I don't know the answers to any of these questions but perhaps a scrutiny of these issues both from a scriptural stance as well as a biological stance will prove to be enlightening, though I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone.Not withstanding, I respect your conviction to your viewpoint.
I don't know the answers to any of these questions but perhaps a scrutiny of these issues both from a scriptural stance as well as a biological stance will prove to be enlightening, though I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone.
To my knowledge a fetus is developing bones and muscles and a nervous system all along. The body of the fetus moves, by kicking, twisting, turning and so forth from somewhere along the second trimester on.
So? I am sure that such is relevant though I don't see how.
Galen-------------The scriptures clearly do not address what we today refer to as abortion.
Yes, true, thank you for repeating something that I have said previously.
Many questions still remain, Among them are: Are there scriptures that deal with a biblical equivalent of abortion?, Is soul life synonymous with breath life? Is receiving oxygen from the placenta the same as receiving it through respiration?,Is the circulatory path a factor since it changes once the first breath is taken? I don't know the answers to any of these questions but perhaps a scrutiny of these issues both from a scriptural stance as well as a biological stance will prove to be enlightening, though I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone.Not withstanding, I respect your conviction to your viewpoint.
Thank you.
What does the Bible say really about modern usage of chemotherapy? Or digital-encryption? Again these are topics that just are not really talked about much back then. Modern medicine was not around yet, nor did people know about oxygen and the role of the placenta. I am sure however that God knew all about them, and when authoring the Bible, He gave us everything that we would need for knowing Him.
So basing a Biblical Doctrine either way, founded on the 'logic' of modern science and today's pre-defined perceptions is shaking at best.
What is the distinction between brain-death and cellular death and breathing? You can look at these from a modern science based viewpoint, or from the biblical viewpoint. I have issue with basing your relationship with God, on anything other than the Bible.
‘Miscarriages from mischief' seems to be the closest that the Bible really addresses the issue, and in God's viewpoint it is a trespass against the Father/Husband of the woman. The concept that the Father/Husband or the woman initiated the mischief is not mentioned. There have always been methods of performing abortions, as well as causing a miscarriage, so assuming that it was never thought of, is lacking as well.
You can not commit adultery against yourself. Nor can you covet against yourself. You already have what you already have.
Sins can be against God, or they can be against your neighbor. Clearly God does not care on this issue, otherwise He would have said so. God places ‘Miscarriages from mischief' as a sin against your neighbor, and I would tend to leave it there. If your not trespassing against your neighbor, rather you are handling your own property, and no sin has happened.
Is abortion a good thing? I have stated this previously, but for some reason I seem to be cast into the position here of restating the obvious, No abortion is a serious matter. It should not be so convenient that it leads to further promiscuity. Promiscuity is bad.
I truly do appreciate being cast into the position of trying to ‘defend’ a man that I have never met. And that I likely do not entirely agree with.
…I don't know the answers to any of these questions but perhaps a scrutiny of these issues both from a scriptural stance as well as a biological stance will prove to be enlightening, though I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone.Not withstanding, I respect your conviction to your viewpoint.
Waysider, you’ve brought up something important. The point of this thread was answering the question “Abortion: what does God say?” As a Christian who believes the Bible is God’s Word I have a general rule of thumb on interpretation – that which is explicitly stated in the Bible I afford the most weight in terms of authority – in other words “this is what God says about…” An interpretation that depends on inferences from my logic I deem less authoritative – since my logic may be faulty. I know I’m stating the obvious here – just wanted to second Waysider’s idea – as a friendly reminder to everybody.
That being said I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the subject. Since I left TWI I have changed my opinion on abortion – now believing it is wrong. I’ve come to that conclusion a long time ago after considering the things implied from certain Scriptures [like some of the Old Testament verses referred to on this thread and most notably the conception of Jesus Christ - handled quite admirably by WordWolf in this discussion]. I think a few questions come to mind on this topic: When does soul life begin? When does soul life end? What is the nature of the soul? What is death?
As I said above – I believe abortion is wrong – now I’m not wanting to derail this thread by writing a major dissertation on the four questions I just asked – I’m just throwing my opinion in regarding those questions. My answers that follow are from inferences I have made from Scripture – which has shaped my viewpoint on this topic. I believe the soul is present at the moment of conception. I don’t think a soul can die. I think God intended for the soul to have a body – it is eternal in nature. Physical death is separation of the soul from the body.
As to whether or not there is a specific verse saying
"And God said, behold, abortion is acceptable up to the moment labour begins"
or
"And God said, behold, a fetus is a child from the beginning of the first month"
or anything in between,
there is no specific verse.
I believe almost all of us can respond to that factlet by saying
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH."
That having been said,
those who actually believe the Bible has value in a more-than-interesting-cultural-guidebook
manner, that is, who believe it was designed to communicate information from God to man,
those people believe that its utility is more than the sum total of the verses,
that its guidelines are usable for concepts not extant at the time the books were written.
For those who believe that the "all life and godliness" referred to as having been given us
also refers to the Bible
( 2 Peter 1:3
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue")
as was taught in twi, and is held by ex-twi'ers,
the idea of just shrugging one's shoulders and saying "no verse addresses it explicitly,
therefore we have no idea" should be considered both lazy and cowardly.
This brand of inconsistency (one might even say "hypocrisy", for this is an inconsistently-applied
standard) is compounded when one declares that the godly position is one thing, while hiding
behind a shrug when discussion of the verses comes up.
The concept that a fetus is NOT a baby-and thus not a PERSON and thus not truly ALIVE-
before the instant they take "their first breath" has several problems.
A) There is no verse that says this is the case.
B) John the Baptist, when in his 6th month as a fetus, was called-by God in the Bible
(for those who believe the Bible IS from God) a baby, and he responded to really esoteric
stimuli- he responded to joy at the approach of the coming Messiah, in a very indirect fashion.
It's a strange and unusual concept to approach, but-if GOD ALMIGHTY SAID IT- it behooves me
and all those who believe the Bible IS from God to accept that this is correct as stated.
That means that the concept that a person is not alive until one's first breath at the 9th month
has been successfully refuted in Luke, and that the LATEST one could be considered to be
alive and a person (albeit a baby, but babies ARE people) would be the 6th month-
3 months BEFORE vpw's doctrine.
When faced with this combination, it's rather sad that some, when asked specifically how they
reconcile their "first breath" doctrine, thus a "9th month" doctrine,
with the "6th month" verse,
would respond with repeated attempts to talk around it.
I'd have a LOT more respect for someone who said
"Being unable to refute the clear, overt meaning of the verses, I have changed my opinion
and claim that the New Testament says the LATEST point to consider a baby as being developed
into a living person, although I once held that it was in the 9th month at the "first breath."
So, it seems we are in 3 groups.
A) those indifferent to the Bible, since they hold it as not authoritative
B) those who can study the verses and come to new insights and conclusions
C) those who will maintain the twi/vpw doctrines and filter all insight through those doctrines
I was hoping all three would have insights to offer in this discussion at different points,
but it seems the third category has limited what they can bring to the table.
i realize you try to put the thread together in a concise way .. but you know the bible is a crazy book for example it says an foot could talk to a man when he was being wipped!
so now i can know for sure if i beat my horse it will complain to me about the pain i inflicted?
the fact elizabeth called the promised child a "babe" does not really qualify as "premediated murder" in and of itself does it now?
i see no more conclusion in that leap than i do all absence of "fruit" qualifies as a abortion.
Thought I would share something from a theological dictionary, noting that it argues from inferences of key Scripture and defines three challenges to a rigid 'no abortion' policy.
The following excerpt is from The New Dictionary of Theology edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright, J.I.Packer, pages 2 and 3:
"Abortion is the loss or expulsion from the womb of a living fetus before it has reached the stage of viability. Many abortions occur spontaneously [miscarriages], whereas others are deliberately induced…The chief theological ground for a strict anti-abortion stance is the conviction that every human being is made in God's image from the time of conception [cf. Genesis 1:27]. Life-taking, like life-giving, is God's prerogative, and man needs a special mandate to end any human being's physical existence. Permission to kill is given in Scripture in carefully defined circumstances as a response to injustice [specifically murder and war, cf. Genesis 9:6; I Kings 2:5,6], but no fetus has done anything to deserve the death penalty. Abortion, therefore, is morally bad.
Biblical support for this conclusion is often found in the Old Testament's allusions to life before birth [e.g. Psalm 139:13-17; Jeremiah 1:5; Ecclesiastes 11:5] and in the New Testament's use of the Greek word brephos to describe both a fetus and a child [Luke 1:41; 2:21]. These references assume continuity of personhood on both sides of birth.
A rigid 'no abortion' policy has been challenged in three ways. First, the Roman Catholic Church [which is otherwise implacably opposed to abortion] allows for a pregnancy to be terminated, under the ethical law of 'double effect', when a procedure intended to save the mother-to-be's life [such as hysterectomy for cancer] results in the death of the fetus.
Secondly, some Protestant theologians argue that the fetus is a potential person, rather than an actual person with potential. While a fetus demands care and respect at any stage of its existence, its claim to life is proportional to its stage of development. Plausible though this theory sounds, it does not easily square with the Bible's stress on personhood's continuum, and it is by no means simple to apply in practice.
Thirdly, and most radically, Christian situationists contend that love alone must dictate the decision whether or not to abort in a particular case. Compassion for the woman [if her life is threatened] or for the unborn child [if he or she is likely to be born deformed or defective] may dictate the ending of a pregnancy. Furthermore, they argue, because love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number, abortion may be indicated when the baby is unwanted by the family, by society – or, for that matter, by an overcrowded world.
Situation ethics has come under heavy fire from Christians who accept Scripture's authority. Nowhere does the Bible teach that love replaces divine principle or overrides divine law. Nor does it support the utilitarian assumption that the best actions can be calculated by counting heads.
Nevertheless, the situationist's stress on compassion is a salutary and biblical reminder that those who oppose abortion on principle are obliged to find practical, loving alternatives for women with unwanted pregnancies [cf. James 2:14-17]."
End of excerpt
While I would classify myself as falling into line with the Roman Catholic Church's viewpoint [abortion allowed under the ethical law of 'double effect'] – I find the situation ethics type of thinking intriguing – in that it challenges Christians to put their faith into action and help women with unwanted pregnancies.
i realize you try to put the thread together in a concise way .. but you know the bible is a crazy book for example it says an foot could talk to a man when he was being wipped!
so now i can know for sure if i beat my horse it will complain to me about the pain i inflicted?
That was stated to be a miracle. If God wants a brick wall to start talking, I'm confident it will,
and expect it NOT to do so for anything short of that.
the fact elizabeth called the promised child a "babe" does not really qualify as "premediated murder" in and of itself does it now?
i see no more conclusion in that leap than i do all absence of "fruit" qualifies as a abortion.
The narration calls John the Baptist a babe, 6 months "old" in development, and said he
responded to the imminent Messiah's approach, kinda. (His response was definite,
what he responded to is complicated.)
God called him a baby. A baby's a child. If he were thus killed, it's child-murder.
I explained it in detail more than once in this thread.
Please review my posts.
If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. I made it as simple as I am able.
Interesting. T-Bone.
I expect we'll be examining some verses from there soon.
Ok, as to the second, I think JohnIam agrees with almost all of us on the second matter, that John the
Baptist was referred to as a "babe" and not "a collection of cells", so that sometime BEFORE 9 months he
would be considered a baby, which means that he counted as such sometime BEFORE
"his first breath". (Which would mean an abortion at that point would be ending his life intentionally, which
would be murder in the first degree.
================
God called him a baby. A baby's a child. If he were thus killed, it's child-murder.
Only if you believe killing equals murder. Even an intenional death is not necessarily murder.
If the mother's life, whether physical or psychological, is compromised, surely it is self-defense, just as if someone entered your house, wearing a mask, and waving a gun at your face, and you killed the intruder, because you thought he meant you harm.
And what of times of war? Many innocents are killed. Are their deaths murder, or is it justified, because some are sacrificed for the greater good?
Situation ethics has come under heavy fire from Christians who accept Scripture's authority. Nowhere does the Bible teach that love replaces divine principle or overrides divine law. Nor does it support the utilitarian assumption that the best actions can be calculated by counting heads.
Love doesn't replace divine law, The law of the letter, but I think its supposed to fullfill the law, ie satisfy the spirit of the law.
Thirdly, and most radically, Christian situationists contend that love alone must dictate the decision whether or not to abort in a particular case. Compassion for the woman [if her life is threatened] or for the unborn child [if he or she is likely to be born deformed or defective] may dictate the ending of a pregnancy. Furthermore, they argue, because love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number, abortion may be indicated when the baby is unwanted by the family, by society – or, for that matter, by an overcrowded world.
I don't see why love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number.
But this position does seem to match up better with the idea that we are no longer under the law.
I found an interesting interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 [already discussed on this thread], which I thought, may be of some value here. I also am in very strong agreement with the author's recommendation of erring on the side of caution in his concluding paragraph. The following excerpt is from Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, 1985, pages 554 to 556:
"…The passage most discussed in connection with the issue of the humanity of the fetus is probably Exodus 21:22-25, which appears in a long list of precepts and injunctions following the Ten Commandments. It reads, "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."This is an application of the lex talionis, the law of retaliation spelled out in Leviticus 24: 17-20 ["as he has done it shall be done to him"]. One common interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 is that in the case of a miscarriage caused by a struggle between men, the lex talionis is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.
An alternative interpretation, which, while less popular, has had a rather long history, has recently been revived in the midst of the modern controversy over abortion. Jack Cottrell has presented one of the clearest and most complete statements of this alternative [Jack W. Cottrell, "Abortion and the Mosaic Law," Christianity Today, March 16 1973, pp. 6-9]. According to Cottrell, the clause translated "so that there is a miscarriage" should be literally rendered – "so that her children come out." The noun here is yeled, which is a common word for child or offspring. The only thing unusual about the noun in Exodus 21: 22 is that it is in the plural. The verb here is yatsa', which usually means "to go out, to go forth, to come forth." It is often used to refer to the ordinary birth of children, as coming forth from the loins of the father or from the womb of the mother. Examples of the former usage are found in Genesis 15:4; 46:26; I Kings 8:19; and Isaiah 39:7. Instances of the latter are found in Genesis 25:25,26; 38:28,29; Job 1:21; 3:11; Ecclesiastes 5:15; and Jeremiah 1:5; 20:18. In each of these cases yatsa' refers to the ordinary birth of a normal child; in no case is the word used of a miscarriage. In Numbers 12:12 it refers to the birth of a stillborn child; it should be noted that this is a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. The concept of stillbirth is communicated through the specific description of the child ["one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb"], not through the verb yatsa'. There is a Hebrew word – shakhol – which specifically refers to miscarriage; It is used in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14. Cottrell concludes, "Thus, there seems to be no warrant for interpreting Exodus 21:22 to mean 'the destruction of the fetus.'"
According to Cottrell, the situation in view in Exodus 21:22-25 is simply this: if there is no harm done in the case of a child born prematurely because its mother was hurt by men struggling against one another, there is no penalty other than a fine. If, however, there is harm, the principle of a life for a life and an eye for an eye is to be enforced. Note that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies. Interpreted in this way, Exodus 21:22-25 supports the contention that the Bible regards the unborn as a person. The interpretation of Cottrell, Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch [Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Eerdmans, 1959, vol. 2, pp. 134, 135], and others is more in keeping with the data of the passage than is the commonly held or traditional rendering. At the very least, then, the idea that the passage does not treat the fetus as fully human has been rendered highly questionable. Yet we cannot say that the passage conclusively establishes the humanity of the unborn.
Indeed, none of the passages we have examined demonstrates conclusively that the fetus is a human in God's sight. Nevertheless, when taken as a whole, they do give us enough evidence to render that conclusion very likely. And where one is dealing with an issue as momentous as the possible destruction of a human life, prudence dictates that a conservative course be followed. If one is hunting and sees a moving object which may be either a deer or another hunter, or if one is driving and sees what may be a pile of rags or a child lying in the street, one will assume that it is a human. And a conscientious Christian will treat a fetus as human, since it is highly likely that God regards a fetus as a person capable of [at least potentially] that fellowship with God for which man was created."
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
16
46
16
Popular Days
Aug 29
21
Sep 13
18
Sep 11
15
Sep 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 17 posts
DrtyDzn 16 posts
pond 46 posts
VeganXTC 16 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2006
21 posts
Sep 13 2006
18 posts
Sep 11 2006
15 posts
Sep 17 2006
14 posts
waysider
Pond-------It might seem at first glance that you and I are at odds in this line of thinking. This is not necessarily the case. One of the purposes that breathing serves is to receive oxygen and to release carbon dioxide. If a person is being mechanically assisted in this process via a respirator, the process is still taking place. This might be likened to a person using crutches to walk. Crutches or not, they are still walking. A fetus,however, partakes of this oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange by way of the placenta. The two blood systems never actually co-mingle. Some(including VPW) have even argued that this explains why GOD is refered to in the masculine gender but that is another topic altogether. A change in fluid pressure between the left and right side of the heart is what sets the external breathing process into motion. Now before you think we are at odds again, please consider this: Lev. 17:11 says the life of the flesh is in the blood. The fetus does indeed have blood. The question is this: Is this blood the same as that being referenced in Leviticus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
then the blood would be life and a abortion would be the termination of a life but does that make it murder?
so if life begins at conception is it necesarily murder to have an abortion?
any scripture regarding this or not?
I do think the fact God breathed life into Adam may be because he was the first creation.. like jesus and the virgin birth. was an extrordinary thing He did ya know for the needs of the moment type thing.
God can do that but it doesnt mean that every man that follows will have the same "rule' to be alive does it?
i do think if a person believes it is murder than it would be for them .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawnbroker
ok...I'm new at this so be kind.
(I am a conservative Jew, and thought someone would find this helpful)
Exodus 21-22 says:
When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensuse, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning.
"Other damage to the woman. Based on reckoning : perhaps reckoning the age of the fetus, but both this translation and the alternative"as the judges determine" are questionable. Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder; hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother."
quoted from "The Jewish Study Bible"
Traditionally, when the head of the newborn has completly emerged from the birth canal, Jewish law considers it to have status of a full human being. Jewish law insist apon abortion if the mother's life is endangered under the doctrine of pikuakh nefesh, saving a life. Many Rabbi's have extended this to to take into account the psycholgical damage a woman could suffer if giving birth to a severly deformed child.
Please do not take this to mean that Jews "approve" of abortion, the argument that is a woman's right to control her own body does not apply as Jewish tradition states our bodies are on "bailment" from G-d, and should be treated as a temple. So "unwanted" or "accidental" pregnancies should not occur.
Edited by pawnbrokerLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Interesting input, good to see you again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
The *first breath* being alive teaching is a pretty far stretch in the manipulation of scriptures.
Come on logically....What does breathing do? It introduces oxygen to our blood stream...right??
So guess what? the baby has been recieving oxygen via the mother all along!!
By the same token ...they taught us that because cancer requires oxygen and blood flow to grow...it was considered *alive* ..thus the demon posessed garbage for any who were ill.
Wierwille imo, needed a convenient justification to bully people into aborting, after all ...couldn`t have all of that evidence of sexual immorality bearing mute testimoney to those who weren`t spiritual enough to handle their *freedom in Christ*
So he tortures scripture to say what he wants it to....just like with all of the women in the kingdom and every part of the body being equal (no difference between penis and finger etc)
We couldn`t let these corpes/wow gals side lined with responsibility that would detract from their duty to the ministry <_<
Maybe you have to have carried a baby to term in your womb, experienced the personality, the habits of each individual child....how they jump when startled, they turn towards sound and stinulous, they suck their thumb, swallow, breath, to understand just how alive they are.
One of mine would consistantly turn when being poked and push back from the other side.....
I only know that for myself and most whom I speak with....those whom were bullied and badgered by those *biblical* arguments , that it is a decision that never stops haunting us.
I would think that if it just didn`t matter, if it were nothing more than a bunch or paracitical cells as we were taught....or that it really was a trick from satan to keep us from honoring our spiritual duty...... that we would feel PROUD of what we did for God....OR.... that we would just be able to conveniently chalk it up like every other foolish thing that we have done in our youth ..... and simply dismiss it as just one of the more stupid things that we did when we were younger.
All I can say is that this is different. You can`t fix it. You just try to find a way to live with the choices that you have made.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Galen, should I actually type out the verses I asked for a relevant comment on,
and retype the questions I (re)posted about them,
or just scratch the effort as "non-responsive"?
So far,
It seems to me that all attempts to justify vpw's position (except one)
have been departures from actually addressing the verses that make them
problematic to be true. (I.e. 'DISTRACTIONS FROM' rather than
'attempts to answer.') Given intelligent adults, I find this rather disappointing.
It's not like I'm asking one of the age-old imponderables, or for you to even
resolve the entire discussion into one sentence. I just want to see one of you
either resolve your seemingly-contradictory doctrine, or simply label it as
"dismissed", so we can proceed to one clear, non-contradictory concept
(or more than one non-contradictory concept, as the case may be.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Asked and answered.
As for 'defending' VPW. I have no desire to defend the man, nor have I ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wordwolf remarked on defending Wierwille's position, not the man himself.
Galen says he stands on the idea that to be a "living soul" one must breath air, which is Wierwille's position.
Wordwolf:
It is frustrating, isn't it, to try to get a discussion going when some just want to spout platitudes?
The purpose of the thread was to find out what God said about abortion; if one believes that the bible, as originally revealed is the inerrant Word of God, and that bible also contains "all that pertains to life and godliness", then surely one could determine what God thought about abortion.
Wierwille made some statements about abortion that, whatever his reasons, don't hold up to scrutiny.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And refused to answer Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44,
which appear to contradict that position.
KJV:
"Luke 1:41
"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost"
Luke 1:44
"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
(Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.)
John was not born yet, but he was considered a babe/baby.
(I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that
are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.)
What month was he at?
Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months.
Luke 1:36.
"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."
So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before
"first breath" on the average.
That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know.
Further,
at 6 months, there was some specificity in that he responded to Mary, and his response
somehow indicated a distinction between normal fetal movement and this SPECIFIC reaction.
That was in Luke 1:41, as description, and NOT simply a report of Elizabeth's opinion.
(Someone might try to dismiss 1:44 for that reason, but that excuse is denied in the case of 1:41.
So, in short, I'm scratching it as "non-responsive."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Fine, except that I did comment on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Galen-------------The scriptures clearly do not address what we today refer to as abortion.Many questions still remain, Among them are: Are there scriptures that deal with a biblical equivalent of abortion?, Is soul life synonymous with breath life? Is receiving oxygen from the placenta the same as receiving it through respiration?,Is the circulatory path a factor since it changes once the first breath is taken? I don't know the answers to any of these questions but perhaps a scrutiny of these issues both from a scriptural stance as well as a biological stance will prove to be enlightening, though I doubt we will ever reach a conclusive answer that will satisfy everyone.Not withstanding, I respect your conviction to your viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I believe you are right on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I believe that this is the "comment":
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Yes, true, thank you for repeating something that I have said previously.
Thank you.
What does the Bible say really about modern usage of chemotherapy? Or digital-encryption? Again these are topics that just are not really talked about much back then. Modern medicine was not around yet, nor did people know about oxygen and the role of the placenta. I am sure however that God knew all about them, and when authoring the Bible, He gave us everything that we would need for knowing Him.
So basing a Biblical Doctrine either way, founded on the 'logic' of modern science and today's pre-defined perceptions is shaking at best.
What is the distinction between brain-death and cellular death and breathing? You can look at these from a modern science based viewpoint, or from the biblical viewpoint. I have issue with basing your relationship with God, on anything other than the Bible.
‘Miscarriages from mischief' seems to be the closest that the Bible really addresses the issue, and in God's viewpoint it is a trespass against the Father/Husband of the woman. The concept that the Father/Husband or the woman initiated the mischief is not mentioned. There have always been methods of performing abortions, as well as causing a miscarriage, so assuming that it was never thought of, is lacking as well.
You can not commit adultery against yourself. Nor can you covet against yourself. You already have what you already have.
Sins can be against God, or they can be against your neighbor. Clearly God does not care on this issue, otherwise He would have said so. God places ‘Miscarriages from mischief' as a sin against your neighbor, and I would tend to leave it there. If your not trespassing against your neighbor, rather you are handling your own property, and no sin has happened.
Is abortion a good thing? I have stated this previously, but for some reason I seem to be cast into the position here of restating the obvious, No abortion is a serious matter. It should not be so convenient that it leads to further promiscuity. Promiscuity is bad.
I truly do appreciate being cast into the position of trying to ‘defend’ a man that I have never met. And that I likely do not entirely agree with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Waysider, you’ve brought up something important. The point of this thread was answering the question “Abortion: what does God say?” As a Christian who believes the Bible is God’s Word I have a general rule of thumb on interpretation – that which is explicitly stated in the Bible I afford the most weight in terms of authority – in other words “this is what God says about…” An interpretation that depends on inferences from my logic I deem less authoritative – since my logic may be faulty. I know I’m stating the obvious here – just wanted to second Waysider’s idea – as a friendly reminder to everybody.
That being said I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the subject. Since I left TWI I have changed my opinion on abortion – now believing it is wrong. I’ve come to that conclusion a long time ago after considering the things implied from certain Scriptures [like some of the Old Testament verses referred to on this thread and most notably the conception of Jesus Christ - handled quite admirably by WordWolf in this discussion]. I think a few questions come to mind on this topic: When does soul life begin? When does soul life end? What is the nature of the soul? What is death?
As I said above – I believe abortion is wrong – now I’m not wanting to derail this thread by writing a major dissertation on the four questions I just asked – I’m just throwing my opinion in regarding those questions. My answers that follow are from inferences I have made from Scripture – which has shaped my viewpoint on this topic. I believe the soul is present at the moment of conception. I don’t think a soul can die. I think God intended for the soul to have a body – it is eternal in nature. Physical death is separation of the soul from the body.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As to whether or not there is a specific verse saying
"And God said, behold, abortion is acceptable up to the moment labour begins"
or
"And God said, behold, a fetus is a child from the beginning of the first month"
or anything in between,
there is no specific verse.
I believe almost all of us can respond to that factlet by saying
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH."
That having been said,
those who actually believe the Bible has value in a more-than-interesting-cultural-guidebook
manner, that is, who believe it was designed to communicate information from God to man,
those people believe that its utility is more than the sum total of the verses,
that its guidelines are usable for concepts not extant at the time the books were written.
For those who believe that the "all life and godliness" referred to as having been given us
also refers to the Bible
( 2 Peter 1:3
"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue")
as was taught in twi, and is held by ex-twi'ers,
the idea of just shrugging one's shoulders and saying "no verse addresses it explicitly,
therefore we have no idea" should be considered both lazy and cowardly.
This brand of inconsistency (one might even say "hypocrisy", for this is an inconsistently-applied
standard) is compounded when one declares that the godly position is one thing, while hiding
behind a shrug when discussion of the verses comes up.
The concept that a fetus is NOT a baby-and thus not a PERSON and thus not truly ALIVE-
before the instant they take "their first breath" has several problems.
A) There is no verse that says this is the case.
B) John the Baptist, when in his 6th month as a fetus, was called-by God in the Bible
(for those who believe the Bible IS from God) a baby, and he responded to really esoteric
stimuli- he responded to joy at the approach of the coming Messiah, in a very indirect fashion.
It's a strange and unusual concept to approach, but-if GOD ALMIGHTY SAID IT- it behooves me
and all those who believe the Bible IS from God to accept that this is correct as stated.
That means that the concept that a person is not alive until one's first breath at the 9th month
has been successfully refuted in Luke, and that the LATEST one could be considered to be
alive and a person (albeit a baby, but babies ARE people) would be the 6th month-
3 months BEFORE vpw's doctrine.
When faced with this combination, it's rather sad that some, when asked specifically how they
reconcile their "first breath" doctrine, thus a "9th month" doctrine,
with the "6th month" verse,
would respond with repeated attempts to talk around it.
I'd have a LOT more respect for someone who said
"Being unable to refute the clear, overt meaning of the verses, I have changed my opinion
and claim that the New Testament says the LATEST point to consider a baby as being developed
into a living person, although I once held that it was in the 9th month at the "first breath."
So, it seems we are in 3 groups.
A) those indifferent to the Bible, since they hold it as not authoritative
B) those who can study the verses and come to new insights and conclusions
C) those who will maintain the twi/vpw doctrines and filter all insight through those doctrines
I was hoping all three would have insights to offer in this discussion at different points,
but it seems the third category has limited what they can bring to the table.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So then,
for those of us who are trying to determine what information the Bible would impart to those of us who
consider it authoritative,
We are still left with the original question,
or-reworded slightly-
"What information is stated in the Bible itself that would instruct us on the topic of abortion?"
Now, this is a subject that has many hard feelings, strong opinions, hurts, misconceptions,
and other complications.
I won't pretend that we'll reach a definitive, brief answer that should be considered self-evident.
At least, if we DO, I'll be VERY surprised.
With some work, and a little teamwork, I believe we will come A LOT CLOSER to an answer
than we had when we started.
When addressing the subject of "when is an abortion acceptable?",
the primary relevant question, I think, becomes "when does a fetus go from a 'collection
of cells' to a 'baby' or person?"
The general opinions as to when an abortion is acceptable seem to all be divided based
on the answers to that specific question.
For those people who say "a fetus is not a person until it takes its first breath",
then abortion would be acceptable reasonably any time BEFORE "first breath".
(For the sake of discussion, I'll call that one at "anytime before the mother goes
into labour." Although that's technically before "first breath", I'll give them the benefit
of the doubt on labour being the stage when the soon-to-be-person will emerge normally
and become a person.)
For those people who say "a fetus is a person at the moment of conception",
then abortion would be acceptable reasonably only before the moment of conception,
which would mean that an abortion would not be possible, since before conception,
there is nothing TO abort.
(It would be a separate discussion as to whether a "morning-after pill" is acceptable
under that definition.)
For everyone else, the answers do not come so easy, and the answers span a gamut of
responses, and a gamut of reasons.
Going back to our OWN discussion, based on Luke 1, it seems that the Bible would call
a fetus a "baby" by 6 months IF NO LATER, which would indicate the third trimester
addresses a baby, a person, which would mean that an abortion at that time would
unquestionably be a premeditated murder.
So, we've eliminated 3 months off the potential target-time, just off a handful of verses
in Luke. We've trimmed the later end of the timeframe.
On the other hand, the old "call a fetus a thing" business was based on a poor mistranslation
of a verse in the King James Version which was introduced between the Stephens Text
and the English version. So, we don't have the luxury of saying that a fetus starts as a
"thing" and becomes a baby.
We also have not proven a fetus does NOT start as a "thing", either.
Perhaps another verse will clear that up one way or another.
Will we find a short, clear, clever answer? Doubtful.
Will the search be instructive and add to our knowledge?
I think many of us, if not most of us, believe it will.
Me, I didn't realize the 6-month thing before this discussion started, so I for one think
I will, and I trust others may see the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Word wolf
i realize you try to put the thread together in a concise way .. but you know the bible is a crazy book for example it says an foot could talk to a man when he was being wipped!
so now i can know for sure if i beat my horse it will complain to me about the pain i inflicted?
the fact elizabeth called the promised child a "babe" does not really qualify as "premediated murder" in and of itself does it now?
i see no more conclusion in that leap than i do all absence of "fruit" qualifies as a abortion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thought I would share something from a theological dictionary, noting that it argues from inferences of key Scripture and defines three challenges to a rigid 'no abortion' policy.
The following excerpt is from The New Dictionary of Theology edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright, J.I.Packer, pages 2 and 3:
"Abortion is the loss or expulsion from the womb of a living fetus before it has reached the stage of viability. Many abortions occur spontaneously [miscarriages], whereas others are deliberately induced…The chief theological ground for a strict anti-abortion stance is the conviction that every human being is made in God's image from the time of conception [cf. Genesis 1:27]. Life-taking, like life-giving, is God's prerogative, and man needs a special mandate to end any human being's physical existence. Permission to kill is given in Scripture in carefully defined circumstances as a response to injustice [specifically murder and war, cf. Genesis 9:6; I Kings 2:5,6], but no fetus has done anything to deserve the death penalty. Abortion, therefore, is morally bad.
Biblical support for this conclusion is often found in the Old Testament's allusions to life before birth [e.g. Psalm 139:13-17; Jeremiah 1:5; Ecclesiastes 11:5] and in the New Testament's use of the Greek word brephos to describe both a fetus and a child [Luke 1:41; 2:21]. These references assume continuity of personhood on both sides of birth.
A rigid 'no abortion' policy has been challenged in three ways. First, the Roman Catholic Church [which is otherwise implacably opposed to abortion] allows for a pregnancy to be terminated, under the ethical law of 'double effect', when a procedure intended to save the mother-to-be's life [such as hysterectomy for cancer] results in the death of the fetus.
Secondly, some Protestant theologians argue that the fetus is a potential person, rather than an actual person with potential. While a fetus demands care and respect at any stage of its existence, its claim to life is proportional to its stage of development. Plausible though this theory sounds, it does not easily square with the Bible's stress on personhood's continuum, and it is by no means simple to apply in practice.
Thirdly, and most radically, Christian situationists contend that love alone must dictate the decision whether or not to abort in a particular case. Compassion for the woman [if her life is threatened] or for the unborn child [if he or she is likely to be born deformed or defective] may dictate the ending of a pregnancy. Furthermore, they argue, because love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number, abortion may be indicated when the baby is unwanted by the family, by society – or, for that matter, by an overcrowded world.
Situation ethics has come under heavy fire from Christians who accept Scripture's authority. Nowhere does the Bible teach that love replaces divine principle or overrides divine law. Nor does it support the utilitarian assumption that the best actions can be calculated by counting heads.
Nevertheless, the situationist's stress on compassion is a salutary and biblical reminder that those who oppose abortion on principle are obliged to find practical, loving alternatives for women with unwanted pregnancies [cf. James 2:14-17]."
End of excerpt
While I would classify myself as falling into line with the Roman Catholic Church's viewpoint [abortion allowed under the ethical law of 'double effect'] – I find the situation ethics type of thinking intriguing – in that it challenges Christians to put their faith into action and help women with unwanted pregnancies.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That was stated to be a miracle. If God wants a brick wall to start talking, I'm confident it will,
and expect it NOT to do so for anything short of that.
The narration calls John the Baptist a babe, 6 months "old" in development, and said he
responded to the imminent Messiah's approach, kinda. (His response was definite,
what he responded to is complicated.)
God called him a baby. A baby's a child. If he were thus killed, it's child-murder.
I explained it in detail more than once in this thread.
Please review my posts.
If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. I made it as simple as I am able.
Interesting. T-Bone.
I expect we'll be examining some verses from there soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I don't see why love must always choose the maximum benefit for the greatest number.
But this position does seem to match up better with the idea that we are no longer under the law.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Technically, VeganXTC is correct in that I did not lay a foundation for my statement.
When we get there, I'll see if there is grounds for it, or if it is just an unsupported claim,
which would mean it should just be dismissed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I found an interesting interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 [already discussed on this thread], which I thought, may be of some value here. I also am in very strong agreement with the author's recommendation of erring on the side of caution in his concluding paragraph. The following excerpt is from Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, 1985, pages 554 to 556:
"…The passage most discussed in connection with the issue of the humanity of the fetus is probably Exodus 21:22-25, which appears in a long list of precepts and injunctions following the Ten Commandments. It reads, "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."This is an application of the lex talionis, the law of retaliation spelled out in Leviticus 24: 17-20 ["as he has done it shall be done to him"]. One common interpretation of Exodus 21: 22-25 is that in the case of a miscarriage caused by a struggle between men, the lex talionis is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.
An alternative interpretation, which, while less popular, has had a rather long history, has recently been revived in the midst of the modern controversy over abortion. Jack Cottrell has presented one of the clearest and most complete statements of this alternative [Jack W. Cottrell, "Abortion and the Mosaic Law," Christianity Today, March 16 1973, pp. 6-9]. According to Cottrell, the clause translated "so that there is a miscarriage" should be literally rendered – "so that her children come out." The noun here is yeled, which is a common word for child or offspring. The only thing unusual about the noun in Exodus 21: 22 is that it is in the plural. The verb here is yatsa', which usually means "to go out, to go forth, to come forth." It is often used to refer to the ordinary birth of children, as coming forth from the loins of the father or from the womb of the mother. Examples of the former usage are found in Genesis 15:4; 46:26; I Kings 8:19; and Isaiah 39:7. Instances of the latter are found in Genesis 25:25,26; 38:28,29; Job 1:21; 3:11; Ecclesiastes 5:15; and Jeremiah 1:5; 20:18. In each of these cases yatsa' refers to the ordinary birth of a normal child; in no case is the word used of a miscarriage. In Numbers 12:12 it refers to the birth of a stillborn child; it should be noted that this is a stillbirth, not a miscarriage. The concept of stillbirth is communicated through the specific description of the child ["one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb"], not through the verb yatsa'. There is a Hebrew word – shakhol – which specifically refers to miscarriage; It is used in Exodus 23:26 and Hosea 9:14. Cottrell concludes, "Thus, there seems to be no warrant for interpreting Exodus 21:22 to mean 'the destruction of the fetus.'"
According to Cottrell, the situation in view in Exodus 21:22-25 is simply this: if there is no harm done in the case of a child born prematurely because its mother was hurt by men struggling against one another, there is no penalty other than a fine. If, however, there is harm, the principle of a life for a life and an eye for an eye is to be enforced. Note that there is no specification as to who must be harmed for the lex talionis to come into effect. Whether the mother or the child, the principle applies. Interpreted in this way, Exodus 21:22-25 supports the contention that the Bible regards the unborn as a person. The interpretation of Cottrell, Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch [Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Eerdmans, 1959, vol. 2, pp. 134, 135], and others is more in keeping with the data of the passage than is the commonly held or traditional rendering. At the very least, then, the idea that the passage does not treat the fetus as fully human has been rendered highly questionable. Yet we cannot say that the passage conclusively establishes the humanity of the unborn.
Indeed, none of the passages we have examined demonstrates conclusively that the fetus is a human in God's sight. Nevertheless, when taken as a whole, they do give us enough evidence to render that conclusion very likely. And where one is dealing with an issue as momentous as the possible destruction of a human life, prudence dictates that a conservative course be followed. If one is hunting and sees a moving object which may be either a deer or another hunter, or if one is driving and sees what may be a pile of rags or a child lying in the street, one will assume that it is a human. And a conscientious Christian will treat a fetus as human, since it is highly likely that God regards a fetus as a person capable of [at least potentially] that fellowship with God for which man was created."
End of excerpt
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.