• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For Christians who think God considers abortion to be murder

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
In the case of Ecclesiastes the writer is not Christian, however they could, similar to what you suggest, be talking about being cut off from Abraham rather than dying. Christians inherit a lot of ideas and schemas from Judaism, so its not always clear what is Christian and what originally isn't. Forgiving enemies precedes Christianity by many centuries if not longer. Before Christianity the Jews were singing "Some trust in chariots, but we..." (from Psalm 20) Before Christianity appeared the story of Elijah has sent a conquered invading army from Syria back to their homes with full bellies. Long, long before Christianity Israel's own children are likely taught by their parents at home that if they are ever kidnapped to teach their barbaric captors, and this is what causes the general Naaman to go and see Elijah (in the story of Elijah). This horrible Naaman's captured slave girl cares for this horrible man and helps him to meet Elijah, and this is the kind of tradition that Christians inherit our own ideas from -- from Jewish ones.

The story about the army with full bellies sounds like a sort of passive-aggressiveness though, of the sort that might not have been uncommon in the interaction of ancient rivals. Nor, I suspect, was trust in god or gods over material things especially unique
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Not intending to derail, but I always wonder why he claims to have unclean lips that have to be cleansed. Its one of the questions which floats in my mind, and I think it will eventually be important to me. Has an answer to this occurred to you?

That would be Isaiah's commissioning (Isa 6) and the Lord did not say to go and not sin with his lips, He cleansed Isaiah's speech there and then.
This no doubt is what God is able to do with those who repent and is what will happen with repentant sinners in the next life.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I wish I understood what you said here.
Do you mind rephrasing it. I really am interested in your questions.

One might imagine a situation where the newborn infant appeared healthy at first, but that wasn't the case. Though I don't know how common a delayed onset of symptoms would be if such a thing happened
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Where exactly in the bible does it state that God considers abortion to be murder? Below is the only bible verse I could find on the subject.

Exodus 21:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
“If people are fighting and 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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


According to this, God clearly does NOT consider abortion to be murder, otherwise the individual who caused the woman to give birth prematurely would be charged with murder. Instead it's up to the prospective father to decide if he wants to ask the courts to fine the offender... if he doesn't then the offender gets off without any penalty whatsoever. This states that its up to the family to decide if the loss of the fetus was 'wrong' in any way... well, at least it says it's up the the prospective father, since the woman's opinion isn't even taken into account. How is it that so many Christians claim that their god is against abortion and considers it to be murder, when the bible states otherwise?

Rather sad that so many Christians don't even know what their holy book says on the subject.

Modern abortion does not take into consideration the opinion or choice of the father. This violates Old Testament Law. The Left retries to divide people with the nonsense of women rights, instead of human rights. To them the father has no rights instead of both having human rights.

Abortion is an act of violence, since it ends with harm or death. Therefore, the father, if he asks the court, could fine the doctor, at very least. At worse, the father could take a life, for the life of his child.

Christians are not that extreme. They try to be more proactive, so they do not compound the evil; eye for eye, by inciting the anguish and wrath of the father against the surgeon. One would be hard pressed to find any Old Testament doctor who would take the risk, unless the father asked. Little girls could not make such a choice on their own, less she wish harm on the doctor.

Christians prefer to ask the law/judge to take the choice for abortion, back to each state, since not all places follow the same laws and customs. There are atheist strongholds who have different customs and Christians try to respect that, hoping they will also get the same respect in their places of living. But they still push for human rights for all; mother, father and child. Inhuman rights for some is more in the Lefty strongholds.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Nor, I suspect, was trust in god or gods over material things especially unique
It is not Jesus or Paul that invent the idea of a peacemaker. They expose the idea to us which is already everywhere in scripture. The short book Jonah is about the same nasty pillaging nation as the story of Elijah -- the Assyrians. In it the writer argues that we should pity those nasty Assyrians who don't know right from wrong and try to save them by speaking to them. If anything like this is found in the ruins of any ancient empire I'll eat okra. The ancient empires believe in might. The Jews are the exception not the rule.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Modern abortion does not take into consideration the opinion or choice of the father. This violates Old Testament Law. The Left retries to divide people with the nonsense of women rights, instead of human rights. To them the father has no rights instead of both having human rights.

From what I can tell, you seem like you probably equate them 'both having human rights,' with them obeying state law. Fair enough, we all have to obey state law. But in the old testament, it looks like it's giving one party in the situation a large decision making latitude: the father/husband. That is at least, socio-anthropologically different, in a radical way, to what the modern way seems to be, by an order of magnitude.

Our modern western culture however, often seems to claim the bible is 'at the foundation of our culture,' and people swear on thing etc. I find that really odd. There is some really different stuff in there
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
The short book Jonah is about the same nasty pillaging nation as the story of Elijah -- the Assyrians. In it the writer argues that we should pity those nasty Assyrians who don't know right from wrong and try to save them by speaking to them. If anything like this is found in the ruins of any ancient empire I'll eat okra. The ancient empires believe in might.

I think I may be able to find stuff like that in the histories of Herodotus, which lists the competition between early pagan kings, and seems to talk a lot about each of their different characteristics and motivations. I haven't read very far into his books yet, but the situation between Alyattes and the Milesians comes to mind. It's not exactly the same, but neither does this example seem to advocate for sheer might, in the end. Here is a little bit from book I, though you'll have a read a few paragraphs around this excerpt to really know what's going on:

------

"In the twelfth year, when the corn had been set on fire by the army, an accident of the following nature occurred: as soon as the corn had caught fire, the flames, carried by the wind, caught a temple of Minerva, called Assesian; and the temple, thus set on fire, was burned to the ground. No notice was taken of this at the time; but afterward, when the army had returned to Sardis, Alyattes fell sick. When the disease continued a considerable time, he sent messengers to Delphi to consult the oracle, either from the advice of some friend or because it appeared right to himself to send and make inquiries of the god concerning his disorder. The Pyth-ian refused to give any answer to the messengers when they arrived at Delphi until they had rebuilt the Temple of Minerva which they had burned at Assesus in the territory of Milesia"

Herodotus. The Histories of Herodotus. Translated by Henry Cary, D. Appleton and Company, 1899, pp. 7–8.

-------

So I guess what I'd make of that, is that in this case, the gods of that area, or the Delphic seers, or the messengers/friends of the king, did produce an intervention, that fell short of continuing a war.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I think both cultures would not have the same approach to war. Judaism appears to have formed at a crossroads between nations that warred and pillaged regularly for thousands of years. It was geographically the whipping boy. It makes sense that Canaanites would not have appreciated war like the nations around them, and Jewish writings reflect this. Archeology and steles reveal Canaanites would have been the targets of kidnapping and raids and would not have had enough agricultural strength to go around oppressing people with large militaries. Waiting for peace makes sense and is consistent with their writings. It would, in their situation and century after century, be very inadvisable to provoke war. What a great opportunity to learn about peace and to explore it fully and to believe in it.

Its not related to our conversation about abortion.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
One might imagine a situation where the newborn infant appeared healthy at first, but that wasn't the case. Though I don't know how common a delayed onset of symptoms would be if such a thing happened
The condition of the unborn doesn't matter. It's not a factor to consider.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
The condition of the unborn doesn't matter. It's not a factor to consider.

No I'm talking about a newborn: someone who is born, and appears healthy, but there is a delayed onset of a problem, so appearances aren't what they seem. I don't even know if that actually happens a lot, with these sorts of things. Do you get what I'm saying
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
No I'm talking about a newborn: someone who is born, and appears healthy, but there is a delayed onset, so appearances aren't what they seem. I don't even know if that actually happens a lot, with these sorts of things. Do you get what I'm saying
Oh. You mean the baby is born - seemingly, or appearing healthy, but later, it succumbs to some health problem, which may or may not lead to death?

That's a good question, if I am understanding you correctly.
I can give you my view from my understanding of scripture, but I think this requires further research, to be sure I understand it in the right way, according to God's view.

From the scriptures, we can see that responsibility for one's actions was not taken lightly.
For example, read Exodus 21:18-25
18 “This is what should happen if men quarrel and one strikes his fellow man with a stone or a fist and he does not die but is confined to his bed: 19 If he is able to get up and walk around outdoors with the aid of a staff, then the one who struck him must be free from punishment. He will only make compensation for the time the injured man lost from his work until he is completely healed. 20 “If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money. 22 “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges. 23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, blow for blow.

Compensation was made for someone who sustained injury, and was even disabled.
The death penalty was to be applied where negligence or deliberate action caused death.

Notice though, verse 21.
The reason given for the manslayer not being averaged, is because it's really his loss.
In other words, his negligence caused him dearly.

Someone may reason, 'but it's a life, and someone else's brother, or son.'
That's understandable.
However, we notice the circumstances -
1) He hit him with a stick. Not a stone. In other words, he did not set out to kill him. It was a case of manslaughter, but not intentional murder.
2) He depended upon that worker. It was part of his livelihoods. So he acquired a loss. Not something he wanted.

Taking those factors into consideration, we can apply the principle found in Numbers 35:22-25
22 “‘But if it was unexpectedly and not out of hatred that he pushed him or threw any article at him without malicious intent, 23 or if he did not see him and caused a stone to fall on him and he was not an enemy or seeking his injury, and the person died, 24 the assembly should then judge between the one who struck him and the avenger of blood, in harmony with these judgments. 25 The assembly should then save the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood and return him to his city of refuge to which he had fled, and he must dwell in it until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the holy oil.

Cases of murder were never taken lightly.
The case was considered by the judges.
If the manslayer was guilty of deliberately causing death, he was to be put to death, based on the evidence presented in the case.

In the case of the child later dying, there would need to be evidence proving that someone murdered the child.
That was not the case. The child could have died from factors unrelated to the accident.

Nevertheless, whether the law applied to anything more than death immediately after birth, like five... ten... fifteen years after birth, is subject to speculation.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me, to speculate that it could mean five years or more after... but I don't want to speculate.

Maybe @Hockeycowboy may have some information that can clarify.
I think I will ask others about it also.

PS.
In any case, Jehovah personally deals with cases in which he obviously sees more of the picture than we do.
(1 Kings 2:44) The king then said to Shimei: “You know in your heart all the injury that you did to David my father, and Jehovah will bring back that injury on your own head.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Where exactly in the bible does it state that God considers abortion to be murder? Below is the only bible verse I could find on the subject.
Exodus 21:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
“If people are fighting and 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, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

According to this, God clearly does NOT consider abortion to be murder, otherwise the individual who caused the woman to give birth prematurely would be charged with murder. Instead it's up to the prospective father to decide if he wants to ask the courts to fine the offender... if he doesn't then the offender gets off without any penalty whatsoever. This states that its up to the family to decide if the loss of the fetus was 'wrong' in any way... well, at least it says it's up the the prospective father, since the woman's opinion isn't even taken into account. How is it that so many Christians claim that their god is against abortion and considers it to be murder, when the bible states otherwise? Rather sad that so many Christians don't even know what their holy book says on the subject.

Abortion is only a High Crime in God's eyes when done for selfish reasons.
For example: just to get rid of an un-wanted child would be a High Crime in God's eyes.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The condition of the unborn doesn't matter. It's not a factor to consider.
What about the woman whose unborn did not have a brain ________________
What abut the raped 10-year old and the doctor said she was too small to continue pregnant ___________
What about the woman whose un-born fetus died inside of her and she did Not pass it __________
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What about the woman whose unborn did not have a brain ________________
What abut the raped 10-year old and the doctor said she was too small to continue pregnant ___________
What about the woman whose un-born fetus died inside of her and she did Not pass it __________
The verses do not consider those factors, since they dealt with the fact that the pregnant woman was carrying a life, which was affected by the accident caused by those men who were struggling?

Do you want to know Gods view on the questions you asked?
What about the woman whose unborn did not have a brain ________________
A brainless child is alive.
To murder - take the life of the unborn is still against God's law.

What abut the raped 10-year old and the doctor said she was too small to continue pregnant ___________
The doctor is not God.
They say a lot of things that are their opinion, and contrary to God.
They don't have the right to end life, because of what they think.
To murder - take the life of the unborn is still against God's law.

What about the woman whose un-born fetus died inside of her and she did Not pass it __________
A dead fetus?
Well it's dead. You can't kill something that's dead.
Why would you want to carry it around... for the parasites?

God deals with the murder or taking of life.
That doesn't apply here.

Are you no longer a Jehovah's Witness? Although that's none of my business, i ask out of concern.
Jehovah's Witnesses know the answers to these questions. Don't you?
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
The woman giving “birth prematurely“, is just that: a premature birth. And no harm occurred.

Why are you trying to equate a premature birth with death of a fetus?
Verse 23 talks about the death, and “life for life”.

I'll step in briefly if I may. Rabbis have spent centuries interpreting Torah, and I would suggest we should listen to them when we are deciding what the "Old Testament" means. According to them, these verses actually refer to monetary compensation for injury. The following link sets it out, but I have heard this from many sources, including a present day Rabbi.

An Eye For An Eye? - Reconstructing Judaism

I welcome input from any of our Jewish friends here.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
The verses do not consider those factors, since they dealt with the fact that the pregnant woman was carrying a life, which was affected by the accident caused by those men who were struggling?
Do you want to know Gods view on the questions you asked?
What about the woman whose unborn did not have a brain ________________
A brainless child is alive.
To murder - take the life of the unborn is still against God's law.
What abut the raped 10-year old and the doctor said she was too small to continue pregnant ___________
The doctor is not God.
They say a lot of things that are their opinion, and contrary to God.
They don't have the right to end life, because of what they think.
To murder - take the life of the unborn is still against God's law.
What about the woman whose un-born fetus died inside of her and she did Not pass it __________
A dead fetus?
Well it's dead. You can't kill something that's dead.
Why would you want to carry it around... for the parasites?
God deals with the murder or taking of life.
That doesn't apply here..................

Exactly, why was the woman be refused an abortion because the fetus is dead ____________
Yet she had to go out of her state to get an abortion.

Yes, the doctor is Not God and some things can be proven. Not speaking about opinion but proven facts.
If proven that the life of the small 10-year old was absolutely in jeopardy then deliberately let the 10-year old die.
So, to deliberately have the 10-yr. old die due to no fault of her own is OK, and Not murdering her ________
True, this is a very rare situation and all things need to be considered because both lives are involved.

The word abortion is Not the definition of murder. A brainless child can Not live on its own.

Under normal healthy circumstances the abortion doctor and mother act as Judge and Executioner.
They carry out the death penalty for the unborn for selfish reasons.
Abortion is a HIGH CRIME in God's eyes for: selfish reasons.
Abortion for selfish reasons is what is murder.

Where abortion is concerned it is Not always cut and dry, black and white, but one's conscience based on God's Word.
There is a different definition meaning in the words: killing, murder, abortion and execution.

Look how many parents sacrifice the lives of their sons on the Altar of War as it if is the Altar of God.
 
Top