But God Didn’t Say That: Religious Community Members Talk God and Abortion

[code1211]

The short biblical version:
Jeremiah proves that God knows every child as an individual before it is born.
God doesn't want children born into misery and pain and so he spontaneously aborts unhealthy fetuses
God gave us complex and sophisticated brains for a reason
He expects us to use these brains to recognize unhealthy environments and abort a fetus that will live in misery and pain as an unwanted child

You presume to know that which you cannot know.

 

[Atreus21]

People on this thread need at least two references of importance. One is:

https://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_%2021_22-23.pdf

In this essay, McDaniel does a very fancy multilingual analysis of Exodus 21: 22-25 etc., which shows that the Septaguint and Masoretic texts give different words for what is translated in the KJV as "mischief," but is related instead to a very similar word related to something else. This essay is extremely good and pretty much proves that the pro-choice interpretation of this Biblical passage is correct.

For the second references, see my next post. . . .

This debate has been going on for some time.

What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion

The Torah’s teaching about accidental “miscarriage” has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

www.str.org

The author goes on to explain that the Hebrew words used here Yeled and Yasa, which we translate as miscarriage, are used elsewhere in the bible to denote the birth or passage of a living thing. There is no reason to presume the passage refers to a dead child.





The author concludes with three points:

First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death.13 In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v. 32).

Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

 

[Atreus21]

The medical term for miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before a pregnancy ends in the birth of a newborn.
Very few abortions are intended abortions.
A spontaneous abortion is often referred as a miscarriage by lay people.

A missed abortion is the medical term when the embryo/ fetus has died in the womb due to natural causes but has not expelled in a timely manner.

A septic abortion means the pregnancy has turned septic and the fetus needs to be removed quickly because it threatens the woman’s life with a septic infection.

At issue here is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Technical terms don't matter. Natural death doesn't matter. Unnatural and deliberate death, inflicted on an innocent party, is what matters.

 

[weaver2]

This debate has been going on for some time.

What Exodus 21:22 Says about Abortion

The Torah’s teaching about accidental “miscarriage” has been hotly contested concerning the value of the unborn. Is it pro-life or pro-abortion? Here are the facts. You decide.

www.str.org

View attachment 67377845

The author goes on to explain that the Hebrew words used here Yeled and Yasa, which we translate as miscarriage, are used elsewhere in the bible to denote the birth or passage of a living thing. There is no reason to presume the passage refers to a dead child.

View attachment 67377848

View attachment 67377849

The author concludes with three points:

The Torah is not the Bible. It is a Jewish discussion of religion taken to its most technical and theoretical limits, and you just said that , "Technical terms don't matter." The Bible has nothing to say about abortion. So, don't quote the Torah and pretend you are quoting the bible.

 

[Atreus21]

The torah is not the Bible.

We're debating a passage of Exodus. That's definitely in the bible.

 

[ataraxia]

At issue here is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. Technical terms don't matter. Natural death doesn't matter. Unnatural and deliberate death, inflicted on an innocent party, is what matters.

At issue here is whether a fetus is an innocent human being or just a bunch of clumped cells.

 

[code1211]

There is a quote in the Bible where Jerimiah said he wished he had been killed in his mother’s womb.

WHY?

So that his mother’s womb would have been for ever great.

Jeremiah cursed the day he was born saying...

"Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you', making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb for ever great." (Jeremiah 20:14-17)

Interesting. What does that have to do with Jeremiah claiming that God told him that He knew Jeremiah in the womb?

 

[weaver2]

We're debating a passage of Exodus. That's definitely in the bible.

No we are not debating Exodus. Most of us understand that quote and don't need to debate it. You are pretzel-izing Exodus by quoting the Torah to make the passage about abortion. It is not.

 

[Atreus21]

At issue here is whether a fetus is an innocent human being or just a bunch of clumped cells.

That's certainly a debate I'd love to have. I've no objection whatsoever to abortion if all it does is kill a clump of cells, similar to excising a tumor or diseased organ.

However it doesn't seem to be the subject of the thread.

 

[code1211]

You are mistaken. In fact, the reference to the soul entering and leaving the body with the breath actually occurs roughly 30 times in the bible. It's easy to look up. Take a biblical concordance - you can find one on line - and look up the words breath, breathe, breathed and breathing, and jot down the chapter and verse for each reference given. You will find roughly 70 in total. Then look each of them up and you'll see that nearly half of them reference the soul entering or leaving the body with the breath.

See above.

And how should one interpret that? If the god of the bible is truly omniscient - "all knowing" - then that god knows all of creation, throughout every moment, throughout all of time. There would never be a point that he did not know Jeremiah - or anyone else, you and I included. Unless you think that god is not omniscient - not "all knowing" - but is instead discovering the world as it unfolds, surprised by the events and outcomes. Which is it? Either the god of the bible is all knowing - or he isn't. He can't be both.

Unique DNA applies to a body - not a soul. (Unless you're suggesting that science will discover the DNA of a soul anytime soon, then DNA references simply don't apply to the subject at hand. )

The DNA of an unoccupied body is irrelevant, whether that body is kept alive by mechanical life support, long after it has been vacated by the occupant, or whether that body is a fetus that has yet to be occupied. Science has known for decades that bodies can exist "alive" without any self-directed animating force - without any will - bodies devoid of the intention that comes from having an occupying soul.

No. As we learn more of the actual science, the stone age interpretations that might have been based on divine guidance, simply were not. This is not to say that ancient texts like the bible are devoid of the wisdom of the elders of their time. There's plenty of learn from such texts, as long as one has the sense to know their limitations.

You make an interesting distinction between a life and a soul.

Life is not a soul as defined in your post and a soul is not life as defined in your post.

Life is what I was talking about, not a soul. I do not and cannot understand what a soul is. Do you? Can you?

You show a tendency to understand God completely and deny that any state of existence He may exist within that is not understandable by you is not possible for Him. I respectfully disagree.

I am amazed that about 95% of our universe is not knowable by us. This is not to say it is unknown. It is to say that it is unknowABLE. The visible Universe is only about 5% of the whole. 95% is either Dark Matter to Dark Energy.

That you presume to hold an understanding of God constricting the idea of God to a box that you can comprehend is a bit amusing.

 

[Atreus21]

No we are not debating Exodus. Most of us understand that quote and don't need to debate it. You are pretzel-izing Exodus by quoting the Torah to make the passage about abortion. It is not.

It wasn't I who cited it. Minnie616 and Choiceone brought it up to indicate that the laws in Exodus didn't treat the killing of an unborn child with the same penalty as that of a born person.

Reviewing the source text in Hebrew doesn't support that interpretation. If you really think you're going to get into a discussion of the bible without delving into a labyrinth of translation debates, then that's silly.

 

[code1211]

Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Job 33:4
“The Spirit of God has made me,
And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Psalms 33:6
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 135:17
They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

Psalms 150:6
Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Isaiah 42:5
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Ezekiel 37:5-6
5: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:
6: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

Ezekiel 37:10
So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army.

John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.


I would say those verses are pretty clearly about God breathing life into people. Which would mean life begins with birth when breath is given to a fetus.

Allowing people to breath and breathing life into fully assembled humans giving them life for the fist time are very different things.

Clearly without air, people die. The passages you list here seem to portray this.

In any event, the FACT that life exists in the unborn is hardly even arguable. You are NOT asserting that the unborn are dead, are you?

 

[weaver2]

You presume to know that which you cannot know.

Why can't pro-choice do some "presuming" once in a while? The anti-abortion advocates presume that which they cannot know almost 100% of the time
Anti-abortion presumptions:
1. Women are immoral.
2. Their unwanted pregnancies are the result of behaving like rabbits.
3. A fertilized egg is a little unborn innocent baby
4. Ms. Sanger was a racist
5. Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill
6. PP makes most of it's money from doing abortions.
7. Women need to be told what to do by religious males.
8. Religious males know everything about pregnancy and how it should be handled by women.
9. Women get abortions so they can get back to partying or what ever immoral activity they were doing before they got pregnant.
10. The fetus can feel pain, can think, want's to live,
11. And the best presumption of all: Poverty doesn't make any difference in raising a child. Poor children all have the same opportunity to grow up to be Abraham Lincolns or Bill Gates.

Talk to the anti-abortion advocates about presumption.

 

[weaver2]

It wasn't I who cited it. Minnie616 and Choiceone brought it up to indicate that the laws in Exodus didn't treat the killing of an unborn child with the same penalty as that of a born person.

Reviewing the source text in Hebrew doesn't support that interpretation. If you really think you're going to get into a discussion of the bible without delving into a labyrinth of translation debates, then that's silly.

Reviewing the source in Hebrew via the conservative Christian interpretation of the Torah is terribly convenient for conservative Christians wanting to twist Biblical translations to suit their dogma. I'm pretty sure Jesus had something to say about that bit of chicanery.

 

[Atreus21]

Reviewing the source in Hebrew via the conservative Christian interpretation of the Torah is terribly convenient for conservative Christians wanting to twist Biblical translations to suit their dogma. I'm pretty sure Jesus had something to say about that bit of chicanery.

Yes, whereas abortion advocates, certainly, would never deign to do such a thing.

If you can find an analysis of the original Hebrew that supports the Exodus interpretation you want, let me know.

 

[minnie616]

Yes, whereas abortion advocates, certainly, would never deign to do such a thing.

If you can find an analysis of the original Hebrew that supports the Exodus interpretation you want, let me know.

The Jewish religion and many pro choice religions sincerely believe that humans become living souls with live birth.

Therefore no living souls are lost before birth.

Actually the Hebrew interpretation of the Bible distinguishes a difference.

Animals have souls but a human becomes “ a living soul” when it takes its first breath known as “ the breath of Life.

God breathed into Adam the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.

According to the Bible humans do not become living souls until after birth when they take their first breath.

This Wiki link helps explain about a living soul.

Nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ‎ nép̄eš) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible. The word refers to the aspects of sentience, and human beings and other animals are both described as having nephesh.[1][2] Plants, as an example of live organisms, are not referred in the Bible as having nephesh. The term נפש‎ is literally 'soul', although it is commonly rendered as "life" in English translations.[3] A view is that nephesh relates to 'sentient being' without the idea of life and that, rather than having a nephesh, a sentient creation of God is a nephesh. In Genesis 2:7 the text is that Adam was not given a nephesh but "became a living nephesh." Nephesh then is better understood as 'person', seeing that Leviticus 21:11 and Numbers 6:6 speak of a 'dead body', which in Hebrew is a nép̄eš mêṯ, a dead nephesh. [4] Nephesh when put with another word can detail aspects related to the concept of nephesh; with רוּחַ‎ rûach "spirit" it describes a part of mankind that is immaterial, like one's mind, emotions, will, intellect, personality and conscience, as in Job 7:11. [5][6]

 

[Liberal7360]

Yes, I am familiar with the process. It's nice to hear about your expertise with computers. I, on the other hand, have been doing apologetics for as long as you have been playing with apple computers. I even became a Priest a few years ago. People here dont like that much because they think they are the smartest beings in the world. This argument comes up now and then and its just as lame this time as it was the last time.

Ill get back to you.

I'm glad you are familiar with the process. It's not hard.

I was a part of the original Jesus Freak movement in the early 70s. I was a very devout christian, I carried my "power" in my pocket along with my copy of "The Way" with me everywhere I went. I read the Bible several times.

I was such a devout christian I convinced my parents to send me to a catholic school for 7th grade even though I was baptized Methodist.

It was that experience that drove me away from christianity. I haven't been a christian since my experiences with the catholic church.

I agree with most of what Jesus said. I don't agree with much of anything his followers say and do.

I am glad for you that you have found a faith that gives you a path that brings you happiness and a direction in life.

I will defend your right to do so and have those beliefs.

I just wish christians would do the same with me and my faith and would stop forcing their faith on me and millions of other Americans.

We have the right to freedom of religion just like christians do.

I seriously wish christians would be happy to live their lives as they choose and would leave the rest of us alone.

 

[weaver2]

Yes, whereas abortion advocates, certainly, would never deign to do such a thing.

The pro-choice movement doesn't advocate abortion. What they advocate is that every person has the right to choose what is best for themselves and their family and the potential child. What they want is for abortion to remain legal. There is no way anyone is going to end abortion. Banning it will just make it illegal. For many an anti-abortion advocate the goal is punishing women. Making it illegal accomplishes that goal.

If you can find an analysis of the original Hebrew that supports the Exodus interpretation you want, let me know.

The only people I know that are twisting verse are the religious conservatives. Mostly the pro-choice people consider the Bible irrelevant to a discussion of modern contraception and legal abortion. They don't discuss the Bible unless some religious conservative starts dragging verses into the conversation to prove that: 1. God is on their side. 2. God doesn't approve of abortion and 3. He's gong to send women who get abortions straight to hell.

 

[Atreus21]

The pro-choice movement doesn't advocate abortion. What they advocate is that every person has the right to choose what is best for themselves and their family and the potential child. What they want is for abortion to remain legal. There is no way anyone is going to end abortion. Banning it will just make it illegal. For many an anti-abortion advocate the goal is punishing women. Making it illegal accomplishes that goal.

To the extent that women, or men, deliberately kill innocent human beings they are rightly punished. It ought to be illegal, for the same reason murder is.

The only people I know that are twisting verse are the religious conservatives. Mostly the pro-choice people consider the Bible irrelevant to a discussion of modern contraception and legal abortion. They don't discuss the Bible unless some religious conservative starts dragging verses into the conversation to prove that: 1. God is on their side. 2. God doesn't approve of abortion and 3. He's gong to send women who get abortions straight to hell.

....are you aware of the very thread in which you are posting? You guys, your side, started a thread which claimed to debunk the religious objections to abortion.

I almost never invoke religious reasons in opposition to abortion, except here to contradict the ludicrous notion that God has no objection to the butchery of the most helpless among us.

 

[it's just me]

I'm glad you are familiar with the process. It's not hard.

I was a part of the original Jesus Freak movement in the early 70s. I was a very devout christian, I carried my "power" in my pocket along with my copy of "The Way" with me everywhere I went. I read the Bible several times.

I was such a devout christian I convinced my parents to send me to a catholic school for 7th grade even though I was baptized Methodist.

It was that experience that drove me away from christianity. I haven't been a christian since my experiences with the catholic church.

I agree with most of what Jesus said. I don't agree with much of anything his followers say and do.

I am glad for you that you have found a faith that gives you a path that brings you happiness and a direction in life.

I will defend your right to do so and have those beliefs.

I just wish christians would do the same with me and my faith and would stop forcing their faith on me and millions of other Americans.

We have the right to freedom of religion just like christians do.

I seriously wish christians would be happy to live their lives as they choose and would ileave the rest of I'llalone.

Hmm....

When I was a young man my wife traveled to a city far away and had an abortion without my advice or consent. These days women think this is their right. You can imagine what I think about that.

 

[minnie616]

To the extent that women, or men, deliberately kill innocent human beings they are rightly punished. It ought to be illegal, for the same reason murder is.



....are you aware of the very thread in which you are posting? You guys, your side, started a thread which claimed to debunk the religious objections to abortion.

I almost never invoke religious reasons in opposition to abortion, except here to contradict the ludicrous notion that God has no objection to the butchery of the most helpless among us.

Pro choice post on the religious Liberty for all Americans not just what the Catholics religion or the pro-life Evangelicals who decided in the 1980s that they had been interpreting the Bible wrong for thousands of years. ( according to Farwell )

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice ( RCRC ) is unique in the reproductive health, rights and justice movements, because it draws on the moral power of diverse religious communities.

Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

 

[weaver2]

To the extent that women, or men, deliberately kill innocent human beings they are rightly punished. It ought to be illegal, for the same reason murder is.

And that's why pro-choice is good. Everybody gets to do what they think makes sense: you get to punish all the immoral women in your church and abortion is legal for the rest of us. Is the US a great place or what?

....are you aware of the very thread in which you are posting? You guys, your side, started a thread which claimed to debunk the religious objections to abortion.

Are you aware that this thread was started because several Christian simpletons and a few dolts insisted that quoting scripture
proved that God loved them, hated pro-choice, and wanted abortion stopped.

I almost never invoke religious reasons in opposition to abortion, except here to contradict the ludicrous notion that God has no objection to the butchery of the most helpless among us.

Yeah, right. I've read your posts. You do your share of sanctimonious invoking .... as you have done above. What makes you think you know what God objects to or doesn't object to?

 

[Atreus21]

And that's why pro-choice is good. Everybody gets to do what they think makes sense: you get to punish all the immoral women in your church and abortion is legal for the rest of us. Is the US a great place or what?

If people wanted to kill their own born children, how and why would you condemn it? Your statement above offers nothing whatsoever to oppose it.

Are you aware that this thread was started because several Christian simpletons and a few dolts insisted that quoting scripture
proved that God loved them, hated pro-choice, and wanted abortion stopped.

This thread was started because Samantha Bee interviewed three nominally-religious pro-choice people and portrayed that as proof that neither Judaism, Catholicism, nor Islam offers any doctrinal opposition to deliberately killing the unborn. That's utter nonsense. If Bee was interested in a real examination of the subject she might've interviewed actual scholars, like Robert Barron, or people other than those predisposed to agree with her.

Yeah, right. I've read your posts. You do your share of sanctimonious invoking .... as you have done above. What makes you think you know what God objects to or doesn't object to?

Point me to any post of mine that relies on religious reasoning, except as a anchor in bedrock principles like "murder is wrong."

No one knows the mind of God. We can only rely on what insight He has given to us, such as those contained in the bible. And nothing in the bible, in any translation, straightforwardly states that needlessly killing innocents in the womb is anything but a grave sin.

 

[Gordy327]

Hmm....

When I was a young man my wife traveled to a city far away and had an abortion without my advice or consent. These days women think this is their right. You can imagine what I think about that.

Abortion is a woman's right, regardless of what you think. Your advice or consent is not required either. It's her choice.

 

[Liberal7360]

Hmm....

When I was a young man my wife traveled to a city far away and had an abortion without my advice or consent. These days women think this is their right. You can imagine what I think about that.

Bummer for you.

It is her body and she can do what she wants with her body.