JTurtle

This entire thread has been started on a false interpretation of the text. Lets look at Ex. 21:22-23 and interpret it correctly.

The term "if men strive" means fighting. This passage is saying that if two men are fighting and the hit a pregnant woman, then some consequences will follow. You seem to interpret "so that her fruit depart from her" as meaning the death of the child in her womb. However, that is NOT what this means. "So that her fruit depart from her" actually means, "if she gives birth prematurely". The fruit, obviously being the child, and "departing from her" meaning that it left early, or in other words was premature. So, if this child is born prematurely and "no mischief follow", or in other words "no serious harm is done", then the men will have to pay a fine, whatever the husband demands. But "if any mischeif follows", or in other words "if there is serious harm", then the punishment is a life for a life.

So you see, the punishment for the death of an unborn child and the death of a mother are no different at all. And I must say, this one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen.

By the way, here is that same verse in the NIV:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life..." Ex. 21:22-23.

Shven

Can you back that up with the original hebrew?

Rudolph

If this were any other book, it would have been dismissed long ago for being confusing, illogical, contradictory, unsound, inconsistent, incoherent... And yet for all of this, people still try to get moral guidance from it. Isn't this odd? I've never read the bible, but the more i hear about what's in it, the more I feel like doing so, if only for the comedy value. Who cares what the Bible says about abortion? Obviously it's not a timeless book of wisdom, if it were, it would be so much more accurate, or at the very least, hold a coherent point of view on moral issues. It can't be accurate because it was written at a time when scientific knowledge was very limited, and it's not coherent because it was most likely to have been written and ammended by more than one person over an extended period of time. If there is a God, he#'d have nothing to do with such stupidity, and on the subject of abortion, he'd probably say something like: "Mind your own business mate, it's not your belly!!!"

JTurtle

Sir, have you ever seen an ultra sound?! Surely you are not saything that after looking at an ultrasound of a little child, and seeing its toes and fingers, seeing its brain, seeing its heart beat, seeing it LIVE and move, that is it not a human. I mean, lets say you have a child that reaches full term, so the mother is at 9 months in her pregnancy. Are you saying that up until the point that child exits the womb and takes its first breath that it is not a human? That magically, once it breathes, something changes and this "thing" all of a sudden becomes a human? Tell me what it was before then? Do you believe in magic sir?! Surely you do, because you are saying that with one simple breath, this "thing" all of a sudden "POOF!" becomes a human being. Do you really consider a logical standpoint? Surely you do not! Tell me sir, what were YOU before you took your first breath?! What CHANGED in you after you took that breath. I would hold that NOTHING changes. That from conception the child is a human. Fresh air doesn't change a thing. How can a human just appear and come from nothing?! Let's think about this logically now....

Jonathan

JTurtle

Well then thats about the end of this conversation then! Your view is based on the opinions of others, which by the way happen to be incorrect. So really you cannot say what you "think" the Bible has to say about abortion or life or anything for that matter. Tell you what, instead of just sitting there and assuming you know everything, why not pick up the word of God and deepen your search for Truth??

HAVOC451

Of course a fetus is human, what else could it be? Is it a person? No, it is within, and dependant on it's mother for everything untill birth. It is only alive because its mother is alive. (yes, there have been cases where a fetus was removed from its dead mother and it survived. Because it took that first breath!) It is untill then, a biological process that leads (usually) to a human being. Biology is not magic. Only upon birth does a fetus become a seperate and distinct entity, or in other words, a person.
I've been present for three births. Our first had a defect that prevented his lungs from developing. He fought for every breath for 90 minutes but then it was all too much and he died. Since then my wife and I have had two daughters and they're breathing just fine. So, lets not assume that I've not been around the block a time or two ok?
Another thing about fetal developement. Misscarriages are not recorded as persons. My wife suffered two. We didn't name them. They never lived.

If you don't think breathing is a vital to life, perhaps you could find sombody that is not breathing and encourage them to post in this thread.

Rudolph

With all due respect JTurtle, I don't have to read the bible to know that it is a fraud, or at the very least, highly likely to be mistaken. People have been arguing over interpretations and meanings for the past 2,000 years. There have been rifts, schisms (is that the right word?), more denominations than can be remembered, wars and massacres. And is anyone any closer to convincing everyone else that they are right? I certainly don't assume I know everything, I'm not the Bible you know! How do you know your interpretations of the Bible are the right ones? The truth is not something to be interpreted. If there is a truth, then it is by its very nature indisputable. And from where I'm standing, it seems that you are the one whose views are influenced by others since yours seem to be biblical views. My views are my own, subject to as rigorous an examination as I can provide, and disposable should I come to new understandings. Can you say the same?

JTurtle

Hello HAVOC, first you said this, Then, you went from admitting that a fetus is a human, to saying that the fetus can LEAD to a human being, Well sir, which is it?! It cannot be both. Is a fetus a human being, as you stated? Or is a fetus a "biological process" that leads "usually" to a human being?? I can answer for you if you want, but I'm more interested in your explaination.


Then you went and made this statment, Ok so let me get this straight, here you state that in order to be a person, one must not be dependant on another. Therefore, a fetus cannot be a person, because it is dependant on the mother. Well let me ask you this, you say you have two children correct?! Now even at the age of one, do you think that your children could survive by themselves? NO. Of course not! So by your own reasoning, your own daughters are not persons. Do you see the problem here?! Also, how about a mentally handicapped individual. Do you think that they could survive by themselves?! NO.

What is your definition of a person exactly?! Maybe it needs some revision.

ten to the eleventh

I wouldn't advise going to the NIV for the proper interpretation of verses. The NIV is notoriously agenda-driven; it's a bible written, basically, for American Republican conservative Christians, and it rates poorly as an accurate translation. I see it suited your purposes very well.

A scholarly interested bible, the New English (Oxford Study Edition) reads as follows:

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

It's not so weak according to many biblical scholars, and to traditional Jewish law. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your NIV once in a while, you wouldn't be so indignant at someone using this argument.

Of course, if you'd like to back up your adamant assertions with your own scholarly analysis of the original hebrew, we're all ears.

Mr. eleventh

JTurtle

Ok, lets see....
Really thats interesting! In that case, I feel like calling you a liar and a thief. I've never spent time with you, but I don't really have to do that in order to label you, do I?!

This is true. However, it does not affect the Truth of God's word in anyway. You cannot logically say that, people argue over biblical translations, and there have been wars...THEREFORE, the word of God is not Truth. What kind of conclusion is that?!

Well you see, I do not interpret the Truth, I just take it as God has given it to us.

Truth is undisputable, you're right. But that does not mean that everyone will accept it. Which can cause disputes. But Truth still remains the same.

Jonathan