Abortion on Christian Grounds

[tosca1]

I'm not sure I understand what your position is with Christians, although it seems you are arguing "with love" that other Christians should accept your position of humanity at conception.

The bottom line still remains: if you believe this then feel free to avoid voluntary abortion. If not, feel free to have one. Under the law it is a "choice" women are allowed to make up to a certain point in a pregnancy.

In either case, being Christian, judgement is still only His, not ours.

Actually, the bottom line is that I can exercise my free will to express, and you, can either choose to take it or leave it.
And yes, judgement comes from God. However, that's not the same as saying we cannot point out when something is wrong.

 

[German guy]

I'd like to post my understanding of the Baha'i position on abortion here. A letter from the highest Baha'i organ, the Universal House of Justice, reads like that:

... The Universal House of Justice does not feel that the time has come for it to provide detailed legislation on subjects such as abortion, homosexuality and other moral issues. The principles pertaining to these issues are available in the book "Lights of Guidance" and elsewhere. In studying these principles, it should be noted that in most areas of human behaviour there are acts which are clearly contrary to the law of God and others which are clearly approved or permissible; between these there is often a grey area where it is not immediately apparent what should be done. It has been a human tendency to wish to eliminate these grey areas so that every aspect of life is clearly prescribed. A result of this tendency has been the tremendous accretion of interpretation and subsidiary legislation which has smothered the spirit of certain of the older religions. In the Bahá'í Faith moderation, which is so strongly upheld by Bahá'u'lláh, is applied here also. Provision is made for supplementary legislation by the Universal House of Justice -- legislation which it can itself abrogate and amend as conditions change. There is also a clear pattern already established in the Sacred Scriptures, in the interpretations made by `Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, and in the decisions so far made by the Universal House of Justice, whereby an area of the application of the laws is intentionally left to the conscience of each individual believer. This is the age in which mankind must attain maturity, and one aspect of this is the assumption by individuals of the responsibility for deciding, with the assistance of consultation, their own course of action in areas which are left open by the law of God.

It should also be noted that it is neither possible nor desirable for the Universal House of Justice to set forth a set of rules covering every situation. Rather is it the task of the individual believer to determine, according to his own prayerful understanding of the Writings, precisely what his course of conduct should be in relation to situations which he encounters in his daily life. If he is to fulfil his true mission in life as a follower of the Blessed Perfection, he will pattern his life according to the Teachings. The believer cannot attain this objective merely by living according to a set of rigid regulations. When his life is oriented towards service to Bahá'u'lláh, and when every conscious act is performed within this frame of reference, he will not fail to achieve the true purpose of his life.

Therefore, every believer must continually study the Sacred Writings and the instructions of the beloved Guardian, striving always to attain a new and better understanding of their import to him and to his society. He should pray fervently for divine guidance, wisdom and strength to do what is pleasing to God, and to serve Him at all times and to the best of his ability.

The House of Justice feels it would not be wise for it to make a public statement on the moral issues you mention which are now being discussed widely. In such aspects of morality, the guidance that Bahá'í institutions offer to mankind does not comprise a series of specific answers to these moral issues, but rather the illumination of an entirely new way of life through the renewal of spiritual values. Bahá'ís who are striving to teach the Faith can take advantage of the growing public disquiet about the accelerating moral breakdown throughout the world to bring to the attention of thoughtful people the fact that such problems are symptoms of a profound malaise which can be healed only through acceptance of the divine message. As Bahá'u'lláh states, "the people are wandering in the paths of delusion", engaging in practices which will lead inevitably to unhappiness and disorder. Inspired by the example of loving compassion set by the Master, let the believers disclose to the wayward multitudes a new mode of living which brings true liberty and abiding happiness...

Legislating on Morality

Shoghi Effendi, on the other side, said that abortion is forbidden in the cause, as it aims at destroying human life.

My current understanding is that Baha'i should avoid abortion at any cost, but it should not necessarily be illegal by law. Certainly, no Baha'i should take an easy decision in favor of abortion, and prefer having the child at any cost. But I assume there are many cases when abortion is warranted, such as threat for the health or even life of the mother and/or the child. If that's not the case, the Baha'i in question should remember the stance in the scriptures and rulings, seek counseling and support from God, but in the end have the right to take a decision on his/her own.

It's also my conviction that we, as Baha'i, should not attempt to legislate our morals even for non-Baha'is. We try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than some other people, but that does not mean it's our business to lecture them.

 

[ChuckBerry]

It's not being used as a legal document, but obviously, the Bible is the source where a Christian will understand what is required from him by God!

If we're supposed to obey God, we have to know what it is that He wants! How can one obey something he doesn't know anything about?

The law of God is written on your heart. If all men attended to their consciences perfectly, no earthly law would be required. The Ten Commandments were written for the hard-hearted Israelites who would descend into idol worship at the drop of a hat.

 

[tosca1]

The law of God is written on your heart. If all men attended to their consciences perfectly, no earthly law would be required. The Ten Commandments were written for the hard-hearted Israelites who would descend into idol worship at the drop of a hat.

I'm not referring about the 10 Commandments. I'm talking about the teachings of Christ.

As an example, if Christ didn't explain about adultery...would we have understood that by fantasizing about the neighbor's spouse constitute adultery?
Or that if you follow all the Commandments but still commit or condone/encourage murder, we're still transgressing.
Would we have understood which is the most important of all Commandments?

 

[head of joaquin]

Tosca's textual evidence reduces to "the bible teaches us that babies are born from their mother's womb". We really didn't need to have the bible tell us that.

The only portion of the Law that even comes close to dealing with this issue is Exodus 21 (which is notoriously difficult to translate), but it appears to say, one way or another, that if the fetus dies, let the family decide whether to treat it like a bodily injury or a killing (i.e., its remarkably Roe v Wade like). What is does seem to say is, that killing a fetus is prima facia homicide. So Tosca is off base again.

Exodus 21: 22 -- If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

 

[head of joaquin]

And do I even have to mention this prayer of the Prophet Hosea:

Hosea 9:14 - Give them, O LORD--what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

 

[tosca1]

Tosca's textual evidence reduces to "the bible teaches us that babies are born from their mother's womb". We really didn't need to have the bible tell us that.

The only portion of the Law that even comes close to dealing with this issue is Exodus 21 (which is notoriously difficult to translate), but it appears to say, one way or another, that if the fetus dies, let the family decide whether to treat it like a bodily injury or a killing (i.e., its remarkably Roe v Wade like).

Correction. It's not "the family" who'll decide on the punishment. It's the HUSBAND!

It's definitely not like Roe and Wade! :roll:

22 “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

You're confusing that ancient time with the 21st century!

What is does seem to say is, that killing a fetus is prima facia homicide. So Tosca is off base again.

Exodus 21 says:

12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

The death of the fetus or the wife is viewed in the same manner as the death of a man.
Murder. Which it is! If the fetus dies - the penalty for the murderer could be death (under the eye-for-an eye codes of justice). You repeated what I said! :lol:

And I'm the one off-base?

 

[tosca1]

And do I even have to mention this prayer of the Prophet Hosea:

Hosea 9:14 - Give them, O LORD--what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

First of all.....what does this prayer have to do with abortion? That because he prayed for them to miscarry their unborn - therefore it's okay to kill the unborn? What kind of thinking is that?

Someone could just as easily pray for his enemies to be cursed with poverty and sufferings!


Second, you've quote-mined as usual and had taken it out of context - just like you've done in most of your arguments in Social Justice!

Here is some other part of Hosea 9:

11 As for E'phra-im, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!

13 E'phra-im, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but E'phra-im shall bring forth his children to the murderer.

14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

15 ¶ All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

16 E'phra-im is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

17 My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.

Do you know why Hosea made that prayer?

Joaquin, most of your arguments using Bible quotes is clearly based on your ignorance of the Scriptures.

 

[tosca1]

Speaking of Hosea, thank you for bringing that up. Please reflect on Hosea 9 as somehow it is relevant to what is happening in our society now.

Hosea 9 is about the Punishment for the unfaithfulness of Israel.

The Punishment for Israel's Persistent Unfaithfulness
1 Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every cornfloor.

2 The floor and the winepress shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail in her.

3 They shall not dwell in the LORD's land; but E'phra-im shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean things in Assyria.

4 They shall not offer wine offerings to the LORD, neither shall they be pleasing unto him: their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners; all that eat thereof shall be polluted: for their bread for their soul shall not come into the house of the LORD.

5 ¶ What will ye do in the solemn day, and in the day of the feast of the LORD?

6 For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the pleasant places for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.

The commentary for that:

Israel gave rewards to their idols, in the offerings presented to them. It is common for those who are niggardly in religion, to be prodigal upon their lusts. Those are reckoned as idolaters, who love a reward in the corn-floor better than a reward in the favour of God and in eternal life. They are full of the joy of harvest, and have no disposition to mourn for sin. When we make the world, and the things of it, our idol and our portion, it is just with God to show us our folly, and correct us.

Hosea 9 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

In the present time, the idol is SELF. Everything is centered on self-gratification. Our society supports that.
Thus the feminist' slogan, "My body, my choice" has taken on another meaning that appropriately reflects that.




7 ¶ The days of visitation Lk. 21.22 are come, the days of recompense are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.

8 The watchman of E'phra-im was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God.

9 They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gib'e-ah: Judg. 19.1-30 therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins.

10 ¶ I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Ba'al–pe'or, Num. 25.1-5 and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved.

Time had been when the spiritual watchmen of Israel were with the Lord, but now they were like the snare of a fowler to entangle persons to their ruin. The people were become as corrupt as those of Gibeah, Judges 19; and their crimes should be visited in like manner. At first God had found Israel pleasing to Him, as grapes to the traveller in the wilderness. He saw them with pleasure as the first ripe figs. This shows the delight God took in them; yet they followed after idolatry.

Hosea 9 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

What is Baal Peor? Baal was an idol.

Baal of Peor
Baal (usually pronounced "bail") is mentioned widely in the Old Testament as the primary pagan idol of the Phoenicians, which was often associated with the heathen goddess Ashtaroth. The photo below shows Baal's fictitious image from an ancient stone carving. He was the supposed son of the non-existent god Dagon.

Unfortunately, to their eventual bitter regret, the Israelites became deeply involved in the cult of the Baals. The evil "worship" included a wide range of perverted behavior, even sacrificing their infants in fire. It wasn't just misguided - it was outright wickedness.

Bible Study - Baal of Peor


11 As for E'phra-im, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!

13 E'phra-im, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but E'phra-im shall bring forth his children to the murderer.

14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

15 ¶ All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

16 E'phra-im is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

17 My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations.

God departs from a people, or from a person, when he withdraws his goodness and mercy from them; and when the Lord is departed, what can the creature do? Even though, for the present, good things seem to remain, yet the blessing is gone if God is gone. Even the children should perish with the parents. The Divine wrath dries up the root, and withers the fruit of all comforts; and the scattered Jews daily warn us to beware, lest we neglect or abuse the gospel. Yet every smiting is not a drying up of the root. It may be that God intends only to smite so that the sap may be turned to the root, that there may be more of root graces, more humility, patience, faith, and self-denial. It is very just that God should bring judgments on those who slight his offered mercy.

Hosea 9 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

 

[tosca1]

It's also my conviction that we, as Baha'i, should not attempt to legislate our morals even for non-Baha'is. We try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than some other people, but that does not mean it's our business to lecture them.

Legislation to protect the unborn is not due to religion, in my view. It is based on HUMAN RIGHTS!

If we are supposed to fight for human rights, then we should fight for the unborn human's right to live.
To strip the unborn of his right to live in favor of the woman's right to her body would be discriminatory.
The woman's right to her body does not mean death to her - but it means death to the infant.

That the female is naturally designed to carry and nurture the infant in her womb is just the way it is. Too bad.

Therefore, this is where real HYPOCRISY comes in. It is the height of hypocrisy to say one is fighting for human rights and anti-discrimination - yet he discriminates against, and strips the rights of an infant to live.
The weakest and most defenseless of all humans, to boot!

I guess this line of discussion belongs in another section.

 

[head of joaquin]

Correction. It's not "the family" who'll decide on the punishment. It's the HUSBAND!

It's definitely not like Roe and Wade! :rdwoll:



You're confusing that ancient time with the 21st century!





Exodus 21 says:

12 “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

The death of the fetus or the wife is viewed in the same manner as the death of a man.
Murder. Which it is! If the fetus dies - the penalty for the murderer could be death (under the eye-for-an eye codes of justice). You repeated what I said! :lol:

And I'm the one off-base?

You act as if this makes your point, when not only does it show that the bible is culturally relative, but that abortion was not prima facia a capital crime like murder. Basically, it's left to the family to decide. So your claim that abortion is murder is contradicted by the Law.

 

[head of joaquin]

First of all.....what does this prayer have to do with abortion? That because he prayed for them to miscarry their unborn - therefore it's okay to kill the unborn? What kind of thinking is that?

Someone could just as easily pray for his enemies to be cursed with poverty and sufferings!


Second, you've quote-mined as usual and had taken it out of context - just like you've done in most of your arguments in Social Justice!

Here is some other part of Hosea 9:





Do you know why Hosea made that prayer?

Joaquin, most of your arguments using Bible quotes is clearly based on your ignorance of the Scriptures.

The more you write, the more I call how desperate you are. Nothing here rebuts the fact that Hosea prays for miscarriages- essentially asking God to abort the fetuses.

Spin all you want. There it is. So it seems not all abortions are equal in the bible after all, despite your claims to the contrary.

As to who is ignorant of the scriptures, I doubt you ever even noticed this verse before. Nor the verse from Deuteronomy about injured fetuses. If you had, and if you were honest, you would have mentioned them. So I attribute you failure to do so to ignorance not dishonesty.

 

[head of joaquin]

Speaking of Hosea, thank you for bringing that up. Please reflect on Hosea 9 as somehow it is relevant to what is happening in our society now.]

I really don't think you want to dwell on Hosea when claiming the bible condemns abortion.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.

 

[ChezC3]

A discussion with a Christian elder led to the issues of abortion and gay marriage. To my surprise, he stated that, "the pages are blank" on those issues - meaning they're not in the Bible. It is true. Nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state, "Thou shalt not abort"....but I don't think the pages are blank. So I did my own research. THE PAGES ARE INDEED NOT BLANK! Here are the results.

This elderly is a good man with good intentions, doing his own ministry of visiting state penitentiaries, actively doing his part in spreading not only the gospel, but compassion and kindness. I pray to be blessed with the same dedication and perseverance.

I wrestled with myself whether I should inform him of my findings....even now, I still don't know if I should.

His view about those issues is however not unique. There are Christians who share the same view.

This thread is for my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is written with love, and in the spirit of sharing. I do hope you share them with others. The pages are not blank. We just need glasses to see.

Well this is the problem with, he was a protestant, no? Yeah, see first we might point out that the Bible was created by the Church. The Church wasn't created by the bible. Second we shall point out that there is an early catechism, parts of considered the earliest in fact, of the teachings of the Apostles, it is sound, it is authentic, it is the Didache.

Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. In this, the Didache specifically does call to mention the prohibition of abortion.

2:2 {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued;
2:3 for the double tongue is a snare of death.

Didache


So, as you see, there is a specific, non refutable reference which explicitly spells out the prohibition of abortion.

It would be good of you to correct your brother and any other on this...

 

[tosca1]

You act as if this makes your point, when not only does it show that the bible is culturally relative, but that abortion was not prima facia a capital crime like murder. Basically, it's left to the family to decide. So your claim that abortion is murder is contradicted by the Law.

No, basically it's left to the HUSBAND to decide. It's clearly stated - H U S B A N D. So yes, that makes that point!
You don't understand the culture by the looks of it, so never mind talking about culture.

Oh why do I even bother with you.....bye-bye, you give me a headache.

 

[tosca1]

Well this is the problem with, he was a protestant, no? Yeah, see first we might point out that the Bible was created by the Church. The Church wasn't created by the bible. Second we shall point out that there is an early catechism, parts of considered the earliest in fact, of the teachings of the Apostles, it is sound, it is authentic, it is the Didache.

Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. In this, the Didache specifically does call to mention the prohibition of abortion.

2:2 {Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery,} thou shalt not corrupt boys, thou shalt not commit fornication, {thou shalt not steal,} thou shalt not deal in magic, thou shalt do no sorcery, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born, {thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods, thou shalt not perjure thyself, thou shalt not bear false witness,} thou shalt not speak evil, thou shalt not cherish a grudge, thou shalt not be double-minded nor double-tongued;
2:3 for the double tongue is a snare of death.

Didache


So, as you see, there is a specific, non refutable reference which explicitly spells out the prohibition of abortion.

It would be good of you to correct your brother and any other on this...

sorry Chez....I confused this post with Joaquin. Gotta go.

Those list of prohibitions - nothing new with those, though. They were all stipulated in the Bible.
The Apostles simply put them all together.

 

[ChezC3]

sorry Chez....I confused this post with Joaquin. Gotta go.

Those list of prohibitions - nothing new with those, though. They were all stipulated in the Bible.
The Apostles simply put them all together.

No problem, yes, dating around the time the rest of the our accepted canon was written (though, I definitely am getting the vibe you're missing a few books) and having almost been included in canon I would imagine many similarities. However, none as explicit, I don't believe...but as I said, it is considered an early catechism.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

None of those passages say anything about the issue of abortion. All they do is show description in a time before gestational terminology.

If I recall, this very same bible also empties the wombs of quite a number of women, kills lots of actual children, and even states that the value of in infant under a month is absolutely nothing.

It also states that the price for harming a fetus is arbitrary and dependent on what the man wants to charge for labor lost, so to speak. However, if you also harm the woman in the process, that is punishable by the death penalty.

The bible doesn't seem to value fetuses -- or even infants -- very highly.

Citations?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Citations?

Already posted. In fact, posted to you directly a while ago. Reading: it's fun.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Already posted. In fact, posted to you directly a while ago. Reading: it's fun.

Didn't read through the whole thread, and we aren't talking about other threads that are buried in the abyss of DP.

 

[head of joaquin]

No, basically it's left to the HUSBAND to decide. It's clearly stated - H U S B A N D. So yes, that makes that point!
You don't understand the culture by the looks of it, so never mind talking about culture.

Oh why do I even bother with you.....bye-bye, you give me a headache.

This makes my point, not yours. By your own admission, killing a fetus isn't prima facia homicide. The husband (i.e., family) decides whether to treat it as an injury to the mother or a killing. Your fixation on the husband making the decision doesn't save you; it just rebuts your point all the more so.

Thus your pompous claims about the bible pages not being blank (meaning that it's obvious that abortion is condemned in the bible) is palpably false.

You just lost the argument, but I suspect you still don't realize it.

 

[Paschendale]

I'm pretty sure that attempting to mine firm rules like this out of rather vague poetry that has been translated half a dozen times is a fruitless endeavor.

For example:

"The fetuses were referred to as "children."
Two nations are in your womb. Nations are people. "

That's nuances of translation. There may not have been an appropriate word for fetus in the original writing. Or any number of translations may have been wrong. There is plenty of room for the reader to make up their own mind. I think that was the elder's point.

 

[joko104]

Using English translations loosely done centuries ago to claim a word here and there of that translation proves nothing.

The Bible draws a clear distinction between someone doing something wrong that results in a woman losing a fetus and doing something wrong that kills a born child. The latter is murder and like all murder is punishable by death. However, if causing a fetus to be lost isn't isn't even a minor crime. Rather, it is a civil offense for which a monetary penalty is to be paid.

^ THAT is what proves all the claims that abortion is murder is heresy in relation to the Bible.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm pretty sure that attempting to mine firm rules like this out of rather vague poetry that has been translated half a dozen times is a fruitless endeavor.

For example:

"The fetuses were referred to as "children."
Two nations are in your womb. Nations are people. "

That's nuances of translation. There may not have been an appropriate word for fetus in the original writing. Or any number of translations may have been wrong. There is plenty of room for the reader to make up their own mind. I think that was the elder's point.

Exactly. Purported "close readings" of these diverse text written over centuries by diverse authors with different audience discussing different issues, mostly in narrative form, and pretending that there is a unitary meaning is a waste of time.

These texts do not and cannot refer to each other. A large number of them (including most of the teachings of Jesus and the epistles) were oral or composed orally, with all the looseness of expression that entails. Indeed, the chapter and verse system we now use to reference these texts to one another do not exist in the original mss -- it is a much later development. So there was simply no means and no desire to gloss and cross-reference these texts until the middle ages.

To give an example, Paul composed his epistles orally. He dictated them to a scribe. Then the epistles was read aloud to congregations that received the letters. So they aren't systematic theology using words carefully, nor does Paul expect you to refer back to his vocabulary at the beginning of the letter and compare it, nor does he expect you tease out connotations in the original Greek. He expected people to get the gist of the matter: love each other, don't be greedy, stop arguing with each other, be good citizens, have faith in the love of God. Close readings of his vocabulary is a monumental waste of time.

 

[head of joaquin]

Using English translations loosely done centuries ago to claim a word here and there of that translation proves nothing.

The Bible draws a clear distinction between someone doing something wrong that results in a woman losing a fetus and doing something wrong that kills a born child. The latter is murder and like all murder is punishable by death. However, if causing a fetus to be lost isn't isn't even a minor crime. Rather, it is a civil offense for which a monetary penalty is to be paid.

^ THAT is what proves all the claims that abortion is murder is heresy in relation to the Bible.

Precisely. That's why the OP is totally disingenuous. It is pretending there is some unitary proclamation about abortion in the diverse texts that make up the bible, when the opposite is true. The issue is hardly broached, but where it is, in Deuteronomy, the meaning is clear: let the family of the injured women decide. We're punting.