Is Abortion Murder?

[columbus]

The holocaust and l,lynching were legal. So they were not murder? What were they then?

Killings.
People support those all time.
Take a look at the Trump supporters and their saber rattling.
Tom

 

[Scarecrow613]

Killings.
People support those all time.
Take a look at the Trump supporters and their saber rattling.
Tom

Sure and I don't dispute the saber rattling, but killing is very broad. Self defense is killing but can be justified. What do you call unjustified killing that is legal?

 

[columbus]

What do you call unjustified killing that is legal?

I don't think that there's a specific word for that.
Tom

 

[Scarecrow613]

I don't think that there's a specific word for that.
Tom

Well until I see such a word murder should suffice as the legal term is homicide.

 

[columbus]

Well until I see such a word murder should suffice as the legal term is homicide.

Homicide is definitely better.
But without a qualifier it's still extremely vague. But at least there are some recognized qualifiers, like justified and involuntary and premeditated.
Murder doesn't have that.
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure and I don't dispute the saber rattling, but killing is very broad. Self defense is killing but can be justified. What do you call unjustified killing that is legal?

I'd first ask how you (or I, or anyone) is to decide whether it is "unjustified."

Look, as I stated earlier, murder is a legal definition. Lynching, in the United States, since you asked, was defined as "extrajudicial killing." The holocaust, which you also asked about, was actually judicial, since the courts were indeed involved, and followed the laws under which they operated at the time. In the US, by the way, no law specifically defining lynching as murder was passed (believe it or not) until December 19, 2018! Prior to that, it is not that lynching was actually "legal," but it was "tolerated by the law" since the law couldn't find a way to decide who was guilty in a case involving a large mob.

For those of us who believe these things are wrong, by the way, then all those involved committed those wrongs together, and are equally culpable, in our view. This is view held by the tribunals at Nuremberg after WWII. It is also, as I understand it, the view held by some religions -- but I must say not by all: it cannot be doubted that some US churches were perfectly happy to absolve their white parishioners of stringing up an accused (and likely innocent) black rapist.

Even if you try to use the Bible, you run up against a problem, since the commandment says "thou shalt commit no murder," but remains silent on the exact definition of murder. Therefore, it was not murder to stone your daughter to death because of an indiscretion with the handsome boy next door. There are a few of us who would strenuously disagree. I imagine the daughters did, too.

 

[Skwim]

The holocaust and l,lynching were legal. So they were not murder? What were they then?

Want to try again?

 

[Scarecrow613]

Want to try again?

Why would I need to try again? You haven't addressed the issue. Unless you mean to say that the holocausts were illegal (they weren't).

 

[Scarecrow613]

I'd first ask how you (or I, or anyone) is to decide whether it is "unjustified."

Look, as I stated earlier, murder is a legal definition. Lynching, in the United States, since you asked, was defined as "extrajudicial killing." The holocaust, which you also asked about, was actually judicial, since the courts were indeed involved, and followed the laws under which they operated at the time. In the US, by the way, no law specifically defining lynching as murder was passed (believe it or not) until December 19, 2018! Prior to that, it is not that lynching was actually "legal," but it was "tolerated by the law" since the law couldn't find a way to decide who was guilty in a case involving a large mob.

For those of us who believe these things are wrong, by the way, then all those involved committed those wrongs together, and are equally culpable, in our view. This is view held by the tribunals at Nuremberg after WWII. It is also, as I understand it, the view held by some religions -- but I must say not by all: it cannot be doubted that some US churches were perfectly happy to absolve their white parishioners of stringing up an accused (and likely innocent) black rapist.

Even if you try to use the Bible, you run up against a problem, since the commandment says "thou shalt commit no murder," but remains silent on the exact definition of murder. Therefore, it was not murder to stone your daughter to death because of an indiscretion with the handsome boy next door. There are a few of us who would strenuously disagree. I imagine the daughters did, too.

Generally we can determine murder by the harm caused someone else/. In the case of self defense there can be some gray area as you run into the issue of if the amount of force used was justified. Legal by way of the law not doing anything about it (as you describe in lynching) is still legal. The question remains though, what she we call such actions if not murder?

 

[columbus]

The question remains though, what she we call such actions if not murder?

I avoid the word murder in this context because using it is counterproductive.

It hasn't really got a clear, objective, meaning. Murder nearly always means "homicide that I disapprove of". Which varies a good deal from individual to individual.
Personally, I'm a pretty hard core Prolifer. My Prolifer beliefs go far beyond just feticide. I oppose preemptive war, capital punishment, environmental degradation, and a range of other Prodeath policies that many, many, self described Prolifers support.

Murder is a word that's mostly about the emotive baggage. Little about objective meaning. So, I avoid it.
Tom

P.s. Here's an example.
I oppose murdering criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes, unless they are capable of continuing to do damage while in prison. Not many criminals can do that, a few drug lords and terrorist leaders and such but not many.
If I used the word murder to refer to the execution of a child rapist who killed his victims to shut them up, would we both be using the word to mean the same thing?
I don't know you well enough to guess.

 

[Scarecrow613]

I avoid the word murder in this context because using it is counterproductive.

It hasn't really got a clear, objective, meaning. Murder nearly always means "homicide that I disapprove of". Which varies a good deal from individual to individual.
Personally, I'm a pretty hard core Prolifer. My Prolifer beliefs go far beyond just feticide. I oppose preemptive war, capital punishment, environmental degradation, and a range of other Prodeath policies that many, many, self described Prolifers support.

Murder is a word that's mostly about the emotive baggage. Little about objective meaning. So, I avoid it.
Tom

P.s. Here's an example.
I oppose murdering criminals, no matter how heinous their crimes, unless they are capable of continuing to do damage while in prison. Not many criminals can do that, a few drug lords and terrorist leaders and such but not many.
If I used the word murder to refer to the execution of a child rapist who killed his victims to shut them up, would we both be using the word to mean the same thing?
I don't know you well enough to guess.

Here we can agree, I think. I am quite sympathetic to the Consistent life ethic and find too many pro-lifers are too eager to brush off other forms of killings. Capital Punishment is an interesting one for me as I can see how it could be argued to be a legitimate punishment, yet I oppose it for pragmatic reasons, there are far too many innocent people executed. As for war, yea, I only would support it if it was to defend you homeland or familywhich is quite rare at least in our time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The holocaust and l,lynching were legal. So they were not murder? What were they then?

Actually lynchings were against the law, it's just that the law wasn't enforced in many of those cases.

 

[Mitty]

It depends on your worldview and whether that worldview is shared by legislators.

From the Christian perspective, I believe that the termination of a viable life is murder.

So why does the bible command the abortions of adulteresses, including all remarried divorcees (Numbers 5:20-28 Leviticus 20:10 Mark 10:11-12)?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So why does the bible command the abortions of adulteresses, including all remarried divorcees (Numbers 5:20-28 Leviticus 20:10 Mark 10:11-12)?

"Abortions"? Did you read those passages? Abortions aren't mentioned. Rather, it commands the deaths of both adulterers and adulteresses.

(Pretty serious, eh? So I wouldn't do it.)

 

[Mitty]

"Abortions"? Did you read those passages? Abortions aren't mentioned. Rather, it commands the deaths of both adulterers and adulteresses.

(Pretty serious, eh? So I wouldn't do it.)

Have you ever read it?
Clearly the commandment in Numbers 5:20-28 describes the abortions of adulteresses because of the property rights of men to ensure legitimate lines of inheritance and descent.
And what is the fate of a pregnancy if an adulteress is stoned to death anyway?
And afterall the bible also commands genocide, including the butchering of children and the unborn (Deut 7:16) as described in Deut 2:34 7:2 Josh 6:21 8:26 10:37.

Numbers 5:20-28 Common English Bible
20 But if you have had an affair while married to your husband, if you have defiled yourself, and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you”— 21 then the priest must make the woman utter the curse and say to the woman, “May the Lord make you a curse and a harmful pledge among your people, when the Lord induces a miscarriage and your womb discharges. 22 And may the water that brings these curses enter your stomach and make your womb discharge and make you miscarry.”

And the woman will say, “I agree, I agree.”

23 The priest will write these curses in the scroll and wipe them off into the water of bitterness. 24 Then he will make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse. And the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness. 25 The priest will take the grain offering for jealousy from the woman’s hands, elevate the grain offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest will take a handful of the grain offering as a token part of it and turn it into smoke on the altar. And afterward he will make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, then the water that brings the curse will enter her, causing bitterness, and her womb will discharge and she will miscarry. The woman will be a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman hasn’t defiled herself and she is pure, then she will be immune and able to conceive.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First of all, why do you not mention your other two Scriptures?

Because they don't mention abortion, do they?

As far as the first -- Numbers 5:20-28 -- the account is referring to unfaithfulness ( not pregnancy), and the resulting consequences. Death.

Other translations are helpful in understanding the account. (Using many translations, and not limiting ourselves to one, is almost always more beneficial.)

Numbers 5:21 and the priest shall have the woman swear under the oath of the curse--'then may the LORD make you an attested curse among your people by making your thigh shrivel and your belly swell.

Take care.

 

[Mitty]

First of all, why do you not mention your other two Scriptures?

Because they don't mention abortion, do they?

As far as the first -- Numbers 5:20-28 -- the account is referring to unfaithfulness ( not pregnancy), and the resulting consequences. Death.

Other translations are helpful in understanding the account. (Using many translations, and not limiting ourselves to one, is almost always more beneficial.)

Numbers 5:21 and the priest shall have the woman swear under the oath of the curse--'then may the LORD make you an attested curse among your people by making your thigh shrivel and your belly swell.

Take care.

None of that changes the fact that Numbers 5:20-28 obviously commands the abortions of adulteresses, including all remarried divorcees (Mark 10:11-12).
If you actually believe that that commandment was just about sore thighs and stomach aches then why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so be it"?
Nor does it change the fact that Deut 7:16 commands genocide, including the butchering of children and the unborn.

Numbers 5:20-28 Easy-to-Read Version

20 But if you have sinned against your husband—if you had sexual relations with a man who is not your husband—then you are not pure. 21 If that is true, you will have much trouble when you drink this special water. You will not be able to have any children. And if you are pregnant now, your baby will die. And the Lord will cause your people to speak evil of you and curse you.’

“Then the priest must tell the woman to make an oath. She must agree for the Lord to cause these things to happen to her if she lies. 22 The priest must say, ‘You must drink this water that causes trouble. If you have sinned, you will not be able to have children. Any baby you have will die before it is born.’ And the woman should say, ‘I agree to do as you say.’

23 “The priest should write these warnings on a scroll. Then he should wash the words off into the water. 24 Then the woman must drink the water that brings trouble. This water will enter her and, if she is guilty, it will cause her much suffering.

25 “Then the priest will take the grain offering from her (the offering for jealousy) and raise it before the Lord. Then he will carry it to the altar. 26 The priest will fill his hands with some of the grain and put it on the altar and let it burn there. After that he will tell the woman to drink the water. 27 If the woman has sinned against her husband, the water will bring her trouble. The water will go into her body and cause her much suffering. Any baby that is in her will die before it is born, and she will never be able to have children. All the people will turn against her. 28 But if the woman has not sinned against her husband and she is pure, the priest will say that she is not guilty. Then she will be normal and able to have children.

 

[Deeje]

Numbers 5:20-28 Easy-to-Read Version

20 But if you have sinned against your husband—if you had sexual relations with a man who is not your husband—then you are not pure. 21 If that is true, you will have much trouble when you drink this special water. You will not be able to have any children. And if you are pregnant now, your baby will die. And the Lord will cause your people to speak evil of you and curse you.’

“Then the priest must tell the woman to make an oath. She must agree for the Lord to cause these things to happen to her if she lies. 22 The priest must say, ‘You must drink this water that causes trouble. If you have sinned, you will not be able to have children. Any baby you have will die before it is born.’ And the woman should say, ‘I agree to do as you say.’

23 “The priest should write these warnings on a scroll. Then he should wash the words off into the water. 24 Then the woman must drink the water that brings trouble. This water will enter her and, if she is guilty, it will cause her much suffering.

25 “Then the priest will take the grain offering from her (the offering for jealousy) and raise it before the Lord. Then he will carry it to the altar. 26 The priest will fill his hands with some of the grain and put it on the altar and let it burn there. After that he will tell the woman to drink the water. 27 If the woman has sinned against her husband, the water will bring her trouble. The water will go into her body and cause her much suffering. Any baby that is in her will die before it is born, and she will never be able to have children. All the people will turn against her. 28 But if the woman has not sinned against her husband and she is pure, the priest will say that she is not guilty. Then she will be normal and able to have children.

That is a terrible translation! It adds to what is written, things that are simply not there. I see no mention of an abortion.....only that the woman was accused of adultery and if proven guilty would be unable to conceive children in the future....

Here it is from the NASB...
"20 But if you have gone astray to another instead of your husband, and if you are defiled, and a man besides your husband has lain with you”— 21 then the priest will charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest will say to the woman, “The Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell. 22 And this water that causes the curse will go into your bowels, to make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

And the woman will say, “Amen, amen.”


23 The priest will write these curses in a book, and he will wash them out with the bitter water. 24 And he will cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causes the curse. And the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter. 25 Then the priest will take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and will wave the offering before the Lord and offer it on the altar. 26 And the priest will take a handful of the offering, the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward will cause the woman to drink the water. 27 When he has made her to drink the water, then it will be that, if she is defiled and has acted treacherously against her husband, the water that causes the curse will enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will rot, and the woman will be a curse among her people. 28 If the woman is not defiled, but is clean, then she will be free and will conceive offspring."

Another thing you fail to mention is that this was a test of fidelity in which God himself would act as arbiter. The drinking of the bitter water would not affect an innocent woman, and her fertility would not be affected.....but it would cause a guilty one to lose her ability to have children since she did not respect God's arrangement for marriage. That would have been a curse in Israel.

 

[Mitty]

That is a terrible translation! It adds to what is written, things that are simply not there. I see no mention of an abortion.....only that the woman was accused of adultery and if proven guilty would be unable to conceive children in the future....

Here it is from the NASB...
"20 But if you have gone astray to another instead of your husband, and if you are defiled, and a man besides your husband has lain with you”— 21 then the priest will charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest will say to the woman, “The Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh rot and your belly swell. 22 And this water that causes the curse will go into your bowels, to make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”

And the woman will say, “Amen, amen.”


23 The priest will write these curses in a book, and he will wash them out with the bitter water. 24 And he will cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causes the curse. And the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter. 25 Then the priest will take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and will wave the offering before the Lord and offer it on the altar. 26 And the priest will take a handful of the offering, the memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward will cause the woman to drink the water. 27 When he has made her to drink the water, then it will be that, if she is defiled and has acted treacherously against her husband, the water that causes the curse will enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will rot, and the woman will be a curse among her people. 28 If the woman is not defiled, but is clean, then she will be free and will conceive offspring."

Another thing you fail to mention is that this was a test of fidelity in which God himself would act as arbiter. The drinking of the bitter water would not affect an innocent woman, and her fertility would not be affected.....but it would cause a guilty one to lose her ability to have children since she did not respect God's arrangement for marriage. That would have been a curse in Israel.

In other words Numbers 5:20-28 obviously commands the abortion of adulteresses because of the property rights of men to ensure legitimate lines of inheritance and descent.

And if you actually believe that commandment was about upset stomachs and sore thighs then why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so bet it" too?

Or don't you believe that adulteresses (including all remarried divorcees) ever become pregnant?

1. Numbers 5:20-28 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband"- 21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse-"may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." "'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23"'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
   
   New International Version , Copyright 2011-2019 Biblica
   Was this helpful?

 

[Deeje]

In other words Numbers 5:20-28 obviously commands the abortion of adulteresses because of the property rights of men to ensure legitimate lines of inheritance and descent.

And if you actually believe that commandment was about upset stomachs and sore thighs then why weren't male adulterers also commanded to drink a "bitter water" abortifacient and say "so be it, so bet it" too?

Or don't you believe that adulteresses (including all remarried divorcees) ever become pregnant?

1. Numbers 5:20-28 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband"- 21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse-"may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." "'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23"'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
   
   New International Version , Copyright 2011-2019 Biblica
   Was this helpful?

How about we take it from the Jewish Tanakh since it is from the Hebrew scriptures....
V 21-22....
"21The kohen shall now adjure the woman with the oath of the curse, and the kohen shall say to the woman, "May the Lord make you for a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord causes your thigh to rupture and your belly to swell. כאוְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶת־הָֽאִשָּׁה֘ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָֽאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהוָֹ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהוָֹ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה:

22For these curse bearing waters shall enter your innards, causing the belly to swell and the thigh to rupture," and the woman shall say, "Amen, amen." כבוּבָ֠אוּ הַמַּ֨יִם הַֽמְאָֽרְרִ֤ים הָאֵ֨לֶּה֙ בְּמֵעַ֔יִךְ לַצְבּ֥וֹת בֶּ֖טֶן וְלַנְפִּ֣ל יָרֵ֑ךְ וְאָֽמְרָ֥ה הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אָמֵ֥ן | אָמֵֽן:"

V 27...
"He shall make her drink the water, and it shall be that, if she had been defiled and was unfaithful to her husband, the curse bearing waters shall enter her to become bitter, and her belly will swell, and her thigh will rupture. The woman will be a curse among her people. כזוְהִשְׁקָ֣הּ אֶת־הַמַּ֗יִם וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה אִם־נִטְמְאָה֘ וַתִּמְעֹ֣ל מַ֣עַל בְּאִישָׁהּ֒ וּבָ֨אוּ בָ֜הּ הַמַּ֤יִם הַֽמְאָֽרְרִים֙ לְמָרִ֔ים וְצָֽבְתָ֣ה בִטְנָ֔הּ וְנָֽפְלָ֖ה יְרֵכָ֑הּ וְהָֽיְתָ֧ה הָֽאִשָּׁ֛ה לְאָלָ֖ה בְּקֶ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ:"


This was a test of fidelity....there is no mention of pregnancy here either. But if she was pregnant, since it is a child of adultery, the penalty was that she would be unable to have children. In any case, adultery was the subject of the test, not pregnancy.