yet another abortion thread...

[linwood]

The exodus 21 scripture would seem to fit the need here almost completely.

Considering I`m not one to discount Christian texts just because they were not canonized then the Apocalypse of Peter 25 Didache, and The Barnabus verses seem to directly state abortion is wrong.

Those are the strongest Biblical arguments i`ve seen against it.

Maybe those early Orthadox Bishops are kicking themselves right now over what they left out.

 

[linwood]

The language in the Hebrew, by the way, refers to the woman (described as pregnant) losing her child, and doesn't use a word for fruit at all.

Standing,
Do you have a link to an online Torah?
someone posted one here awhile back and I thought I kept it but I can`t find it now.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

No, I don't know of one (I just have the one I got when I turned 13). I could probably find one, though.

 

[linwood]

Thats ok .
I have one here, I`m just lazy and it`s sooo much easier to copy/paste from a site.
If you happen run across one though save it for me.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Here's one: http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp

Haven't looked at much of it, though.

 

[jewscout]

There is also writings from the era before the Canon of Scripture was defined, showing how early Christians felt about the subject:
The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

As you point out Scott these are commentaries given by early christians on the subject matter and i imagine most of these are catholic sources (though i could be wrong and if i am please feel free to correct me Scott) and i have no doubt that the pro-life crowd is made up of more than just catholics...again most pro-life advocates who ground their beliefs in the bible, the word of G-d, have to deal with the fact that the Laws handed down at Sinai makes the loss of an unborn child at the same level as the death of a cow, unless the woman dies as well...by what we have pointed out in exodus it appears abortion falls under the biblical realm of killing, not murder (i know not much of a difference but murder is proscribed the death penalty, not killing)

 

[jewscout]

To the Hebrew, then. The words used here (ason) seem to mean "no further damage or disaster," which I'd take to mean injury to the women. It's then followed with, "but if there is damage [to the woman], the punishment will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc" which backs that translation up. It also seems to imply, to me, that the child is not considered a life. The only time the punishment is one for murder, "a life for a life," is when it's the woman's life that's lost.

Frubals to you Standing you beat me to it...that's the commentary my Tanach gives...the word for mischief has to do w/ harm to the woman...
So saying no further mischief means no further harm done to the woman...

 

[anders]

I think that the Bible is very clear. A foetus is the property of the husband (Ex. 21), because he's the one who decides the price for his lost property.

Abortions are even prescribed by God, so how could a Christian protest? Num 5.11-31 very clearly states that a husband only has to be jealous to be compelled to force his pregnant wife to the temple to have the priest perform an abortion-cum-sterilization process.

 

[BUDDY]

Frubals to you Anders!!! I read this verse and it is indeed a very interesting one. I am not sure it means that an abortion took place though. I will need to analyze it a little bit before I have made up my mind, but excellent scriptural find.

 

[jewscout]

Excellent Anders! Sounds like an attempted abortion to me...

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Personally, I don't see an abortion here...the priest seems more to be cursing here with sterility if she's cheated on her husband than anything else.

 

[jewscout]

Personally, I don't see an abortion here...the priest seems more to be cursing here with sterility if she's cheated on her husband than anything else.

Could be the case Standing...
But it also sounds like alot of cases where some women will take poisonous materials to abort an unwanted fetus...

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Water and some dirt? I suppose...it's a little vague about what it's supposed to do, but the implication later on (if she's innocent, nothing will happen and she'll still be able to concieve) seems to be that if she's not innocent, she'll end up with this curse of infertility. There's no mention of a woman being pregnant here (it's just her husband suspecting her of something, without any other evidence), nor is there any mention of a child...I suppose you could look at it as an abortion, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.

 

[linwood]

I`m in agreement with Standing on the Numbers 5 scripture.

Thanks for the very cool Torah Standing.