For Christians who think God considers abortion to be murder

[nPeace]

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.

Removing a dead fetus from the womb, is the same as removing a dead co-joined twin.
Nobody killed nobody.

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.

It is not a proven fact at all.
Do you have those so called facts?

• 1) No 10 year old is the same. Girls mature differently. That is a proven fact.
• 2) The girl as well as the child may do quite well. No one can predict the outcome. That is a proven fact.
• 3) Doctors have been prophets about people living and dying if they do not do as prophet doctor says. They have proven to be wrong hundreds of times. False prophet doctors. That is a proven fact.

I'm quite surprised you don't know these facts.

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

Nor a brainless man, but that doesn't stop family members from keeping them alive, with the hope that something can be done.

I don't think I said the word abortion means murder. Did I ?
Murder is specific to deliberately taking a life without the proper authority, or right to do so.
Whom do you believe has that authority, or right? ____________________

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.

Who decides what a normal healthy condition is? ____________________
For example, say a child will be born weighing much less than a "normal" child, and the doctor encourages aborting the child, because according to him, it would not live.
Do you think he has that right? Is the mother justified in killing the baby? ______________________

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.

This I know you did not get from the jw.org website. Nor the Bible. So, where did you get it from?

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

That's not right, is it?

 

[nPeace]

Chapter and verse please.

I don't think I can find a law in the Bible that says, God hates us being entertained by Wrestling, Kick boxing, Boxing... and extreme sports, but I can find a principle ((Psalm 11:5) . . .Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one; He hates anyone who loves violence.)... Similar to principles that let us know God does not approve us watching porn.
Would the principle be good enough for you?

According to the Bible, there is no need to have a law stating everything God wants or does not want.
It just takes maturity, and using guiding principles.

(Hebrews 5:13-14) 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

(Romans 13:9-10) 9.For the law code, “You must not commit adultery, you must not murder, you must not steal, you must not covet,” and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

What the anti-abortion people will not admit is that the interpretation of this verse was changed some time after Roe v Wade. They will try to argue that if the "premature birth" ends up in death that that would require the death penalty. Older translations made more sense and used the world "miscarriage". In other words there was no doubt that the "baby" died. And yet it was only to be a financial fine, not a death penalty. The harm applied to the mother.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I discussed that with another user on here. See this post. You can read further, if it's not clear. I hope it's clear though.

And that was the error that I was just speaking of. You need to find an older Bible. If one can think rationally one can see that the older translation is far more likely to be correct.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

I get that many are anti-abortion, but then they vote against welfare, insurance covering birth control and sex ed in schools. If they really cared about reducing abortion, they would actually vote for things that would reduce it! You can't ban something without putting in something in place of it. Make the system kinder, then ban if they want to. At least that is a kinder thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get that many are anti-abortion, but then they vote against welfare, insurance covering birth control and sex ed in schools. If they really cared about reducing abortion, they would actually vote for things that would reduce it! You can't ban something without putting in something in place of it. Make the system kinder, then ban if they want to. At least that is a kinder thing to do.

Anti-abortion people hate Planned Parenthood, even though abortions are only a small part of the services that they offer. If they were truly against abortion they would support Planned Parenthood since it can be shown that abortion rates drop in areas where there is a Planned Parenthood facility. Planned Parenthood also offers sex education and even more importantly they offer free to low cost birth control. They would rather solve the problem by avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place. To me it appears that the anti-abortionists are really trying to control the sex lives of others.

 

[Sand Dancer]

To me it appears that the anti-abortionists are really trying to control the sex lives of others.

Maybe they don't have any of their own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe they don't have any of their own.

As to my earlier claim of the translation of Exodus 21 22-25 being changed sometime in the 1970's in most US printed Bible I will quote directly from my housemate's The New American Bible published by Catholic Publishers Inc. 1971:

"22 When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the the presence of the judges. 23 But if injury ensues you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound and stripe for stripe."

That appears to be extremely clear to me. It also makes more sense. In those days almost any early birth would be a death sentence. One makes laws for the norms and has clauses for exceptions later. With the translation that The anti-abortionists like it appears that they law is for the exception and the additional clauses are for the norm, That is backwards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since one may choose not to believe me this site shows that at least one edition changed their translation. The NASB of 1977 and 1995 are shown. In the earlier one it is a miscarriage, which means that the fetus or embryo would be dead, in the latter one it miraculously becomes a "premature birth":

Exodus 21:22 Parallel: 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.

One of the reasons that I bring this up is because the newer translations never rang true to me. I have an older Bible, somewhere in my house, that I grew up with. I am sure that it too did not say "premature birth".

Sadly as an atheist I know many Christians would not believe me and worse yet they are too afraid to look because I might be right. Oddly the antiabortion people will not discuss this verse one it has been shown to be changed.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

From the scriptures, we can see that responsibility for one's actions was not taken lightly.
For example, read Exodus 21:18-25

Really? So the guy in that passage beat someone up, so they could not get out of bed for two days, and then the attacker walks free of charge? And then if there is a slave, is it saying that if he dies after one or two days, then no action against the master is taken?

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.

Yeah I guess the master would just be annoyed that he got less production throughout the workday, until he got a new one? What?

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.

You can find news stories all over about people who died after getting into fist fights. And, not all sticks are the same, and not all rocks? What, was their idea of a stick, that all sticks are pretty weak sticks?

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.

Or than science probably could, two or three thousand years ago, without x-rays, or developed theories of development etc.

I'm not sure what the point was with you quoting me all these passages, but as I said earlier, if this is the context that the op passage is in, then that makes for less certainty about what it, itself, means. Because for each of those violations, I could not guess what they would then say the punishment should be - because in each case, it seemed like my own expectations are not at all accurate

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Taking those factors into consideration, we can apply the principle found in Numbers 35:22-25

Just as aside, I have to wonder what they'd think if you presented these people the idea of the car, and the things that can go wrong with operating it. I guess I can't really predict what they'd say, but there so many accidents, and reasons for those accidents, involving the sheer number of variables in everything car, that I do not think they could sum it up like they did here

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What did the 1st.-Century Christians think?
According to “The Story of Civilization”, by Will Durant…
Caesar and Christ

I mean, I couldn’t care less about what post-apostolic “christianity” taught; they began killing their spiritual brothers in Constantine the Great’s day, preferring to support the State even if it meant breaking Jesus’ command to ‘love their brothers’.

I’d think the first-century Christians would have the most accurate manuscripts, wouldn’t you? And I just posted their POV.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did the 1st.-Century Christians think?
According to “The Story of Civilization”, by Will Durant…
Caesar and Christ

I mean, I couldn’t care less about what post-apostolic “christianity” taught; they began killing their spiritual brothers in Constantine the Great’s day, preferring to support the State even if it meant breaking Jesus’ command to ‘love their brothers’.

I’d think the first-century Christians would have the most accurate manuscripts, wouldn’t you? And I just posted their POV.

It appears only to be Durant's opinion and we have no way of following his source from what you chose. I am fairly sure that the first century Christians were not monolithic in their beliefs.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Here is something from the last chapter of Job whose sadness is repaired by giving him wealth and ten children: [Job 42:12-16 NIV] At the beginning of the story his trial begins with the loss of his children, which makes him sad and wish he was never born; but this changes. At the end he is comforted with wealth and with ten children, to all of whom he is able to give inheritances. What a fortunate man he is at the end.

So kids are so valuable you can just switch them out like a dead goldfish.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So kids are so valuable you can just switch them out like a dead goldfish.

I don't think Job suggests that at all. Job, the character, is comforted by the loss of his children through new children; but Job is part of an epic poem and represents more than one person and is not making comments about the value of individual children.

Job's children represent those Jews who cause the whole lot to be dragged off to Babylon or to Assyria or to Egypt. The law abiding Jews and Levites intercede with them constantly, but they don't listen. That is what all of Job's sacrifices are about. I say this because in Jewish law there must be sacrifices in which everyone comes together, celebrates, keeps peace and renews commitment to follow the law. Job represents (or is) all the ones that are trying to keep everything working and keep everyone together. In spite of that all of them are dragged down together by the ones who won't do their part.

Think of Job as an epic 'Everyman' poem that comments about life as a small part of a big country that you have no control over. It deals with questions like "I'm doing everything I know to do, so why are terrible things happening to me?" Job represents all those who keep the Torah. His children are those who do not. His friends, the angels, the LORD and Satan are where that analogy ends. They are part of interludes and are hints about who Job is.

The point of Job seems to be you can be very good, very smart, very righteous; but if your neighbors aren't then trouble may come to you, anyway. The character, Job, is swept along with the rest of what happens in his country because of the actions of his 'Children'. In the poem these bad countrymen are tokenized as Job's own children, who he constantly tries to help and make up for. He invites them to his sacrifices and tries to make peace, but its not enough. They want to be lawless. In Jewish law it says that such people are wiped out, because while they have the Torah they ignore it; but what Job considers is that maybe they also drag others down with them. In the epic poem this is represented by interludes in which Satan asks the LORD to test Job's loyalty. The LORD does it and tests Job's loyalty, however if we go by the words in Deuteronomy the only possible cause of Job's troubles is: his nation not keeping Torah. The LORD says to Satan "Have you considered My Servant Job?" This is the same 'Servant' referred to by the prophets. Its an allusion to those in Israel who keep Torah and are compassionate and dutiful like Abigail.

Best guess: this story is treasured by the Levites and thus becomes part of the Canon for their sake. Perhaps it is a poetic play they enact for visitors. Job, the character, is being tested by the LORD. The 'Children' are interchangeable, but they are not a man's children. They are people who abandon the Torah are are therefore replaced. This theme is repeated in many other Jewish writings in the canon that I'm aware of.

So, I hear what you're saying; and I do not mean to imply nor do I think Job implies that children are replaceable. It fits into the continuum of Jewish literature in which children are very important but also one in which any group that becomes lawless brings trouble upon itself.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

Unless the father has a uterus, it’s a different issue.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

One would be hard pressed to find a doctor at all as there were none in that community. Just priests and incantations and such.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One would be hard pressed to find a doctor at all as there were none in that community. Just priests and incantations and such.

But you could find a priest that was willing to take on the task. As long as the decision was that of the husband and not that of the mother. Isn't it odd how even when the Bible appears to support women's rights it actually opposes them?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Jews are the exception not the rule.

The conquest of Canaan wasn’t done with hugs.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The conquest of Canaan wasn’t done with hugs.

Archeologically it didn't happen. What happened or what the archeologists are saying happened was the Canaanites, surrounded for centuries by raiders, came up with a system to survive, and their tribes united and became Israel. All of the digging and study isn't done, yet; but that is how it appears. Rather than the Canaanite conquest, the more interesting part of Genesis is probably the part about the covenant at Mamre, but I admit I am guessing about that.

The question remains of why it is described as a slaughter. I just think its some kind of reverse language or odd wording, but that is not how it reads.