McBell
Unbound
Except that Exodus has nothing to do with abortion.
If the unborn was lost then a fine was paid.
If the mother died then it was the death penalty.
It is about compensation for the loss of property.
Not about abortion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religious views on abortion
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
If the unborn was lost then a fine was paid.
If the mother died then it was the death penalty.
It is about compensation for the loss of property.
Not about abortion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it was not. I found my article that does not make the error of basing the translation of that verse on the Septuagint, but instead relies upon the older Hebrew text:
DEFINE_ME
"Differences about legal status, and later problems, probably derive from a mistranslation anyway. In Exodus, the Hebrew text reads: “If a man strives and wounds a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall her, then he shall be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. But if harm befall her, then you shall give life for life.” Human life is sacred, but the unborn child does not, for these purposes, count as a life. However, the Septuagint (Greek) translation reads one word completely differently. Where the Hebrew word ason was translated as harm, the Septuagint reads it as “form”. So the Greek translation reads: “if there be no form [yet to the fetus], he shall be fined … but if there be form, you shall give life for life”. And that means applying the “life for life” principle to the fetus, rather than the mother."
Is it now? News to me.
It is not an issue of valuing life, it is an issue of defining life. Christians usually consider life to begin a conception. Many Democrats believe that life begins with brain activity (so they don't want abortions after the first trimester).
Sometimes a horribly disfigured, terribly premature, baby is born and somehow barely clings to life. Federal law (of the US) requires that doctors do everything they can to save that life (or else, it is deemed murder). Blind and mentally and physically handicapped for life, that poor little baby has to live a whole life (if they are able).
Brain activity seems to be the key to life, as many see it. Thus, when Karen Ann Quinlan went brain dead, she was no longer considered alive. In the Quinlan case, how do people justifying cutting off her water and food, and taking her off of machines for the sake of humane treatment? Wouldn't it be more human to give her brain-dead body water and food? Of course that would bankrupt the family (hospital bills), and the family would continue to grieve.
Democrats (such as Senator Diane Feinstein) apparently believe that a woman should be able to decide what she does with her own body. Pregnancy is thought of as a function of the woman's body, until the baby is born. But why stop there? Why not refuse to feed a newborn child, and order the newborn to go out and get a job to support itself? Why not refuse to clean poop of a new-born? After all, the care of the baby often is the mother's responsibility, and the mother is supposed to decide what she does with her own body (including deciding to be a nursemaid to a squalling and pooping baby).
Perhaps mothers have an obligation to a child? Perhaps fathers do, as well? After all, it wasn't the child that decided to be conceived. Rather, it was a moment of great passion (or lust) that conceived the baby, and pregnancy was the natural consequence of conception.
If mothers have the right to murder their fetus, because the fetus doesn't yet have brain waves, then the mother should be able to do anything she likes to the not-yet-alive-fetus. For example, since it isn't yet alive, the mother could order the doctor to cut off its arms and legs. So, if the fetus is born, it will be born without arms or legs. Isn't it clear, from this analysis, that it isn't so much a matter of current life, but it is a matter of potential life. Abortion, therefore, is the snuffing out of potential life.
I suppose that unfertilized eggs, and sperm that never make it to an egg, are all considered potential life. That means that huge numbers of potential kids are slaughtered if not germinated.
We could worry that every step that we take could be hurting bugs, bacteria, or fungus. Just walking might murder some poor hapless creature.
And, what of the father's rights? I realize that the father's contribution was nothing more than a moment of lust or passion, and the mother had to grow this "alien life form....aka baby" in her womb, suffer with morning sickness, suffer with a huge belly, etc., so the mother's burden is much greater than the father's. Yet the father still can love, and losing a baby to abortion is a horribly traumatic event to a father. Many believe that fathers should be able to stop a woman from having an abortion.
The issue of abortion is a wedge issue (designed to win elections). But, after the election is over, little is done to stop abortion. If they stopped abortion, it would kill the wedge issue, then they wouldn't have any means of garnering votes in the next election.
Ancient Jewish law required that the woman be stoned if her husband fooled around. Things were not fair back then.
How do you decide to abort or not? For me, it would be better to err on the side of life (don't abort). Some worry that the kid will grow up unwanted, or might financially impact its family. But, adoption is always an option. There are people on long lists to adopt.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I do not think there is any instance of abortion in Hindu mythology. Polygamy, even polyandry was accepted (Pandavas). In case, a husband was not able to begat children, he could authorize another person to impregnate the wife. In case it was adultery, acceptance by father was the only condition necessary to make the children perfectly legitimate and eligible for inheritance.
Last edited:
kiwimac
Brother Napalm of God's Love
The Hebrew in the Exodus passage refers to harm to the woman not the foetus. Causing an accidental miscarriage was a civil crime not a criminal one.
Altfish
Veteran Member
It is so easy to use emotive phrases like ...""so have you" say about the value of life in relation to abortion?"
One must consider the health of the mother. The future health and welfare of this fetus that the anti-abortionists wish to save.
In the US it seems that once a baby is born all the concern for its welfare goes.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
The Five Precepts (Yes, that's why Buddhism is called the religion of lists...) are the essential ethical guidelines. One is to abstain from the taking of life.
Beyond stating that, the interpretation of this varies between... traditions, cultures and individuals. The precepts are guidelines, not things delivered inerrant from above (or wherever). The traditional view tends to be more....straightforward... but more modern interpretations (ie Western, secular) are more likely to view the issue on evidence and individual circumstances.
Beyond stating that, the interpretation of this varies between... traditions, cultures and individuals. The precepts are guidelines, not things delivered inerrant from above (or wherever). The traditional view tends to be more....straightforward... but more modern interpretations (ie Western, secular) are more likely to view the issue on evidence and individual circumstances.
Many atheists claim that if there is a husband who's wife cheated on him but was not caught in the act, she could be forced to have an abortion, according to the Bible.
As can be seen (in the polular video cited) here: Is God pro-abortion?
It's but a myth, I think. They use a Bible verse about a hip or a thigh... and pretend it's about the womb.
But now, since Bible sees unborn life as human, it's obvious that it must stay untouched. See for instance: in Genesis 25:23 God talks about the twins in the womb as real persons: saying "the older one" and "the younger one" - in the womb already!
----------------------
With reagard to the text that @URAVIP2ME cited, it's like this: if the pregnant woman is harmed in a way that the unborn comes out... it's a fine.
But if death is involved, this passage requires life for life in this case.
So this cannot count as a text saying that induced abortion is a fine only.
Now, many liberal translations (and also some atheists here) simply change the wording and replace a Hebrew word that can mean miscarriage or preterm birth by simply miscarriage.
We all now that not every every unborn dies in case of pregnancies that end before 37 weeks of gestation.
I hate all translations that put it that way. Quite a few do this.
edited for clarity
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
fetuses aren't considered living souls by the bible. a living soul is one that contains the breath of life and is autonomous.
auto- literally means self.
a fetus is a member of a body. you cannot have two spirits inhabiting one body long-term based on the understanding of the bible. that is possession
the bible emphasis is always on the Spirit and not the flesh. there is no spirit in the unborn. a body without a spirit, in this case a fetus, is simply on life support, until the Spirit enters into the temple. this can be understood symbolically here.
1 Chronicles 7
firedragon
Veteran Member
This is one of the most important topics of the century. One of the reasons I was very interested in this topic is due to studying a bit on rape typologies and victims. There are plenty of rape victims who are pregnant, and since the abortion law is implemented in the country they cannot get an abortion. Thus, they must live with a rapists child. Although, I am not an expert in the study of socio economic repercussions of the total manner if you think of it in a holistic matter. But, this was an piercing issue.
I am a Muslim. Thus, speaking from an Islamic stand point there is absolutely no consensus on abortion. The majority of traditional or/and mainstream Sunni scholars agree that abortion is allowed, but for valid reasons. Like a health thread to the mother. Also, a lot of them argue that within the first 40 days, the foetus is not still a person with a conscience, thus it is permissible until then.
But a minority of scholars refute this and say that it is not allowed whatsoever.
The problem with all of this is that most of these analyses done by these olden day scholars are based on Ijtihad upon ahadith which means free thinking based on hadith. Nothing about abortion is in the Quran. One must note though as a whole, no one seems to have permitted abortion in the history of islamic jurisprudence after the 4th month of pregnancy.
Well. This is the Islamic historical view in a nutshell.
What should be noted though is that the most liberal school of thought in Islamic history is the Maliki Madhab. They have always had the most liberal, tolerant and progressive views about everything since the early times. In fact, the Maliki Madhab is the earliest school of Jurisprudence in the history of Islam. Being all of this, they outright prohibits abortion at any stage. Unless, there is some exceptional case of life threatening health condition for the mother. It was a very very serious for them. Strangely, the more strict and even sometimes hyper religious schools of thought like the Hanbali's and the Shaffi's are more tolerant in the abortion matter.
Some modern day scholars who hail from some of the Andalusi background believe that the Quran is explicit that one cannot kill an innocent human for any reason, but one has to decide when the foetus is really a human with a human conscience etc. Thus, this fact has to be decided by experts (like scientists). The historical and most traditional Islamic methodology of Qiyas has been applied to this.
Good subject. I shall stop now.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
panathipathaa veramanee sikkaa padhan samadhiyaami.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, and the closest verse to it is stating that a fine is what must be payed if a man causes a woman to miscarry.
To be clear, I am pro-life.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I look at it like this, as a Christian, I believe in capital punishment but not abortion, and my skeptic friends reverse that, because the lives of murderers are more important than the lives of children, thus religiosity is shown to be sane.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The "spirit" exists at (EDIT-at conception) in that its the process/act of bringing life into being, growing, ageing, and dying. There's no "spirit" that just pops in at a certain time frame. If that be the case, the "spirit's" existence would be dependent on the body to exist. Its commonly held that the spirit is separate from the body-so.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I don't see them differently. A murderer's consequence is from his own actions not (morally) from actions of others. I would assume in a christian view, capitol punishment is playing god. Abortion is on the opposite side of the coin. A child coming into being alive and full body person shouldn't (too) die because of someone else's intentions. Of course there are legal and medical justifications for both scenarios, but they both share a theme that an outside party is "playing god" (or controlling the course of nature) by punishing or relieving someone of their life whether the guilty or fetus coming into being.
actually the process is understood with the creation of adam. adam's body is created of the earth first. once it has reached a certain level of development, the spirit is entombed.
this can take place a few hours before birth, at birth, or slightly after birth. the body has to be able to function at least at the autonomic level.k
the spirit is eternal, the body is not.
1 Corinthians 15:46
as seen so often when people declare things to be true, it is presumption, I guess.
There is no scripture on earth that shows your point. Neither does science.
It's an unsupported allegation. A theory that some may adhere to.