Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shven · 09-15-2004, 04:40 PM

Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life."

Why exactly in this passage is the punishment for death to an unborn child a fine, but death to the mother a capital offence?

Peter Kirby · 09-15-2004, 09:09 PM

Well, fines, capital punishment, and physical violence were the forms of punishment back then (imprisonment being of short duration except for political prisoners). So the passage reflects that causing the death of the fetus was less an offence than causing the death of a man's wife.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 09-16-2004, 12:17 AM

The idea that a foetus is a full human being is a very modern politically based idea with no support in the Bible.

Lots has been written on it.

Abortion is Biblical

Quote:

]"Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb? Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should have been as though I had not been, carried from womb to tomb."
Job 10:18-19

Clearly there is a strong argument here that the quality of a life is as important if not more important than the act of being born. Indeed, we could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that this interpretation is in fact a biblical mandate to support the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. And taking these verses to their extreme, I could claim that abortion is not just a good idea, it is a sacrament.

Actually, I will stop short of making that claim. In fact, I will stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at all. It does neither.

Adult Christianity

Quote:

Does anyone know where in the Bible a prophet of God calls upon God to induce abortions in the wives of his enemies? Let's look at Hosea 9:14.

Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb (an abortion) and dry breasts.

And later,

...yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
Hosea 9:16

In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this? But they are not, they are "miscarrying wombs," "unperfect substances" and God will prevent them from becoming human souls that will grow up to oppress his people.

Religious Tolerance contains a wealth of information.

Intelligitimate · 09-16-2004, 09:02 AM

Well, on the contrary, it should be pointed out that John the Baptist is described as leaping in the womb in Luke 1:41. I think there might be one other passage in the OT with a fetus doing something like that, but I can't remember it.

Toto · 09-16-2004, 09:26 AM

My first link dealt with JtB leaping in his mother's womb:

Quote:

The last verse most often quoted by anti-abortion Christians relates the story of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, while both were pregnant. When they meet, the pre-born John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb at Mary's salutation. Let's read the original:

"And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:"
Luke 1:39-41

As much as the anti-abortion lobby would like this to mean that all fetuses are sentient persons because one is recorded as knowing Mary's words and then leapt inside the womb, the logic is as flawed as the Isaiah misquote. Again we have a miraculous event. Again we have a divine prophet whom God had ordained since before he was conceived. And this time it's even more miraculous, because the gestating John the Baptist is reacting to the approach of Mary, who at the time was pregnant with Jesus. Unless we believe all of us are chosen before birth to be the divine prophet ordained by God to herald the arrival of Christ on earth, then we cannot claim this passage refers to us. And indeed, it does not. While gestating fetuses are known to move and kick as their nervous systems and muscles are under construction, only divinely-inspired babies understand the spoken words of the mother of Jesus and can leap in recognition.

Chili · 09-16-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The idea that a foetus is a full human being is a very modern politically based idea with no support in the Bible.

.

It can als o be argued that a foetus is not human until the after the first trimester in the womb. Until then only higher order mental activities are detectable and after that the conscious mind begins to be active. At one time this was the basis for estabilishing a sense of self-worth that would allow abortion only during the first trimester.

If we call the mental activity in the conscious mind equal when a sense of self-worth that makes us human it can be equated with "the fall of man" and would indicate that prior to this we were still in the image of God (or Man) and therefore really in a different value system that is beyond the human mind to rule over. But it also makes it biblical.

Toto · 09-16-2004, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

It can als o be argued that a foetus is not human until the after the first trimester in the womb. Until then only higher order mental activities are detectable and after that the conscious mind begins to be active. At one time this was the basis for estabilishing a sense of self-worth that would allow abortion only during the first trimester.

If we call the mental activity in the conscious mind equal when a sense of self-worth that makes us human it can be equated with "the fall of man" and would indicate that prior to this we were still in the image of God (or Man) and therefore really in a different value system that is beyond the human mind to rule over. But it also makes it biblical.

I believe that higher mental activity can only be detected at about the 8th month, not the 3rd (=the first trimester). The basis for allowing abortion only during the first trimester is that the medical procedure is very simple, and the fetus is clearly not viable; it gets a little more complicated after that, and the fetus is closer to viability.

I don't understand the second paragraph, but that's okay.

ten to the eleventh · 09-16-2004, 11:06 AM

It was my impression as a (conservative) Christian that the opposition to abortion was motivated by the distaste for pre-marital sex. The abortion meant that she had, indeed had premarital sex, and that was the real sin. The sin of sex was not to be concealed by having an abortion. A woman's shame must be public. The man must bear the responsibility of a father for having sex. In other words, sex must be punished, it must hurt.

My impressions were reinforced recently in conversations with conservative Christians who were somehow unaware that married women had abortions, too. To them, abortions are (or were) necessarily connected to pre-marital sex, a major no-no to them.

For this, and several other reasons, I see the anti-abortion movement as just a way to control the sexual lives of others.

edit so I can relate this to the OP: I think that the notion of the fetus being a person was adopted somewhat recently as a justification for the opposition. It is my understanding that historically, this a very recent notion adopted because it is only sounds prudish to oppose abortion because its legality serves to facilitate pre-marital sex. They needed to seek higher moral ground, so they fabricated a mountain.

JLK · 09-16-2004, 12:34 PM

One interesting factoid that may be presented to Bibliophites who believe sperm-egg union is the beginning of personhood is that nowhere in the Bible is found "Sam and Sarah conceived...". Instead, an ambiguous time after some perhaps implied intercourse, only "Sarah conceived and bore..." The Hebrew model was that the man carried "the seed", the woman was "the earth", and eventually "the sprout" appeared. Needless to say, the Hebrew for "conceived" did not refer to cells joining, which would not be known until the 17th century.

Jewish tradition held that 6 weeks/40 days went by before anything significant appeared, which is oddly equivalent to the time proto-nerve cells begin to differentiate. So much for Leon Kass, Bush's Wiseman Ethical Philosopher on stem cell research and his shallow "Wisdom of Repugnance" justification. Kass wrote The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, admiring the patriachial nature of the stories, so he must know his Bible.

Chili · 09-16-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I believe that higher mental activity can only be detected at about the 8th month, not the 3rd (=the first trimester). The basis for allowing abortion only during the first trimester is that the medical procedure is very simple, and the fetus is clearly not viable; it gets a little more complicated after that, and the fetus is closer to viability.

.

"How close would closer have to be" is a slippery slope argument and that brings us right back to day 1, but that's OK too and I really don't care either way. This is not about abortion and I plan to leave it at that.

My data comes from an argument that was presented about 20 years ago and that is when the early mental activities outside the conscious mind were called "higher order" mental activities and therefore they did not contribute to the self worth of the person.

09-15-2004, 04:40 PM	#1
Shven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: England Posts: 911	Does the Bible say fetuses are living things? Exodus 21:22-23 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." Why exactly in this passage is the punishment for death to an unborn child a fine, but death to the mother a capital offence?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2004, 09:09 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Well, fines, capital punishment, and physical violence were the forms of punishment back then (imprisonment being of short duration except for political prisoners). So the passage reflects that causing the death of the fetus was less an offence than causing the death of a man's wife. best, Peter Kirby

09-16-2004, 09:02 AM	#4
Intelligitimate Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 464	Well, on the contrary, it should be pointed out that John the Baptist is described as leaping in the womb in Luke 1:41. I think there might be one other passage in the OT with a fetus doing something like that, but I can't remember it.

09-16-2004, 11:06 AM	#8
ten to the eleventh Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 1,682	It was my impression as a (conservative) Christian that the opposition to abortion was motivated by the distaste for pre-marital sex. The abortion meant that she had, indeed had premarital sex, and that was the real sin. The sin of sex was not to be concealed by having an abortion. A woman's shame must be public. The man must bear the responsibility of a father for having sex. In other words, sex must be punished, it must hurt. My impressions were reinforced recently in conversations with conservative Christians who were somehow unaware that married women had abortions, too. To them, abortions are (or were) necessarily connected to pre-marital sex, a major no-no to them. For this, and several other reasons, I see the anti-abortion movement as just a way to control the sexual lives of others. edit so I can relate this to the OP: I think that the notion of the fetus being a person was adopted somewhat recently as a justification for the opposition. It is my understanding that historically, this a very recent notion adopted because it is only sounds prudish to oppose abortion because its legality serves to facilitate pre-marital sex. They needed to seek higher moral ground, so they fabricated a mountain.

09-16-2004, 12:34 PM	#9
JLK Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 1,234	One interesting factoid that may be presented to Bibliophites who believe sperm-egg union is the beginning of personhood is that nowhere in the Bible is found "Sam and Sarah conceived...". Instead, an ambiguous time after some perhaps implied intercourse, only "Sarah conceived and bore..." The Hebrew model was that the man carried "the seed", the woman was "the earth", and eventually "the sprout" appeared. Needless to say, the Hebrew for "conceived" did not refer to cells joining, which would not be known until the 17th century. Jewish tradition held that 6 weeks/40 days went by before anything significant appeared, which is oddly equivalent to the time proto-nerve cells begin to differentiate. So much for Leon Kass, Bush's Wiseman Ethical Philosopher on stem cell research and his shallow "Wisdom of Repugnance" justification. Kass wrote The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, admiring the patriachial nature of the stories, so he must know his Bible.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.