General discussion


Let's talk about abortion ....

By jardinier ·
because the subject has aroused considerable interest in a discussion which is totally unrelated to this issue.

While I am waiting on a Jewish friend to provide the literal translation of the sixth commandment from the original Hebrew, I will just use the common English translations: thou shall not kill, or thou shall not murder.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the only Bible-based argument against abortion is this commandment.

But does the commandment say: "Thou shalt not terminate a pregnancy," or "Thou shall not kill a foetus?" Obviously not.

I am sure abortions were carried out in Biblical times, but I know of no mention of them. In fact in an electronic Bible which I have on my computer, in an extensive listing of topics, there is no mention of murder or killing.

To use this commandment as an argument against abortion is a relatively recent development.

I have NEVER heard this commandment used in this context in 45 years of sermons and Bible studies.

Quite obviously it refers to post-natal humans.

Nor does it differentiate between murders of individuals in peace time and the killing of "enemies" in war time.

While common sense dictates that a country which is attacked should fight to defend itself (and in so doing kill people from the other country) this distinction simply cannot be read into the sixth commandment.

I myself am neither anti-abortion nor pro-abortion. But I would like the pro-life Christians to enlighten me as to what is the Biblical foundation of their agenda.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Biblical abortions

by ccollins In reply to Let's talk about abortion ...

Abortions weren't really an option in the various time periods discussed by the bible, short of skewering some heathen through the abdomen. However, I know in at least the Catholic Church you were condemned to limbo for not being baptised, and you can only do that after it pops out. So they should be pro-abortion, really.

Collapse -

OK I'll put in my 2 cents worth.

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Let's talk about abortion ...

But being a male I do not feel that I have any right to force my beliefs onto another person.

I see a few legal problems here with this issue.

Firstly a disclaimer I'm not at all interested one way or the other and while the wording that I'm going to use here is strictly a medical definition which I may or may not necessarily believe in it however from a medical stand point accepted as correct.

Firstly if the court was to over turn the Roe V Wade decision how long would it be before more stringent laws where passed to protect the rights of the unborn?

Now to the reality of the situation of unborn Humans is that from a medical standpoint the fetus is nothing more than a parasite on its host {The Mother} until it can support its own life's functions. So just what would be the legal position if a woman was to have a spontaneous abortion that could be read as a miscarriage?

Would states setup laws to specify how expectant mothers should behave? What they could involve themselves in and how to live to protect the unborn child?

If so who pays?

Would a mother be held criminally liable for an accident where the fetus was lost if no other parties could be held to blame?

Take for example a pregnant woman falling down a flight of steps and miscarrying, now would the owner of the steps be held responsible if they where poorly maintained?

Would the mother be held responsible if she just tripped and fell unintentionally though this would be impossible to prove?

Who would be held responsible if the woman was tripped and fell but the person responsible was untraceable? Again impossible to prove in a Court of Law unless we are prepared to be under constant video surveillance.

Giving a legal status to an unborn child has a myriad of potential problems associated with it and the shorter the time that the fetus is viable the less rights it should have conversely the longer that it is viable the more rights it should have.

Incidental who should shoulder the cost for long term premature births? This often involve hundreds of thousand of Dollars to maintain life and often has an unsatisfactory outcome with either the infant dying or having massive injuries that are impossible to overcome. In a case like this who should be held responsible for the ongoing costs of maintaining the life of this child?

I mean long term if the infant lives not just the 4 - 5 months involved in the ICU ward of the Post Natal Hospital Ward but their entire life?

Now if a State was to legislate that the Fetus has all the rights of a human conversely shouldn't the State then take responsibility for that child?

If this was to happen what exactly would be the role of the parents?

Currently we have the ability to keep a fetus of 26 weeks Gestation alive and hopefully achieve a long term survival rate and as time goes on I'm sure that this will improve to a greater extent so where exactly should we draw the line?

Should we stop medical advances in the care of preterm deliveries?

Should a line be drawn in the sand that the medical people will not offer any treatment for a preterm delivery before a certain number of weeks gestation?

If that was to be enacted doesn't it fly in the face of the Hypnotic Oath that is taken by all Doctors which effectively says "Do No Harm?"

Now I'm personally not taking a stand one way or the other but I believe that issues like these must first be addressed before we can begin to decide if a Fetus has all the rights of a human life. Until we address these issues the rest is nothing more than hype by special interest groups which should be avoided at all costs.

Also should a viable fetus that is brought about by a criminal act {rape} be given the same rights as one that is not?

Who is responsible for a viable Fetus which does not embed itself on the wall of the uterus?

If all Human rights where given to a fetus at any stage of what one side likes to call life would not this fertilized cell have the same rights as a new born child?

Who would police this and how?

Should a fetus that is horribly deformed and had little chance of having a quality of life be allowed to continue?

Should a Fetus which is a danger to its host be allowed to continue? If all humans have the same right to life what in a case like this would give the Fetus a greater right to life than the host {Mother?}

But I'm open to other points of view.

But first leave out all the hype and emotion and think from a LEGAL point of view rather than the hysterical way that both sides of this debate carry on.

They both claim to be correct but are unwilling to look at all the potential "Legal" problems and what would be the result of giving a 2 hour old Fetus the same rights as one that had gone 41 weeks to term.

What many people do not understand is that it is the Fetus which unhindered starts labor not the host.

Also those involved should all have a look at the medical instruments used for Virginal Deliveries before they begin to start sprouting off in their beliefs.


Collapse -

Here's another spin to think about along those lines too..

by TomSal In reply to Let's talk about abortion ...

First I don't like getting involved in the abortion issue...WAAAAAAAAY to controversial, and frankly I don't think I have much right as a man talking about what women should (or should not) do. I will say I think its sad and as it would be -- ironic that "right to life" folks kill abortion doctors under the pre-text of "all humans have a right to live" (ok so why did you KILL a human to say all humans have a right to live?).

Very good point btw, about the sixth commandment as it applies to military -- they kill all the time don't they?

Also you know something I think about too...who is right when they pray?

I mean the guys in the army of country X pray to god "Please give us the guidance, courage and strength to defeat our enemies"...while the guys in the army of country Y pray the exact same thing about the army of country X.

So both sides are praying for essentially God's help in killing the other side.

just my two cents.

Collapse -

by Packet Spoofer In reply to Here's another spin to th ...

"ironic that "right to life" folks kill abortion doctors under the pre-text of "all humans have a right to live" (ok so why did you KILL a human to say all humans have a right to live?)."

These abortion doctor murderers are not pro life or right to life....if they were they would not be killing doctors, and as a person who is pro life, I resent being lumped in with wackos that do these kinds of things....

Collapse -

Then resent it..or blame the media..

by TomSal In reply to

Because when some of these cases have been profiled in the news your friends at Fox, ABC and CBS have certainly said "Anti-abortionists" or used the wording "Pro Life Activists" when reporting they these folks killed such and such a doctor.

Collapse -

time of killing

by john.a.wills In reply to Let's talk about abortion ...

For early abortion, development in biology has made us see that abortion is murder. The biologists used to teach that there were several lives (vegetable, animal, human) between fertilization and birth. The work of Harvey in the 17th Century showed - and has yet to be contradicted by biologists - that there is one continuous life from fertilization onwards. Up till Harvey's time early abortion could be thought of not as murder but as something like contraception, a sin but not murder. Nowadays if we believe in human rights at all we must class abortion as murder.

Collapse -

Well then John

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to time of killing

What is the standard for a fertilized ovum which fails to embed itself on the side of the uterus and simply gets carried away with the menstrual cycle?

Under the above mentioned definition this is murder as well although basic biology would have to say it was never a life in the first place.


Collapse -

life beginning

by john.a.wills In reply to Well then John

No, basic biology says that a somatic (as distinct from gametic) life has already begun. But unless the failure to embed is deliberately induced there is no murder, just an accidental death

Collapse -

"Quite obviously"?

by gralfus In reply to Let's talk about abortion ...

Never assume something is obvious when there is a huge debate raging. Secondly, don't assume that the meaning of a command in the scripture is necessarily obvious. The command not to murder is the foundation of the belief that abortion is wrong. Then there is Jesus' statement about the "kingdom of Heaven belonging to such as these (children)." Abortion is not specifically mentioned, but then again there are many things not mentioned specifically in the scripture. For example, it never mentions that killing someone by shooting them with a firearm is forbidden, but the command to not murder is still there. War and self-defense seem to be the only exceptions.

A pregnant woman has within her the natural product of human reproduction, a child (as opposed to a cancer). The child has human DNA unique to itself. He or she is taking in food and growing. Given time and barring complications, the child will be born and still require food, shelter, and lots of care. If the child were not alive in the womb, he or she would not be taking in food and growing. If the child were not human, he or she would not have human DNA. Therefore, killing the child on purpose is considered murder.

God doesn't care what people's opinions are. He is a king, not a president. He expects obedience not debate. Most people don't like that. He already knows that the vast majority of people reject his authority and/or existence. Jesus said that the verdict has already been given, and that even though God sent light into the world, that people loved darkness instead because their deeds are evil. Therefore Christians shouldn't expect unbelievers to act in accordance with God, and so they will use their rights as citizens to vote in laws that are in line with their beliefs. Even if laws can't change hearts, they can do some good.

Collapse -

But then if the "Christians" bring about man made laws

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to "Quite obviously"?

Exactly how are they to be interpreted?

Does the "Christian" belief give the Government to right to dictate how a pregnant woman behaves?

Do these same laws also dedicate what the pregnant can & can not do?

Do the laws dictate just what type of Medical treatment the pregnant woman should have?

If they do where is "Free Will" allowed and how is Alternative Birthing Centerers viewed?

What you have to understand is that while you have the right to your beliefs no one gives you the right to force your beliefs onto another who may have different beliefs!

Also the Laws of God and Man are totally different and should never be confused with each other!


Related Discussions

Related Forums