Does the bible condemn abortion?

In my opinion, no. Well, it does in some area but I don't find it acceptable to condemn abortion because of it.

There are many examples, too many to go through so if anyone is against abortion biblically then post your evidence here and I'll tell you why I don't agree with it (or possibly you'll change my mind)

Hmmm... I can't think of any bit of the Bible specifically condoning abortion.  What verses are you think of?

However, I can think of two episodes of near-filicide:

1)  Abraham's being asked to, and being willing to, sacrifice his son Isaac.

2)  Lot's readiness to toss his daughters to the Sodomite wolves.

I don't really Like the bible personally, to many storys that are meant to be lessons, but people take them too seriously. Like there was ever a giant that david fought off...no.... But I believe abortions should be legal. Stem cell research could very vell help out people more then a crack baby.

Like there was ever a giant that david fought off

Seems like a "late trimester abortion", wouldn't you say?  Like, 70th trimester?  Plus: abortion by sling shot?  Such barbaric medicine in those days....

But I believe abortions should be legal. Stem cell research could very vell help out people more then a crack baby.

By "crack baby" I suppose you are referring to humans of lesser intelligence or mental handicaps?  Or by "crack baby" could it be a baby that ends up being normal as it grows up but just born of that type of parents?  I'll assume the first, but if the latter please explain.  I'm not sure if I agree with either though.

But then again what if ?


You're mother was a victim of rape, out of which you were born ? The bible absolutely does not tell anything about these matters. My suggestion, take a lot of stories as a lesson, its a very very old book many processes have aged and are not applicable to modern times.

The Bible is fairly clear on the subject of killing people (Thou shalt not kill) the contreversy around abortion really relies on where  life begins. The Catholic Church for example says life begins at conception (I'm not sure the theology behind this but that reflects on my ignorance not Church doctrine) and thus views abortion as the killing of babies. Which is wrong because of a)it's killing (see above)
b)babys (while in the womb) are helpless and thus deserving of the protection of the strong.

This isn't to say that the fanatics who blow up abortion cclinics are right , since murdering to stop murder is hypocritical and self righteous.
However as a Catholic I believe abortion is murder and that murder is bad thus abortion is bad
An enraged
CInlef

The Catholic Church for example says life begins at conception (I'm not sure the theology behind this but that reflects on my ignorance not Church doctrine) and thus views abortion as the killing of babies. Which is wrong because of a)it's killing (see above)
b)babys (while in the womb) are helpless and thus deserving of the protection of the strong.

a) If you read Exodus 21:22-25, you will see that if a man hits a pregnant woman and kills the baby, without causing serious harm to the mother, he is not considered a murderer. That would suggest that 'killing' an unborn baby is actually not murder.

b) Is that a biblical view?

The Bible is fairly clear on the subject of killing people (Thou shalt not kill)

Funny how it's "Thou shalt not kill", and not, "Thou shalt not kill people."  A prohibition against eating anything but seeds, nuts, and beans, perhaps?

Quote from: "Cinlef"

The Bible is fairly clear on the subject of killing people (Thou shalt not kill)

Funny how it's "Thou shalt not kill", and not, "Thou shalt not kill people."  A prohibition against eating anything but seeds, nuts, and beans, perhaps?

Indeed, although as I pointed out God doesn't consider a fetus a fully grown human, so "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply.

First off to Erasmus its sometimes translated as thou shalt not commit murder so I'm assuming that in Hebrew it's clearer that it refers to people. As to
cheesejoff Exodus quote  it doesn actually say Exodus 21:22 "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant women so that she suffers a miscarriage but no further injury the guilty one shall be fined as much as the women's husband demands of him and he shall pay in the presence of the judges"
This is situation is different than abortion as the man is not nessecarily intending to kill the baby (as opposed to an abortion where thats really the whole point) also he suffes as much of a fine as the husband demands which is basically unlimited potential punishment.
This is an example of something fairly close to abortion (but not strictly speaking the same) and it is definitly condemeing it, althought granted not equating it with murder. So the BIble is clearly not condoning it.
Anyway this isn't strctly the same as abortion if one consiedered abortion murdr 1 this would be like murder 2 or manslaughter 1
Any thoughts?
An argumentatvie
Cinlef

I realise now that I meant condemn instead of condone, apologies. :roll:

cheesejoff Exodus quote  it doesn actually say Exodus 21:22 "When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant women so that she suffers a miscarriage but no further injury the guilty one shall be fined as much as the women's husband demands of him and he shall pay in the presence of the judges"
This is situation is different than abortion as the man is not nessecarily intending to kill the baby (as opposed to an abortion where thats really the whole point) also he suffes as much of a fine as the husband demands which is basically unlimited potential punishment.

It also says "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life". So the penalty for accidently killing a woman is death, but there is only a fine for accidently killing an unborn baby. Wouldn't that mean that unborn babies are not considered fully human? And therefore killing them is not murder?

This is an example of something fairly close to abortion (but not strictly speaking the same) and it is definitly condemeing it, althought granted not equating it with murder. So the BIble is clearly not condoning it.
Anyway this isn't strctly the same as abortion if one consiedered abortion murdr 1 this would be like murder 2 or manslaughter 1
Any thoughts?
An argumentatvie
Cinlef

Hm...I could refer to Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. It basically says that someone who is never born is better off than someone who lives in misery. So surely a woman who cannot support her child should have an abortion for it's own sake?

It also says "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life". So the penalty for accidently killing a woman is death, but there is only a fine for accidently killing an unborn baby. Wouldn't that mean that unborn babies are not considered fully human? And therefore killing them is not murder?

Good point.  I would definitely not say that the Bible views accidental killing of unborn fetuses the same way western society views manslaughter.

Hm...I could refer to Ecclesiastes 4:1-3. It basically says that someone who is never born is better off than someone who lives in misery. So surely a woman who cannot support her child should have an abortion for it's own sake?

Another good point... but maybe taken out of context?  Those verses refer to an oppressed and evil society.  The author is clearly showing his low level of expectations for the quality of life of those yet unborn.  The counterargument would be that you do not know that a child's life will be miserable; it's most likely to be average, and average quality of life in the West today is better than it was in the Middle East 2500 years ago... or 0 years ago, for that matter.

-Erasmus

Another good point... but maybe taken out of context?

Yup, taken out of context deliberately in the same way that most of the anti-abortion verses are.

Such as Psalm 139:13-16 which is commonly taken out of context to support anti-abortion. The phrase "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee" implies you are human before you are fully born. However this is talking about the pre-ordained King of Israel, so it's out of context.

If you want one that specifically relates to abortion, try Genesis 38:24.

About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant."
Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!"

The woman is to be killed despite the fact that the unborn baby would be also be killed. Clearly the bible does not consider an unborn baby a human.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Another good point... but maybe taken out of context?

Yup, taken out of context deliberately in the same way that most of the anti-abortion verses are.

Such as Psalm 139:13-16 which is commonly taken out of context to support anti-abortion. The phrase "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee" implies you are human before you are fully born. However this is talking about the pre-ordained King of Israel, so it's out of context.

Errr what are you talking about  Psalm 139:13-16  is "

Truly you have formed my inmost being you knit me in my mothers womb. I give you thanks that I am fearfully wonderfully made;wonderful are your works. My soul also you knew full well nor was my frame unknown to you. When I was made in secret when I was fashioned in the depths of the earth. Your eyes have seen my actions;in your book they are all written; my days were limited before one of them existed.

This is not talking about the preordained King of Israel, it's King David (who granted is the preordained King of Israel) praising Gods omnipotence. The key line is 139:15 My soul also you knew full well nor was my frame unknown to you.
There talking about the soul implies that an unborn baby does have a soul.
The context isn't particularly relevant unless your saying that line would apply only to King David and not to anyone else
A perplexed
Cinlef

This is not talking about the preordained King of Israel, it's King David (who granted is the preordained King of Israel) praising Gods omnipotence. The key line is 139:15 My soul also you knew full well nor was my frame unknown to you.
There talking about the soul implies that an unborn baby does have a soul.
The context isn't particularly relevant unless your saying that line would apply only to King David and not to anyone else
A perplexed
Cinlef

Yes I am saying that it only applies to King David. Unless someone thinks that their child is the pre-ordained King of Israel, that verse cannot be used to support anti-abortion views.

(The edition I was using is different from yours, mine actually says "My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place", which makes no mention of a soul")

Hmmmmm I think I understand your pont but I disagree ,however my explaining of why has been pretty weak, so I'm going to try again. The Psalm you cited is prasing the omnipotence of God. King David is talking about how God knew him even when he was in the womb. The reason the pro-life groups cite this is because it's saying that David has soul when he is in the womb. The fact that David was the pre-ordained King of Israel and wrote this Psalm in the  first person isn't relevant (at least I don't see how). The Psalm is saying was a person in the eyes of God in the womb because even in the womb God knew of him. I sincerely fail to see the relevance of King David being the preordained King of Israel and how it would invalidate the most often used intepretation of this Psalm.
An perplexed
Cinlef

King David is talking about how God knew him even when he was in the womb. The reason the pro-life groups cite this is because it's saying that David has soul when he is in the womb.

Yes indeed, but it says God knew David in the womb, not every human on the planet. David was pre-ordained to be King by God, so of course God would have to specially choose him in the womb. However not every human was chosen by God to be King. He is an exception, not the rule. Indeed he may have a soul, but if you take the fact that David had a soul in the womb and apply it to every human being, you are effectively taking it out of context.

If you do, I could take Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 which is talking about a society in the Middle East over 2000 years ago and apply it to today's society.

So that's why I don't think that verse is valid.

(I know you didn't bring that verse up, but I did a sort of "pre-emptive strike", George Bush style )

Quote from: "Cinlef"

King David is talking about how God knew him even when he was in the womb. The reason the pro-life groups cite this is because it's saying that David has soul when he is in the womb.

Yes indeed, but it says God knew David in the womb, not every human on the planet. David was pre-ordained to be King by God, so of course God would have to specially choose him in the womb. However not every human was chosen by God to be King. He is an exception, not the rule. Indeed he may have a soul, but if you take the fact that David had a soul in the womb and apply it to every human being, you are effectively taking it out of context.

If you do, I could take Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 which is talking about a society in the Middle East over 2000 years ago and apply it to today's society.

So that's why I don't think that verse is valid.

(I know you didn't bring that verse up, but I did a sort of "pre-emptive strike", George Bush style )

Okay well I now see your point. And yeah I was going to point out you brought this up, so you preemptive striked that as well  :cry:
However I not sure David is a special case. Yes the Psalm only says that God knew David in the womb but is David so different from anyone else well I mean yeah he was a king and favored of the Lord but he was ultimatly a faillible human being like me and you and everyone else on the forum (that ostriches haven't replaced of course :wink:  ) David is saying he had a soul in the womb.  
So
Stament A) David is human
Stament B) David had a soul in the womb
Stament C)Humans have souls in the womb
Is a legitimate conclusion. Not the only conclusion granted but how exactly is it flawed
A intrigued
Cinlef

Unless statement A is actually "David is the pre-ordained King of Isreal by God"...in which case the conclusion becomes "the Kings of Isreal pre-ordained by God have souls in the womb", and the conclusion is no longer relevant to abortion...

Which actually seems to be what the real argument seems to be about, not the logic by which you reached the conclusion.

Unless statement A is actually "the David is the pre-ordained King of Isreal by God"...in which case the conclusion becomes "the Kings of Isreal pre-ordained by God have souls in the womb", and the conclusion is no longer relevant to abortion...

Which actually seems to be what the real argument seems to be about, not the logic by which you reached the conclusion.

Granted however both interpretations work. However this implies that the Kings of Israel are different from ordinary human beings, something for which I don't see he evidence. One could argue that everyone has a vocation (some job God calls them to do in life) and thus the King or Israel is no more or less preordained than a plumber.
YOur logic is akin to saying I set a history teacher on fire and conclude that history teachers burn. The correct conclusion would be I set a person on fire and people burn (my that came off kind of psycotic didn't it?)
An intrigued
Cinlef

Stament A) David is human
Stament B) David had a soul in the womb
Stament C)Humans have souls in the womb
Is a legitimate conclusion.

I claim C is not a legitimate conclusion, which I think was cheesejoff's point.  Consider an identically structured argument:

A) Sigmund is a flat-Earther.
B) Sigmund was anencephalic in the womb (his brain never developed).
C) Flat-Earthers are anencephalic in the womb (their brains never developed).

(who dares challenge my awesome powers of deduction?!?)

Are we certain your Stament C is not a legitimate conclusion :wink: ?
Also my point was it's legitimate it's just not the only conclusion
Also isn't it odd the unpleseant fanatics have so far avoided this thread?
An intrigued
Cinlef

Also my point was it's legitimate it's just not the only conclusion

My point was that C does not follow from A and B (even if it may happen to be true anyway).  It makes for a "cogent" argument, but not a valid one.  From a scientific standpoint, pointing out that David had a soul while in the womb can be considered evidence that all humans have souls in the womb.

Also isn't it odd the unpleseant fanatics have so far avoided this thread?

A little, yes.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "Cinlef"

Also my point was it's legitimate it's just not the only conclusion

My point was that C does not follow from A and B (even if it may happen to be true anyway).  It makes for a "cogent" argument, but not a valid one.  From a scientific standpoint, pointing out that David had a soul while in the womb can be considered evidence that all humans have souls in the womb.

Quote

Also isn't it odd the unpleseant fanatics have so far avoided this thread?

A little, yes.

-Erasmus

Wait are you agreeing with me. I'm confused
An puzzled
Cinlef

Also isn't it odd the unpleseant fanatics have so far avoided this thread?

Not really, they can't discuss a serious topic in a civil manner, all they can do is go "0mg 0striches!"

Anyway, to the discussion-

"A red apple is red"
"An apple is a fruit"
"All fruit are red"

"David had a soul in the womb"
"David is a human"
"All humans have souls in the womb"

That's essentially what you're stating. As you say it's not the only possible outcome, but it's not necessarily true.

The only conclusions you can definately prove are that

A) The soul exists
B) Some humans have souls in the womb

The question is whether everyone has a soul in the womb and not just King David.

My opinion is that it doesn't. Since King David is pre-ordained, obviously he is chosen by God to be King before he is born. That is why God gives him a soul. If there was an ordinary person with a soul in the womb, then yes it would definately apply to everyone. But in my opinion David is a special case.

Of course I'm not necessarily right, your opinion is just as valid as mine. Unfortunately the bible is not clear on this (God should have added abortion into the ten commandments )

My opinion is that it doesn't. Since King David is pre-ordained, obviously he is chosen by God to be King before he is born. That is why God gives him a soul. If there was an ordinary person with a soul in the womb, then yes it would definately apply to everyone.

Interesting... if it were referring to somebody other King David, and from that you concluded that the person was "ordinary" and that therefore it applied to everybody, I, just to play devil's advocate, would say that by definition, the person in question is *not* ordinary, since it is told to us that they have a soul in the womb, whereas it is not guaranteed that anybody else does.

I think just being mentioned in the bible probably makes a person some what out of the ordinary.  And if we don't know whether or not people have souls in the womb, then being told that person X does indeed have a soul in the womb makes them special.

By way of analogy, certainly we don't know that everybody gets into heaven.  But suppose we were told by a for-these-purposes-reliable source that a certain ordinary person did get into heaven.  That property of that person, I suggests, makes it wrong to refer to them as ordinary.

Unfortunately the bible is not clear on this (God should have added abortion into the ten commandments :D)

Recall, Cinlef suggests that he *did* add abortion to the ten commandments...

-Erasmus

I, just to play devil's advocate, would say that by definition, the person in question is *not* ordinary...

Actually I said that he's not ordinary as well: "But in my opinion David was a special case". Unless of course you are agreeing with me, in which case...er...good.

Actually I said that he's not ordinary as well: "But in my opinion David was a special case". Unless of course you are agreeing with me, in which case...er...good.

I was disagreeing with you insofar as I suggest that even if it did *not* refer to King David, the person who's soul is guaranteed to exist even in the womb would still be a special case.

He would be special, not in that he is the preordained king of Israel, but in that he is one of  the select few who have souls in the womb.

-Erasmus

Quote from: "cheesejoff"

Actually I said that he's not ordinary as well: "But in my opinion David was a special case". Unless of course you are agreeing with me, in which case...er...good.

I was disagreeing with you insofar as I suggest that even if it did *not* refer to King David, the person who's soul is guaranteed to exist even in the womb would still be a special case.

He would be special, not in that he is the preordained king of Israel, but in that he is one of  the select few who have souls in the womb.

-Erasmus

Ah, I see. You have a point, even if someone was not King David  and had a soul in the womb, that still does not apply it to every human being.

However the fact that David is King is still an additional reason, because he's specially chosen by God to be King before he's born.