• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are abortions mentioned in the bible?

rjay

Rocket Surgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
2,802
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not a religous guy, just curious.
 
I am not a religous guy, just curious.

In Numbers 5:12-28, God apparently authorizes a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy was the result of adultery (see below, the bitter waters refers to an abortifacient). There are others that mention miscarriage. You can google search "Bible and abortion" to find more verses that mention the subject in general. For example in Exodus, if a man causes a miscarriage, but doesn't kill the mother, the man who caused the miscarriage is to be fined, according to the husband's desire. Obviously, unborn children aren't worth as much to the OT God as the evangelicals would have you believe!


2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is [a]undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, 14 if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, 15 the man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as [c]an offering for her one-tenth of an [d]ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.

16 ‘Then the priest shall bring her near and have her stand before the Lord, 17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and [e]he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall then have the woman stand before the Lord and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and place the grain offering of memorial [f]in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest is to be the water of bitterness that brings a curse. 19 The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be [g]immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; 20 if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” 21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [h]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [j]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

23 ‘The priest shall then write these curses on a scroll, and he shall [k]wash them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings a curse, so that the water which brings a curse will go into her [l]and cause bitterness. 25 The priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, and he shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering as its memorial offering and offer it up in smoke on the altar, and afterward he shall make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [m]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [n]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [o]children.
 
Last edited:
It is also interesting to note that in the early years of the abortion debate in the US, Protestants were pro-choice and they considered the Catholic pro-lifers extreme.

I guess I should also mention the Bible has numerous verses about God knowing the fetus before it is born, and pro-lifers use these verses to support their stance. But the fact remains that in the OT, God dictated laws that showed the unborn child did not have full rights and wasn't as valuable as an infant once it is born.
 
If we are to be literal with the OT, Yahweh turns women who look at his burnination of homosexuals who wanted to rape his angels into pillars of salt, Raiders of the Lost Ark style...


Bluntly, no, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, and the Old Testament god has a lot of laws and edicts that Christians don't follow. There's a lot of Hebrew laws just meshed into the religious texts. I suppose you could say that the OT could be used to argue that a fetus' life is not important, but then you could also use it to argue for aggressive war and human sacrifice and a lot of other things that I would suggest most would find unpalatable and that includes modern religious Jews...


On a somewhat related note, abortion is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and more people pretend that it does than there are those who pretend that it is mentioned in the Bible... This group think mass delusion is far more dangerous to our Republic.
 
Last edited:
Even if it were, it wouldn't matter, because religion isn't credible.

There are, according to this link, 67 deadly sins in the New Testament.

The 67 deadly sins of the New Testament. - The Landover Baptist Church Forum




Holy crap Wake, Landover Baptist is a PARODY SITE.... use your brain son.... :doh


The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional[1] Baptist church based in the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a satire of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church
 
Last edited:
Do fish not count?
 
If we are to be literal with the OT, Yahweh turns women who look at his burnination of homosexuals who wanted to rape his angels into pillars of salt, Raiders of the Lost Ark style...


Bluntly, no, abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, and the Old Testament god has a lot of laws and edicts that Christians don't follow. There's a lot of Hebrew laws just meshed into the religious texts. I suppose you could say that the OT could be used to argue that a fetus' life is not important, but then you could also use it to argue for aggressive war and human sacrifice and a lot of other things that I would suggest most would find unpalatable and that includes modern religious Jews...


On a somewhat related note, abortion is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and more people pretend that it does than there are those who pretend that it is mentioned in the Bible... This group think mass delusion is far more dangerous to our Republic.

I would LOVE proof of this because i have never seen it.
 
I am not a religous guy, just curious.

Curious about what goat herders in some particular place in the Middle East did and what they believed in 2,500 years ago?
 
That would fall under 'other animal products'.

Well, that's a relief. The Commandment not to kill doesn't refer to animals. Fish and loaves, you know.
 
interesting, not that the bibles matters one bit in the debate…

The subject of this thread is “Are abortions mentioned in the bible?” How do you figure, then, that the Bible does not matter for this discussion?


…but im curious, kill what?

It's pretty clear, from context. Killing a human being is a serious evil, except under certain, fairly drastic circumstances. The Bible goes on to specify some of these circumstances, but absent such circumstances, killing a human being is strictly forbiddden.


iand how does these mean abortion is mentioned?

Abortion is the killing of a human being, nearly always in the absence of circumstances necessary to justify such a killing. Thus, it is a clear violation of the command that “Thou shalt not kill.”
 
Last edited:
1.)The subject of this thread is “Are abortions mentioned in the bible?” How do you figure, then, that the Bible does not matter for this discussion?




2.) It's pretty clear, from context. Killing a human being is a serious evil, except under certain, fairly drastic circumstances. The Bible goes on to specify some of these circumstances, but absent such circumstances, killing a human being is strictly forbiddden.




3.) Abortion is the killing of a human being, nearly always in the absence of circumstances necessary to justify such a killing. Thus, it is a clear violation of the command that “Thou shalt not kill.”

1.) EASY because i didnt say that it didnt matter for this discussion, i didnt even suggest it, i was simply stating the fact that it doesnt matter in the abortion debate, which it doesnt. i wasnt talking about this thread, sorry you misunderstood.

2.) well your opinions aside of what you think a ZEF is (which is also meaningless to the abortion debate) but again how does the commandment say abortion or killing humans? or human beings? or people? or animals? or life.

WHere do you think that comes from and do you think it means all of that and if so why? if not why not?

who gets to decide theses fairly drastic circumstances

3.) abortion is not factually that by any means but again that i said please answer the questions above that you seem to repeat?

what are these circumstances necessary to justify such a killing

what does thou shalt not kill cover? people, kids, unborn, zygotes, life in general etc.
 
Thank for the replies.
What I gather is it is referred to in the Old Testament but not the New.

There seems to be actual support for it in the OT but this is largely ignored because the OT also expresses support for things such as slavery that we find abhorant in our society.

On the other hand the OT mentions Thou Shall not Kill and this is used to support arguments against abortion.

Is there some mention of when life begins? It seems to me that at the crux of the abortion debate is the sense that life does or does not begin at conception.

I am assuming this must be mentioned in the bible. Is it?
 
Thank for the replies. What I gather is it is referred to in the Old Testament but not the New.

Then you have gathered incorrectly. It is not referred to in the Bible at all. What people are doing are reading into - inferring - from Old Testament law how little respect ancient laws had for human life, but lets get real, the OT has several examples of human sacrifice... don't often see modern Jews consecrating their firstborn sons to Yahweh. So the lack of respect for human life seems to go much further than that.

The actual topic of killing your own offspring in the womb is never mentioned in the bible.

Is there some mention of when life begins?
This also goes back and forth. I've seen some pro-abortion folks ridiculously exaggerate a line from Genesis... to them, I say that clearly they must not be a person either, as all living humans not literally forged in dust and issued magic Godbreath are obviously not persons.

But why bother with the Bible on this one? It's a matter of scientific fact: as a sexually reproducing organism, the Homo sapien lifespan begins at the moment of conception.
 
I do not see how an abortion violates the commandment prohibiting murder. Since most abortions occur before the embryo/fetus acquires consciousness, it is therefore not a living individual, and therefore cannot be murdered. The only thing being "killed" when it comes to abortions is the potential for life. However, is wearing a condom also not killing the potential for life? Or to use the same logic in a more extreme situation. If I see a female of breeding age, and I do not engage in persistent sexual activity with her, am I not also killing the potential for life? I believe the entire pro-life argument is riddled with holes, and is based on emotions rather than logic. The mother has a life, the embryo does not, it is as simple as that.
 
You are tying in consciousness with life itself. Whether conscious, from the moment of conception on, there is a newly created and alive individual.
 
You are tying in consciousness with life itself. Whether conscious, from the moment of conception on, there is a newly created and alive individual.

"Individual" means separate. If the whatever it is cannot survive as a separate being, it's not an individual.

Individual | Define Individual at Dictionary.com

5.
Biology .
a.
a single organism capable of independent existence.
 
"Individual" means separate. If the whatever it is cannot survive as a separate being, it's not an individual.

Individual | Define Individual at Dictionary.com

5.
Biology .
a.
a single organism capable of independent existence.

Siamese twins are not individuals? Should they get one vote? Perhaps there's more to this than the biological definition of individual. And what about parasitic and symbiotic relationships, are those not individuals, biologically?

That is seriously weak sauce, granny.

Your argument ignores the possiblity that science could advance to the point of being able to sustain fetal development outside the womb, thereby obliterating your position. Lastly, you fail to recognize and address laws, in several states, that mandate additional charges for the killing of a pregnant woman.

Really, I think you do more damage to the pro choice position than good with such an argument. It's tantamount to the "baby murder" position on the other side.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom