NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not talking just about 'Do not murder.' Either side (pro-/anti- choice/life whatever) could interpert that commandment either way. Is there biblical instructions that abortion is immoral?

Yes, I'm familiar with Psalm 139. But it doesn't seem to say much about abortion, (maybe it's just me) just that 'God is involved in the creation of human life.'

I know this will turn into a flamewar very quickly, but I want to get some kind of answer, please.

I don't think there are any specific passages, since abortion is a pretty recent phenomena (at least intentional abortion is).

I don't think there are any specific passages, since abortion is a pretty recent phenomena (at least intentional abortion is).

Well, the bible usually has something to say on just about everything. It is an enormous book.

But seriously, there are passages like Exodus 21:22-25 that seem to imply that abortion isn't a serious crime if it even is a crime. Are there any from the other side at all?

Well, the bible usually has something to say on just about everything. It is an enormous book.

But seriously, there are passages like Exodus 21:22-25 that seem to imply that abortion isn't a serious crime if it even is a crime. Are there any from the other side at all?

That passage covers violence induced miscarriage... not really abortion.

That passage covers violence induced miscarriage... not really abortion.

And yet ... it is resolved by an indeterminite fine, not an eye for an eye. Seems more like destruction of property or theft than murder, see?

Miscarriage was VERY common back then, even after birth the child mortality rate was high.

There is one where god tells people to go out and cut out the unborn fetus of some other people, or something, for some reason. Good stuff, I'll see if I can find it. (<---not Mr. Religion).

Is there biblical instructions that abortion is immoral?


Nope.

As a matter of fact, you can even find instructions on how to perform a safe abortion in the Talmud. Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been, murder. It is only considered murder by people who are still mad that women got the vote.

There is one where god tells people to go out and cut out the unborn fetus of some other people, or something, for some reason. Good stuff, I'll see if I can find it. (<---not Mr. Religion).

That was just a rubber stamp of approval for genocide, not abortion.

That was just a rubber stamp of approval for genocide, not abortion.

Obviously though, god can have no qualms about abortion qua abortion after saying that though, can he?

(Though I wouldn't know. I never really understand the bible, even when people explain it. It always means fifty different things at once for no apparent reason, then someone starts babbling about context, or what the original "booga-booga" meant. I suspect that all monotheistic scripture is, in fact, just a big shitty stick which believers use to hit each other on the head with; nothing more. :mad: ).

Nope.

As a matter of fact, you can even find instructions on how to perform a safe abortion in the Talmud. Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been, murder. It is only considered murder by people who are still mad that women got the vote.
Even pro-life women who vote?

I don't think there are any specific passages, since abortion is a pretty recent phenomena (at least intentional abortion is).
That's not true. Women aborting babies is recorded in early cultures like Egypt with various kinds of poisen or straight out force to the stomach are used.

The Christian Bible makes no specific mention of abortion. It does however mention methods of contraception. So it's open to whether as a Christian you believe in the Bible or feel you're smarter then God...

I suspect that all monotheistic scripture is, in fact, just a big shitty stick which believers use to hit each other on the head with; nothing more. :mad: ).

:) Yes, 'cause polytheistic scripture is much more useful. At least you get several opinions on one subject (along with the usual 6 thousand million interpretations for each.)

BTW, I'm a dogmatic atheist.
After all, it's the only kind of atheism there can be :P

:) Yes, 'cause polytheistic scripture is much more useful. At least you get several opinions on one subject (along with the usual 6 thousand million interpretations for each.)

BTW, I'm a dogmatic atheist.
After all, it's the only kind of atheism there can be :P

Yes, I am sure it is as equally bothersome, I just never see it being used as a shitty stick. (not saying it isn't, just I don't see it).

I'm not talking just about 'Do not murder.' Either side (pro-/anti- choice/life whatever) could interpert that commandment either way. Is there biblical instructions that abortion is immoral?

Yes, I'm familiar with Psalm 139. But it doesn't seem to say much about abortion, (maybe it's just me) just that 'God is involved in the creation of human life.'

I know this will turn into a flamewar very quickly, but I want to get some kind of answer, please.

For a Christian, Abortion is a transgression: The earliest Christian documents put the practice quite bluntly.

Encyclopædia Britannica: Didache
The Didache, also called Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles, the oldest surviving Christian church order, probably written in Egypt or Syria in the 2nd century. In 16 short chapters it deals with morals and ethics, church practice, and the eschatological hope (of the Second Coming of Christ at the end of time) and presents a general program for instruction and initiation into the primitive church.
Didache Chapter 2. (translation from Greek to English by Roberts Donaldson)
. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty*, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

(*child molestation or sodomy)

I think if there was one specific passage in the bible condemning abortion, we would have heard about it by now by fanatical pro-lifers. After all, the two passages that seem to condemn homosexual behaviour have been thrown around for ages by fanatic and intolerant Christians.

As a matter of fact, abortion is NOT a recent phenomenon at all. If it was, the Romans wouldn't have had a law against it (a much-disputed law, as it were).

I found one page showing some rather feeble attempts of justifying the idea that abortion is sin by using the bible:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/abortion.html
They're not doing a very good job, though, I think.

I'm not talking just about 'Do not steal.' Either side (pro-/anti- theft/drivng whatever) could interpert that commandment either way. Is there biblical instructions that auto theft is immoral?

Yes, I'm familiar with Exodus 22. But it doesn't seem to say much about auto theft, (maybe it's just me) just that 'God doesn't want you to steal animals.'

I know this will turn into a flamewar very quickly, but I want to get some kind of answer, please.

Yes, but that's not the bible is it?

You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty.

Other than perjury, I don't think that there are any laws against any of these things, unless you define rapacious literally to mean rape.

Therefore, in order to not be hypocritical (forbidden) christians would have to attempt to de-legalize the whole litany of offenses here and not just abortion. Hell, institution of this would eliminate the profession of politician completely, therefore making it impossible to pass laws de-legalizing abortion. Therefore the whole house of cards collapses under it's own weight.

no, but there is one that implies god will strike you dead for using birth control.

no, but there is one that implies god will strike you dead for using birth control.

*lol

As far as I know, that particular sin is derived from an old man's interpretation of "be fruitful and multiply". There's no punishment mentioned whatsoever ;)

... you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born...
I assume this Diadache is written in ancient Greek?
Is there an ancient Greek word for "abortion", or is this just something that kinda fit the text and very much fits the intentions of the modern interpreter?

The answer is very simple:

No the Bible doesn't mention abortion. Nor does it mention cars, guns, or radioactive material.

Times change, and if laws are going to work for the ages, they aren't going to be specific (for the Americans, a la the Constitution).


The nexus for condeming abortion is quite easily made though. Murder (intentional killing of a person) is explicitly forbidden, and the Bible also says in Jeremiah 1:5 (and a few other places) that God knows us before we are formed in the womb.

Therefore you skirt the oft-heard argument of "when is a fetus a person" and so on, b/c if God knows you already, then your physical classification really isn't relevant. You have significance to God, and God makes no distinction of that state as different than that of a born person. Therefore abortion is murder.

Therefore you skirt the oft-heard argument of "when is a fetus a person" and so on, b/c if God knows you already, then your physical classification really isn't relevant. You have significance to God, and God makes no distinction of that state as different than that of a born person. Therefore abortion is murder.

Trouble is ... when God mentions "knowing you in the womb", he's speaking to a Prophet, not a normal human. Huge difference.

Even pro-life women who vote?

God hates them most of all. :D

Kidding aside: Staunch conservatives not only mistrust, but desparately hate women. They don't trust them to make choices for their own bodies, they want to put women in a burka and hide them under the iron fist of their husband, and they refuse to let them teach, much less preach, in their churches.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

Nope.

As a matter of fact, you can even find instructions on how to perform a safe abortion in the Talmud. Abortion is not now, nor has it ever been, murder. It is only considered murder by people who are still mad that women got the vote.
Interesting... That'll make for some interesting dinner conversations when that awkward silence sets in!

Interesting... That'll make for some interesting dinner conversations when that awkward silence sets in!

You'd be surprised! Between abortion and the merits of dog feces, there are no better conversations to bring halt to a nice dinner.

Trouble is ... when God mentions "knowing you in the womb", he's speaking to a Prophet, not a normal human. Huge difference.

Also, God is all knowing, therefore he knows everyone even before they are concieved. He knows every ovum that a woman produces. He knows every sperm. When you're 12 and you have a wet dream about your older sister's hot friend whose shirt you got an accidental peek down, you're going to hell for ever and ever for killing millions of potential humans. God only loves asexual people.

God only loves asexual people.

God's in for a sad and alarming disappointment. Little did God know we would actually take "be fruitful and multiply" seriously.

God: Well that was fun. I think I'll step out for a soda.
<returns a few millenia later>
God: Holy shit! There are 6 billion of them!

God's in for a sad and alarming disappointment. Little did God know we would actually take "be fruitful and multiply" seriously.

God: Well that was fun. I think I'll step out for a soda.
<returns a few millenia later>
God: Holy shit! There are 6 billion of them!

Damn, and all this time I thought "be fruitful and multiply" meant I should be a gay mathemetician. For a long time, I thought I was a sinner for being attracted to the opposite sex, and that marriage was the eventual punishment for that sin. Which makes the "no gay marriage" rule make sense. Why punish those who aren't sinning?

Man, that Bible thing keeps throwing me curveballs.

Trouble is ... when God mentions "knowing you in the womb", he's speaking to a Prophet, not a normal human. Huge difference.


Note my reference to "Other places."

Isaiah 44:2 "This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb"

"he" being God. It's in a bunch of different places speaking to all people, not just prophets.

Man, that Bible thing keeps throwing me curveballs.

It's ok ... we have people like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, Marshall Applewhite, Bibleman, and many others to make sure we understand its message implicitly and without question.

Note my reference to "Other places."

Isaiah 44:2 "This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb"

"he" being God. It's in a bunch of different places speaking to all people, not just prophets.


Again ... speaking to Isaiah ... not only a pot smoking hippie, but a Prophet.

Doesn't matter, though .... Isaiah 44:2 is talking about Jacob ... not you and me.

Isaiah 44: But hear now, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen! Thus saith the Lord, your Maker, your Creator who has helped you since birth*: fear not, my servant Jacob, Jeshurun whom I have chosen ... etc etc

*note: since birth! Nothing about the womb. *coff* Learn Hebrew ... now!

If you know Hebrew, feel free to translate. I don't have an inherent distrust in the translations, since I've heard their histories for years and know they're accurate. Further, as many of the original documents are in Greek as Hebrew, if not more. Checking individual wording is worthwhile, yes, but you're missing the greater point anyway.


Once again, there are other places. I avoided this one since the original poster asked for other references, but Psalm 139 says it point blank:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb..." (v. 13)
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made..." (v. 15) "...your eyes saw my unformed body." (v. 16)

If you know Hebrew, feel free to translate. I don't have an inherent distrust in the translations, since I've heard their histories for years and know they're accurate. Further, as many of the original documents are in Greek as Hebrew, if not more. Checking individual wording is worthwhile, yes, but you're missing the greater point anyway.


Once again, there are other places. I avoided this one since the original poster asked for other references, but Psalm 139 says it point blank:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb..." (v. 13)
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made..." (v. 15) "...your eyes saw my unformed body." (v. 16)

What exactly does the fact that god created your body in the womb have to do with the question whether or not abortion is a sin?
According to the bible, god created all life and creates every single creature, yet it is no sin to kill a chicken or a cow.
When in the womb, the human being, as pointed out so aptly by the psalm you quoted, is in the making, not finished yet, and as such, no human being yet. Destroying something that's not human is no sin according to the bible, is it?

You didn't read my previous posts, did you? B/c I addressed that already.

Please! Stop listening to the bible! Start listening to YOURSELF! Think for YOURSELF! Do YOU think it's wrong to abort?

If you know Hebrew, feel free to translate.

Wow ... ok ... this is tough. I do know Hebrew ... well ... Torah Hebrew ... I didn't get by well in Israel when I visited, but I understand the Hebrew of Tanakh.

First of all, and big clue: Ignore the Psalms. They're poetry. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not canonical ideaology. They're art. They're nice, don't get me wrong, but don't think of them as pure scripture. They were written, primarily, by King David, who was a rampant homosexual and a murderer - which is why he didn't get to build the temple.

You'll find that very few of the original documents are in Greek. Luke, the apostle, was Greek, but even he wrote in the Aramaic dialect of the day. At the time, most of the Greeks spoke the Roman language and much of their literature was written in the Roman language, so it cannot be a valid Biblical argument to bring up the Greek language.

Wow ... ok ... this is tough. I do know Hebrew ... well ... Torah Hebrew ... I didn't get by well in Israel when I visited, but I understand the Hebrew of Tanakh.

First of all, and big clue: Ignore the Psalms. They're poetry. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not canonical ideaology. They're art. They're nice, don't get me wrong, but don't think of them as pure scripture. They were written, primarily, by King David, who was a rampant homosexual and a murderer - which is why he didn't get to build the temple.

You'll find that very few of the original documents are in Greek. Luke, the apostle, was Greek, but even he wrote in the Aramaic dialect of the day. At the time, most of the Greeks spoke the Roman language and much of their literature was written in the Roman language, so it cannot be a valid Biblical argument to bring up the Greek language.


I guess he was referring to Paul and John. Both were writing in Greek, if I remember correctly.

If that's addressed to me, yes, totally, in all cases, save extreme and rare circumstances (such as threat to the mother's life). But let's not get into hypothetical, off the wall situations that the world's best philosophers struggle with; let's stick with the usual, basic deal.

You didn't read my previous posts, did you? B/c I addressed that already.

So far, you've been going on about the fact that god MADE us. At no point you stated when the product is finished...

I guess he was referring to Paul and John. Both were writing in Greek, if I remember correctly.

Aye ... perhaps ... but Paul and John don't count. Yes, Paul wrote a few things in Greek because nearly 100 years after Jesus's fabled death, Paul wrote many letters to Greek churches. On many levels, Paul contradicted Jesus's reported teachings in order to make them more palatable to the Greeks of the day.

Unfortunately, there are 3-4 different fabled "John"s, so we will never know who's who and what's what.

Keruvalia, if you're attempting to side track the real point of this thread with useless side arguments, I'm not going there. I'm not an expert on the original manuscripts of the Bible, and I'll step out and say you're not either.

If you disagree with the SEVERAL passages I've listed, prima facie, then just say so. If you actually believe there is ambiguity as to their meaning, then state that and move on, b/c I can't prove that for you.

Aye ... perhaps ... but Paul and John don't count. Yes, Paul wrote a few things in Greek because nearly 100 years after Jesus's fabled death, Paul wrote many letters to Greek churches.

Unfortunately, there are 3-4 different fabled "John"s, so we will never know who's who and what's what.

Also, I don't think either of them ever wrote anything that could be interpreted as referring to abortion...

If that's addressed to me, yes, totally, in all cases, save extreme and rare circumstances (such as threat to the mother's life). But let's not get into hypothetical, off the wall situations that the world's best philosophers struggle with; let's stick with the usual, basic deal.

Ok ... then that's simple. In the case of a Prophet, a true voice of God, then abortion isn't an option simply because it would not be possible. God appoints Prophets while they're still sperm in the testicle.

Hence, in that case, even the man would not be able to releive himself into an old sock.

However, to hold out delusions that your sperm or your girlfriend or wife's ovum could produce a Prophet is, at its finer base, insanity. If you're going to produce a Prophet, you won't know it. It's not for you to know.

Keruvalia, if you're attempting to side track the real point of this thread with useless side arguments, I'm not going there. I'm not an expert on the original manuscripts of the Bible, and I'll step out and say you're not either.

My years of Yeshiva, my training to become a Bar Mitzvah, and my further education as a devout Jewish man disagrees with you ... but okie dokie. I'll bite and drop it.

So far, you've been going on about the fact that god MADE us. At no point you stated when the product is finished...

At no point did I ever, or anyone else, thus far, argue that there was a difference.

If God is all knowing, then he knows us before we are made, as the scriptures I listed state (whether you take them to say that or not is your own contention). I stated, specifically already, that the PHYSICAL form is irrelevant. Perhaps you missed that. That said, I don't believe there's any change in the spiritual form of the being from creation to birth to death, so there isn't any "finishing" to be had; when it is, it is.

At no point did I ever, or anyone else, thus far, argue that there was a difference.

If God is all knowing, then he knows us before we are made, as the scriptures I listed state (whether you take them to say that or not is your own contention). I stated, specifically already, that the PHYSICAL form is irrelevant. Perhaps you missed that. That said, I don't believe there's any change in the spiritual form of the being from creation to birth to death, so there isn't any "finishing" to be had; when it is, it is.

So, you actually believe that every fertilised egg is a human being, in a spiritual way? Is that it?

The fact that god knows how his product will turn out can include the fact that he knows it will be aborted, anyway. If he is omniscient, he does know.
The fact that god knows is not a statement on whether something is a sin or not.

The fact that god knows how his product will turn out can include the fact that he knows it will be aborted, anyway. If he is omniscient, he does know.
The fact that god knows is not a statement on whether something is a sin or not.


If you use that sort of logic, then you're quickly down the road that "I can sin as much/however I want b/c it's already known and forgiven."

God gave us free will. Your same logic would suggest that shooting someone would not be wrong since God knew you would already do it. Clearly that's bad logic.

I've made this statement already, but this deal is going in so many circles already, I'll repeat it:
The fact of humanity (and therefore a spiritual being) is what makes it murder. I have stated, with scriptures, to this point that God knows of you before, when, and after you are created. At the point at which one forms, it becomes wrong to then kill that one. Whether someone does so or not God knows, but whether they do or don't is still sin or not via free will.

If you use that sort of logic, then you're quickly down the road that "I can sin as much/however I want b/c it's already known and forgiven."

God gave us free will. Your same logic would suggest that shooting someone would not be wrong since God knew you would already do it. Clearly that's bad logic.

I've made this statement already, but this deal is going in so many circles already, I'll repeat it:
The fact of humanity (and therefore a spiritual being) is what makes it murder. I have stated, with scriptures, to this point that God knows of you before, when, and after you are created. At the point at which one forms, it becomes wrong to then kill that one. Whether someone does so or not God knows, but whether they do or don't is still sin or not via free will.

Sorry, but the simple fact that god KNOWS is no moral statement, as it doesn't state exactly what he knows. The quotes you provided didn't give any hint at all regarding your spirituality before birth, they simply states that god formed and knew you.

The fact that shooting somebody is wrong, if I were to argue with bible logic, is coverd by the 5th commandment, "Do not commit murder". But you can only "murder" a human being, so the question of when something becomes a human being is vital to determine whether or not abortion is a sin.

Question to Fjordburg: Do you believe in original sin and the inherent need to be baptized?

Sorry, but the simple fact that god KNOWS is no moral statement, as it doesn't state exactly what he knows.

I haven't argued that the fact of God knowing all has any course of action upon the things of which He knows.

The quotes you provided didn't give any hint at all regarding your spirituality before birth, they simply states that god formed and knew you.
The fact that shooting somebody is wrong, if I were to argue with bible logic, is coverd by the 5th commandment, "Do not commit murder". But you can only "murder" a human being, so the question of when something becomes a human being is vital to determine whether or not abortion is a sin.

I stated, specifically already, that the PHYSICAL form is irrelevant. Perhaps you missed that. That said, I don't believe there's any change in the spiritual form of the being from creation to birth to death, so there isn't any "finishing" to be had; when it is, it is.

I'm not sure what isn't understood here... I'm stating that there is absolutely NO difference, in God's eyes, between a being just created in the womb and one which is walking around. I say "being" because the context reaches beyond what many people want to limit "human" to.



Cromotar- I'm not sure what you mean by "original sin," if you'd let me know, I'd be happy to tell you. Baptism is simply a ritualistic, public display of a spiritual change.

"Are there any Bible passages specifically condemning abortion?"

Just as there are few if any laws against cannibalism because they seem unnecessary for so repugnant an act, so the authors of the various books of the Bible never would have imagined such a thing as abortion.

"Are there any Bible passages specifically condemning abortion?"

Just as there are few if any laws against cannibalism because they seem unnecessary for so repugnant an act, so the authors of the various books of the Bible never would have imagined such a thing as abortion.

It was a commonplace occurence in ancient times, not only in Rome, which came up with laws trying to prohibit it, but even earlier on. I'll try and see if I can find the description on how the Egyptians aborted...

Edit : Can't find it, but that explains it just as well :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Cromotar- I'm not sure what you mean by "original sin," if you'd let me know, I'd be happy to tell you. Baptism is simply a ritualistic, public display of a spiritual change.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Original sin is the religious doctrine, shared in one form or another by most Christian denominations, which holds that human nature is morally and ethically disordered due to the disobedience of mankind's earliest parents to the revealed will of God. In the Bible, the first human transgression of God's command (the original sin, a concept distinct from that of original sin) is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (called "the Fall"). The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the wrong-doing of the first ancestors, confused because they were deceived, corrupted because they were ruined, fearful of death because they were punished, etc.; so that, all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God.

So basically, according to the doctrine, all babies are born with original sin that must be purified by baptism.

Yeah, that's not accurate Eutrusca.

I'm not sure what isn't understood here... I'm stating that there is absolutely NO difference, in God's eyes, between a being just created in the womb and one which is walking around. I say "being" because the context reaches beyond what many people want to limit "human" to.

What quote do you derive that from? The one that referred to god knowing you even before you were concieved? Wouldn't that bring us back to the old question if you are spoiling god's plans when you masturbate?

I take that quote to mean that you featured in god's plan (in whatever way) from the begining of time, same as any other living creature in the world. However, you were nothing more than a though until he set about physically creating you, which is a process with a begining and an end. Which still leaves the question at what stage during that process you become human.

Thanks, just wanted to be sure I was on the same page.

So basically, according to the doctrine, all babies are born with original sin that must be purified by baptism.

Umm, yes and no, in short. Yes I believe in original sin. No to the baptising of babies to cleanse them. That's the Catholic (and a few other denoms who got it from them) ritual. I don't believe that does anything. I believe one has to make a concious decision to accept Christ as Savior for their to be cleansing of sin and salvation. The physical Baptism is simply a ritualistic representation of this decision.

It was a commonplace occurence in ancient times, not only in Rome, which came up with laws trying to prohibit it, but even earlier on. I'll try and see if I can find the description on how the Egyptians aborted...
I know, but the intensely patriarcal society in which the Bible was written would have viewed such a thing as complete anathama, worse than incest or prostitution. The question wasn't whether abortion was practiced when the Bible was written. The question was whether abortion was specifically prohibited in the Bible ( with the implication of "why or why not?" ). I was responding to those questions.

What quote do you derive that from? The one that referred to god knowing you even before you were concieved? Wouldn't that bring us back to the old question if you are spoiling god's plans when you masturbate?

I take that quote to mean that you featured in god's plan (in whatever way) from the begining of time, same as any other living creature in the world. However, you were nothing more than a though until he set about physically creating you, which is a process with a begining and an end. Which still leaves the question at what stage during that process you become human.


I assume you're just trying to make my argument seem ridiculous and that you don't actually think something so ridiculous.

Beings are not sperm. A sperm, as an egg, is only 1/2 the equation. They come together to form a being, physically and otherwise. That is the point of creation. I don't know how many other times or ways I can say that.

Umm, yes and no, in short. Yes I believe in original sin. No to the baptising of babies to cleanse them. That's the Catholic (and a few other denoms who got it from them) ritual. I don't believe that does anything. I believe one has to make a concious decision to accept Christ as Savior for their to be cleansing of sin and salvation. The physical Baptism is simply a ritualistic representation of this decision.

Right. That's what I wanted to know.

So, you believe the following:

- Human life begins at conception (from what I've understood from your posts)

- Humans are born with sin and must consciously accept Christ to be saved.

Add the following fact to this setup:

- Only about a third of all conceptions actually end in birth; the majority are naturally aborted.

These points taken together imply that billions of babies are condemned from the very start simply because they never actually got the chance to make a conscious choice to accept Christ. Is this coherent with a supposedly loving God?

I know, but the intensely patriarcal society in which the Bible was written would have viewed such a thing as complete anathama, worse than incest or prostitution. The question wasn't whether abortion was practiced when the Bible was written. The question was whether abortion was specifically prohibited in the Bible ( with the implication of "why or why not?" ). I was responding to those questions.

While I agree that in ancient Jewish society (which was after all continously expecting the birth of the messiah), abortion cannot have been viewd favourably, I still doubt that it was nonexistent.


Abortion Has Always Been With Us

In 1955, the anthropologist George Devereux demonstrated that abortion has been practised in almost all human communities from the earliest times.1 The patterns of abortion use, in hundreds of societies around the world since before recorded history, have been strikingly similar. Women faced with unwanted pregnancies have turned to abortion, regardless of religious or legal sanction and often at considerable risk.2 Used to deal with upheavals in personal, family, and community life, abortion has been called “a fundamental aspect of human behaviour”.3

In primitive tribal societies, abortions were induced by using poisonous herbs, sharp sticks, or by sheer pressure on the abdomen until vaginal bleeding occurred. Abortion techniques are described in the oldest known medical texts.2 The ancient Chinese and Egyptians had their methods and recipes to cause abortion, and Greek and Roman civilizations considered abortion an integral part of maintaining a stable population. Ancient instruments, such as the ones found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, were much like modern surgical instruments. The Greeks and Romans also had various poisons administered in various ways, including through tampons.

Socrates,4 Plato and Aristotle2 were all known to suggest abortion. Even Hippocrates, who spoke against abortion because he feared injury to the woman, recommended it on occasion by prescribing violent exercises.2 Roman morality placed no social stigma on abortion.

Early Christians condemned abortion, but did not view the termination of a pregnancy to be an abortion before "ensoulment", the definition of when life began in the womb. Up to 400 AD., as the relatively few Christians were widely scattered geographically, the actual practice of abortion among Christians probably varied considerably and was influenced by regional customs and practices.

Source : http://www.cbctrust.com/history_law_religion.php#2

While no explicit statement is made about Jewish society, it has been in contact with all those mentioned. It would be rather surprising if the practice hadn't caught on with women, even though they would have to act secretly.

If you take a look at the Mosaic laws and the effects it must have had on the life of any woman becoming pregnant without being married, it is only logical to take drastic steps to rid oneself of the evidence...

"Are there any Bible passages specifically condemning abortion?"

Just as there are few if any laws against cannibalism because they seem unnecessary for so repugnant an act, so the authors of the various books of the Bible never would have imagined such a thing as abortion.

They imagined this though:

Hosea 9:14; Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.


And even better:

Deuteronomy 28:53; And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Which even combines abortion and canabalism. Yay bible!

I assume you're just trying to make my argument seem ridiculous and that you don't actually think something so ridiculous.

Beings are not sperm. A sperm, as an egg, is only 1/2 the equation. They come together to form a being, physically and otherwise. That is the point of creation. I don't know how many other times or ways I can say that.

I don't believe that, but then again, I don't believe that a fertilised egg, a single cell constitutes a human being with a soul and spirituality. Which seems to be the point you are trying to make.

"You knit me together in my mother's womb" seems to imply a process rather than just a single moment in time, though...

Right. That's what I wanted to know.

So, you believe the following:

- Human life begins at conception (from what I've understood from your posts)

- Humans are born with sin and must consciously accept Christ to be saved.

Add the following fact to this setup:

- Only about a third of all conceptions actually end in birth; the majority are naturally aborted.

These points taken together imply that billions of babies are condemned from the very start simply because they never actually got the chance to make a conscious choice to accept Christ. Is this coherent with a supposedly loving God?



"Natural abortion" I presume to mean instances such as miscarriage, etc.
Natural deaths are natural deaths, be they from the womb or walking through the woods and a tree falls on your head.

Forgive my lack of knowledge of the technical term, but obviously children up to a certain age (specifically, I don't know) lack the ability to make any sort of conscious decision to that regard. Most people, so far as I know, believe they are saved because they didn't have the ability to chose NOT to be. But that's certainly not an area which is well defined by anything or anyone.

I don't believe that, but then again, I don't believe that a fertilised egg, a single cell constitutes a human being with a soul and spirituality. Which seems to be the point you are trying to make.

"You knit me together in my mother's womb" seems to imply a process rather than just a single moment in time, though...

"Knit" is just one illustration. Before he says "knit" he says "For you CREATED my inmost being" The other English words for the same thing are "formed" and "made."

The specific semantics of one word aren't totally relevant, since we're not even talking about the original word.



The point I'm trying to make is that God does not distinguish between "human" and "fetus," as many say today. The Bible says, in so many ways, that He knew you before you were formed and He knows when you were created. If you can explain that in a different way that isn't the point of conception, be my guest. But it is quite clear that the inhabitance is NOT with the individual gamete, but with the created being.

Ultimately the right of the woman to abort her child if she chooses to always represents her absolute power.
The idea that the male could go ahead and make a baby, and then the mother would actually prevent his son (and yes, I guess his daughter too*) from being born would be a sacrilege to his DNA.

That's why societies (or at least the male part of it) have always rejected all forms of abortion, and that's why if there is such a thing in the Bible, if it is then.

*I'm merely following the mind of a medieval man here, I personally like girls! :D

That's the most irrelevant, "post modern" description of abortion I've ever heard. Congrats.

"Natural abortion" I presume to mean instances such as miscarriage, etc.
Natural deaths are natural deaths, be they from the womb or walking through the woods and a tree falls on your head.

Now that's a bit different isn't it? People that die in accidents and whatnot are victims of circumstance, and have usually had a chance of having at least some life. But babies that are naturally aborted (i.e. miscarried) die because of a poorly designed reproduction system. If life really did begin at conception, wouldn't God have made it all work better?

Forgive my lack of knowledge of the technical term, but obviously children up to a certain age (specifically, I don't know) lack the ability to make any sort of conscious decision to that regard. Most people, so far as I know, believe they are saved because they didn't have the ability to chose NOT to be. But that's certainly not an area which is well defined by anything or anyone.

But you said:

I believe one has to make a concious decision to accept Christ as Savior for their to be cleansing of sin and salvation.

So which is it? You say that you must accept Christ to be cleansed of sin and be saved, yet apparently there are exceptions to the rule? How young do you have to be to get by this? Do fully-grown retarded individuals incapable of understanding the concept of Christ enjoy this benefit? What about tribal folks that have never heard of Christianity and its teachings? They must get free passage too, since they've never had the opportunity to choose?

That's the most irrelevant, "post modern" description of abortion I've ever heard. Congrats.
What, you don't think the woman having that kind of power over the offspring would have mattered to the ancient father - and thus society?

The point I'm trying to make is that God does not distinguish between "human" and "fetus," as many say today. The Bible says, in so many ways, that He knew you before you were formed and He knows when you were created. If you can explain that in a different way that isn't the point of conception, be my guest. But it is quite clear that the inhabitance is NOT with the individual gamete, but with the created being.

How do you know if god does? All we know is, the bible doesn't, which is most likely due to the fact that the word foetus didn't yet exist when it was written.
The fact the HE knows exaclty when you ar ecreated doesn't help us one bit, as WE still don't know.
The bible does say a lot about god's knowledge, but in that respect, it isn't really clear what that knowledge contains specifically.
After all, god knows before, during and after creation, so the step from being immaterial to being material could happen at any one point...

They imagined this though:

And even better:

Which even combines abortion and canabalism. Yay bible!
I suppose that means something to you, but since you don't elaborate, all I can say is that the Bible was simply reflecting the times in which it was written.

I've always considered it rather disengenuous to condemn one source for talking about the very things of which you approve in another source. I daresay you've read far, far worse than that in modern fiction, yes? :)

Now that's a bit different isn't it? People that die in accidents and whatnot are victims of circumstance, and have usually had a chance of having at least some life. But babies that are naturally aborted (i.e. miscarried) die because of a poorly designed reproduction system. If life really did begin at conception, wouldn't God have made it all work better?


They don't die anymore of a poorly constructed reproductive system any more than someone hit by a falling tree dies of a poorly constructed tree. With 6 billion odd people on this planet, I don't think that your claim could be maintained by even the best of arguments, though you do reveal that your predeterminations have set your responses' agenda.

For the record, God didn't create sin, and sin caused the degradation of our bodies and the world. Genisis alludes to this very subject on the mention of birthing pains.

So which is it? You say that you must accept Christ to be cleansed of sin and be saved, yet apparently there are exceptions to the rule? How young do you have to be to get by this? Do fully-grown retarded individuals incapable of understanding the concept of Christ enjoy this benefit? What about tribal folks that have never heard of Christianity and its teachings? They must get free passage too, since they've never had the opportunity to choose?

Your response is exactly why I said, quote, "specifically, I don't know." Anyone who tells you otherwise assumes to be God. There are certain things we just don't know. If we did, we might as well be God ourselves. To answer your question, that's God's determination alone, not mine, so you'll have to ask Him. ;)

To answer your question, that's God's determination alone, not mine, so you'll have to ask Him. ;)
Which he will most likely regard as a cop-out.

How do you know if god does? All we know is, the bible doesn't, which is most likely due to the fact that the word foetus didn't yet exist when it was written.
The fact the HE knows exaclty when you ar ecreated doesn't help us one bit, as WE still don't know.
The bible does say a lot about god's knowledge, but in that respect, it isn't really clear what that knowledge contains specifically.
After all, god knows before, during and after creation, so the step from being immaterial to being material could happen at any one point...


"The Bible" and "God" I've used, here, interchangably. The Bible is the Word of God, so what the Bible says God says.

I'm not sure what more you're looking for me to say, or if you're just asking an rhetorical question to yourself. I don't think there's anything left for me to clarify or explain in that regard...

Again, I think you're too focused on a limited meaning of "human" or "fetus." The "material" isn't necessarily relevant.

Which he will most likely regard as a cop-out.

It's not answerable. Period. By anyone.

"There are certain things we just don't know. If we did, we might as well be God ourselves. Anyone who tells you otherwise assumes to be God."

- that is THE answer.

Again, I think you're too focused on a limited meaning of "human" or "fetus." The "material" isn't necessarily relevant.
When is your birthday?

When is your birthday?

Absolutely irrelevant.

They don't die anymore of a poorly constructed reproductive system any more than someone hit by a falling tree dies of a poorly constructed tree.

Actually, yes they do. First, they don't get the chance to live at all. Second, a lot more die from faulty reproductive plumbing. About half of all pregnancies end before the mother even realizes she is pregnant. You do the math on that. It's a lot of pointless death.

With 6 billion odd people on this planet, I don't think that your claim could be maintained by even the best of arguments, though you do reveal that your predeterminations have set your responses' agenda.

Pointless ad hominem that contributes nothing. If you want to discuss predeterminations, one could argue that speaking blindly based on an old book and answering simply "I don't know" to questions that aren't answered there instead of thinking for yourself could demonstrate just that.


For the record, God didn't create sin, and sin caused the degradation of our bodies and the world. Genisis alludes to this very subject on the mention of birthing pains.

God created Adam. God created the Tree. The God-created Adam ate from the God-created tree. God thus created sin. QED.

Your response is exactly why I said, quote, "specifically, I don't know." Anyone who tells you otherwise assumes to be God. There are certain things we just don't know. If we did, we might as well be God ourselves. To answer your question, that's God's determination alone, not mine, so you'll have to ask Him. ;)

And yet you know enough of God's will to say things like:

The point I'm trying to make is that God does not distinguish between "human" and "fetus," as many say today.

Though there is no obvious passage in the Bible that says this. Why do you "know" one thing and not the other. Is it because you'd rather just avoid the inherent contradictions in the whole situation?

Absolutely irrelevant.
You celebrate your birthday, not the day of your daddy and your mommy doing something best left alone here.

As far as I'm concerned, until the baby can actually naturally be taken away from the womb and survive without the mother's body having to supply it with the essentials through a direct connection, the foetus is simply a part of the woman's body.

Actually, yes they do. First, they don't get the chance to live at all. Second, a lot more die from faulty reproductive plumbing. About half of all pregnancies end before the mother even realizes she is pregnant. You do the math on that. It's a lot of pointless death.

You miss my point completely. My point was not in the numbers; rather than people die of the natural causes of an imperfect world, the womb included. I know no perfect woman, why do you seem so surprised their reprodduction isn't?


If you want to discuss predeterminations, one could argue that speaking blindly based on an old book and answering simply "I don't know" to questions that aren't answered there instead of thinking for yourself could demonstrate just that.

You are precisely correct. I KNOW I don't have all the answers; no man nor combination thereof does. Therefore I have FAITH in God and His Word, rather than my own thinking, which proves itself faulty every day.

However, I don't speak (totally) blindly, and the "old book" still has more answers for more problems than any one person has come up with since.


God created Adam. God created the Tree. The God-created Adam ate from the God-created tree. God thus created sin. QED.

Not quite. God created Adam and God created the tree. Adam listened to SATAN and chose, by his own will, AGAINST the command of God, to eat from the tree.

God created free-willed beings from the beginning, not robots. And people have made sinful choices with their free will since the beginning.


And yet you know enough of God's will to say things like:

Though there is no obvious passage in the Bible that says this. Why do you "know" one thing and not the other. Is it because you'd rather just avoid the inherent contradictions in the whole situation?

I derived that from the scriptures which make no distinction of the term from a born person to one unborn. Therefore, I can say with some degree of certainty that, combined with the other things mentioned, God makes no distinction.

As for the other, there is absolutely nothing to that end in the Bible; it's a purely theological argument, and one in which I care not to speculate because it's simply that.

You celebrate your birthday, not the day of your daddy and your mommy doing something best left alone here.

As far as I'm concerned, until the baby can actually naturally be taken away from the womb and survive without the mother's body having to supply it with the essentials through a direct connection, the foetus is simply a part of the woman's body.

The cultural celebration of birth has nothing to do with this argument.


Your last point isn't good because that is always changing. 200 years ago, that point was basically birth. Now, babies can survive months premature. And it will change in the future as our technology gets even better. That's why that argument holds little value.

Not quite. God created Adam and God created the tree. Adam listened to SATAN and chose, by his own will, AGAINST the command of God, to eat from the tree.



Which bears the question, who created satan? As everything in this world is created by god, I'd guess he did.

But that's off topic

"The Bible" and "God" I've used, here, interchangably. The Bible is the Word of God, so what the Bible says God says.

I'm not sure what more you're looking for me to say, or if you're just asking an rhetorical question to yourself. I don't think there's anything left for me to clarify or explain in that regard...

Again, I think you're too focused on a limited meaning of "human" or "fetus." The "material" isn't necessarily relevant.


The original question was, where in the bible does it say that abortion is a sin?

The bible says, murder is a sin. It doesn't say "kill", as this would imply all living things, it says "murder" and therefore referrs to humans only.

However, the bible at no point states when an inanimate lump of cells becomes a human being.

Therefore, the bible does not explicitly state that abortion is sin.

Fjordburg, you seem to be missing Cabra West's point. I'll try and spell it out how I see it.


You believe God created us and therefore knew us the second we were created in the womb, right?

You believe God created all living things including humans and animals and birds, right?

Therefore you believe God would know these animals and birds the second they were created too, right?

As far as I know, you have no moral problem with the killing of animals and birds, right?

So even though God knew them since their creation, you believe it's still okay to kill them, right?



So why does God knowing when a potential human is created make killing that potential human wrong?

If your argument is that God knowing them from conception makes killing wrong, that would make killing every single living thing wrong as well.

You haven't provided anything from the bible that tells us why there is that difference between a potential human being wrong to kill when other living things it is okay to kill.

You haven't provided anything from the bible which tells us when humans gain their soul and when they become different to animals. If simply being known from creation gives you a soul and means killing becomes murder, every living thing has a soul and killing it is murder.

Which bears the question, who created satan? As everything in this world is created by god, I'd guess he did.

But that's off topic


A quick google search yeilded this link: http://www.bible.ca/su-devil.htm

(scroll down to I. Origin of Satan) That's quick and easy.

The cultural celebration of birth has nothing to do with this argument.
It does, because when you quote your age, you use your birthday as the beginning of your life. That's not just cultural, to my knowledge every single society on earth did it and still does it that way.

Your last point isn't good because that is always changing. 200 years ago, that point was basically birth. Now, babies can survive months premature. And it will change in the future as our technology gets even better. That's why that argument holds little value.
So what makes a human human then? In a few years we'll be able to grow an entire baby without a womb, from start to finish. That would mean that the egg is already human, that it already holds all legal rights.
That sounds ludicrous to someone who is something of a materialist.

The bible condems murder and killing a innocent baby that hasnt done anything to you for no good reason as far as i am concerned is murder no matter how the baby got there.

A quick google search yeilded this link: http://www.bible.ca/su-devil.htm

(scroll down to I. Origin of Satan) That's quick and easy.

I had come to the very same conclusion myself, but thanks anyway.
As god created satan, he also created sin.

You miss my point completely. My point was not in the numbers; rather than people die of the natural causes of an imperfect world, the womb included. I know no perfect woman, why do you seem so surprised their reprodduction isn't?

And you missed my point completely. That God would make each person a "person" from the point of conception and then design it so that most "persons" never even get to be born makes God seem as something of a prick.


You are precisely correct. I KNOW I don't have all the answers; no man nor combination thereof does. Therefore I have FAITH in God and His Word, rather than my own thinking, which proves itself faulty every day.

However, I don't speak (totally) blindly, and the "old book" still has more answers for more problems than any one person has come up with since.


Except that it really isn't God's word. It was told by man, written down by man, and translated multiple times by man. Since man is faulty in his own thinking, doesn't that make the alleged word of God inherently faulty?


Not quite. God created Adam and God created the tree. Adam listened to SATAN and chose, by his own will, AGAINST the command of God, to eat from the tree.

God created free-willed beings from the beginning, not robots. And people have made sinful choices with their free will since the beginning.

Free will, eh? Yet Adam did not know good and evil and right and wrong, so how could he have free will? If you do not what is good and evil, how can you be blamed for your mistakes? Also, God is supposed to be omniscient, so he must have known it would happen. Why would he even place the tree there if he didn't mean for Adam to eat from it? Again, God is portrayed as a prick.


I derived that from the scriptures which make no distinction of the term from a born person to one unborn. Therefore, I can say with some degree of certainty that, combined with the other things mentioned, God makes no distinction.

As for the other, there is absolutely nothing to that end in the Bible; it's a purely theological argument, and one in which I care not to speculate because it's simply that.

Yes. You derived it from the scriptures, with your own thinking and reasoning that you yourself claim to be faulty. Others have come to different conclusions based on the same text. Why is your interpretation superior?

Lastly, nice avoidance of the issues!

The bible condems murder and killing a innocent baby that hasnt done anything to you for no good reason as far as i am concerned is murder no matter how the baby got there.

Baby, yes.
2 month old aglomeration of reproducing human cells, no.

Fjordburg, you seem to be missing Cabra West's point. I'll try and spell it out how I see it.


You believe God created us and therefore knew us the second we were created in the womb, right?

You believe God created all living things including humans and animals and birds, right?

Therefore you believe God would know these animals and birds the second they were created too, right?

As far as I know, you have no moral problem with the killing of animals and birds, right?

So even though God knew them since their creation, you believe it's still okay to kill them, right?



So why does God knowing when a potential human is created make killing that potential human wrong?

If your argument is that God knowing them from conception makes killing wrong, that would make killing every single living thing wrong as well.

You haven't provided anything from the bible that tells us why there is that difference between a potential human being wrong to kill when other living things it is okay to kill.

You haven't provided anything from the bible which tells us when humans gain their soul and when they become different to animals. If simply being known from creation gives you a soul and means killing becomes murder, every living thing has a soul and killing it is murder.


Thanks for clarifying :)

Fjordburg, you seem to be missing Cabra West's point. I'll try and spell it out how I see it.


You believe God created us and therefore knew us the second we were created in the womb, right?

You believe God created all living things including humans and animals and birds, right?

Therefore you believe God would know these animals and birds the second they were created too, right?

As far as I know, you have no moral problem with the killing of animals and birds, right?

So even though God knew them since their creation, you believe it's still okay to kill them, right?



So why does God knowing when a potential human is created make killing that potential human wrong?

If your argument is that God knowing them from conception makes killing wrong, that would make killing every single living thing wrong as well.

You haven't provided anything from the bible that tells us why there is that difference between a potential human being wrong to kill when other living things it is okay to kill.

You haven't provided anything from the bible which tells us when humans gain their soul and when they become different to animals. If simply being known from creation gives you a soul and means killing becomes murder, every living thing has a soul and killing it is murder.


If that's the case, then I'm glad you pointed it out, b/c I didn't notice (if) he explicitly made the human/animal connection.

That's easily disposed though. Genesis 1:26 "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' "

Man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. Men have souls, animals do not. Men have rationality, whereas animals are bound to instinct.

Therefore we are fundamentally different from animals, and fundamentally higher beings. We have control over them. (Let's disregard any debate about treatment of animals)



As for "when humans gain their soul," I CONTEND that it is at the point of creation, and offered those several scriptures which I believe lend themselves to such a deduction, since no other incarnation of the soul or something is mentioned. But I'm only extrapolating that conclusion.

If that's the case, then I'm glad you pointed it out, b/c I didn't notice (if) he explicitly made the human/animal connection.

That's easily disposed though. Genesis 1:26 "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.' "

Man was given dominion over the animals from the beginning. Men have souls, animals do not. Men have rationality, whereas animals are bound to instinct.

Therefore we are fundamentally different from animals, and fundamentally higher beings. We have control over them. (Let's disregard any debate about treatment of animals)



As for "when humans gain their soul," I CONTEND that it is at the point of creation, and offered those several scriptures which I believe lend themselves to such a deduction, since no other incarnation of the soul or something is mentioned. But I'm only extrapolating that conclusion.


"Rule over" isn't quite the same as "giving them souls and not giving souls to animals"

Everything we are doing at the moment is mere interpretation... and rather feeble interpretation. The bible simply doesn't offer enough hard proof to verify either my position or yours.
You interpret the statements in a way to fit your view of the world, I interpret them differently.

We are not getting anywhere, which effectively supports the statement that the bible doesn't explicitly condemns abortion as sin. You will have to use a lot of interpretation to read that into the text.

As for "when humans gain their soul," I CONTEND that it is at the point of creation, and offered those several scriptures which I believe lend themselves to such a deduction, since no other incarnation of the soul or something is mentioned. But I'm only extrapolating that conclusion.

That's the vital part though. If you are wrong (and you seem to be open to that idea) then humans could gain their soul later on, at birth, slightly before, after birth etc and killing them before that point, wherever it is, would not be murder; it would be equal to killing an animal which does not have a human soul.

Without absolute knowledge of when humans are supposed to gain their souls from God, you cannot claim that the Bible condemns abortion, only that it condemns the killing of a being with a human soul.

I had come to the very same conclusion myself, but thanks anyway.
As god created satan, he also created sin.


That's an incorrect deduction.

God created Satan, an angel with free will. Satan chose to turn against God, along with some others.

You could liken it to having your own child. If your child decides to run away from home, of his own free will, you didn't create his running away, he did, because he had the free will to chose to do so.

That's an incorrect deduction.

God created Satan, an angel with free will. Satan chose to turn against God, along with some others.

You could liken it to having your own child. If your child decides to run away from home, of his own free will, you didn't create his running away, he did, because he had the free will to chose to do so.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, as I'm sure you'll be happy to confirm, he would firstly have created satan knowing that he will turn against him and thus create sin and secondly have accepted that without any action against it.
That's as good as creating sin himself, he was more or less just using a tool.

You could liken it to having your own child. If your child decides to run away from home, of his own free will, you didn't create his running away, he did, because he had the free will to chose to do so.

Except no parent claims to have the powers that God is supposed to have. No parent would claim they created everything, can control everything, can know everything that will ever happen, can be everywhere etc. Comparing the power of a parent to the power of a God seems a strange comparison to me.

That's the vital part though. If you are wrong (and you seem to be open to that idea) then humans could gain their soul later on, at birth, slightly before, after birth etc and killing them before that point, wherever it is, would not be murder; it would be equal to killing an animal which does not have a human soul.

Without absolute knowledge of when humans are supposed to gain their souls from God, you cannot claim that the Bible condemns abortion, only that it condemns the killing of a being with a human soul.


You're right on.

However, it's still much more difficult to justify abortion (than not) even with the possibility that it enters later and therefore the baby at "X" point is soul-less That's because most would argue that even animals (soul-less beings, almost all would say) should not be killed unjustly, which is to say that they can be killed with only a light justification, but some justification nonetheless.

So regardless of whether or not my contention is correct, I believe it's fairly obvious that an argument to the opposite effect is much more difficult to acheive, and Biblically speaking, nigh baseless.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, as I'm sure you'll be happy to confirm, he would firstly have created satan knowing that he will turn against him and thus create sin and secondly have accepted that without any action against it.
That's as good as creating sin himself, he was more or less just using a tool.

And that is where I say the abilities of human reason start to fail, because we enter into a realm which we simply cannot understand. I mean, if we could, what difference would there be between ourselves and God?

You're right on.

However, it's still much more difficult to justify abortion (than not) even with the possibility that it enters later and therefore the baby at "X" point is soul-less That's because most would argue that even animals (soul-less beings, almost all would say) should not be killed unjustly, which is to say that they can be killed with only a light justification, but some justification nonetheless.

The fact that it would seriously threaten or harm the life of the mother, the fact that it might ruin her future, the fact that it would put her through unneccessary hardship are no reasons at all???

Let me ask you a question : If you had termites in you house, what would you do? Or, if insects don't count, rats?


So regardless of whether or not my contention is correct, I believe it's fairly obvious that an argument to the opposite effect is much more difficult to acheive, and Biblically speaking, nigh baseless.

We have agreed on the fact that the bible doesn't make any assumptions as to when the soul enters the body of the baby-to-be.
Therefore, the bible neither agrees nor disagrees with abortion. You cannot use it to justify abortion, but you cannot use it to oppose abortion, either.

And that is where I say the abilities of human reason start to fail, because we enter into a realm which we simply cannot understand. I mean, if we could, what difference would there be between ourselves and God?

*lol

I've been waiting for that argument for some pages now.
If there are no more arguments left to support your cause, resort to blind faith... :D

I think the discussion has become rather pointless...

You're right on.

So the answer to the thread's original question (:Are there any Bible passages specifically condemning abortion?) is no?

However, it's still much more difficult to justify abortion (than not) even with the possibility that it enters later and therefore the baby at "X" point is soul-less. That's because most would argue that even animals (soul-less beings, almost all would say) should not be killed unjustly, which is to say that they can be killed with only a light justification, but some justification nonetheless.

And I believe abortion can be justified and abortion isn't an unjust killing. This isn't related to the Bible condemning anything - it is your personal moral view that abortion is wrong.

The fact that most people think something isn't really relevant.

And does the justification needed for killing a living thing extend to when you itch your arm and kill bacteria and living skin cells? Does it extend to when you walk and crush insects?

So regardless of whether or not my contention is correct, I believe it's fairly obvious that an argument to the opposite effect is much more difficult to acheive, and Biblically speaking, nigh baseless.

I being pro-choice, strangely enough I believe that it's fairly obvious that an your argument is much more difficiult to achieve. And you've nothing to back up the "Biblically speaking" point you made.

Everything you're now saying is nothing to do with the Bible or with God condemning abortion but you, personally, with no religious backing, condemning it.

The fact that it would seriously threaten or harm the life of the mother, the fact that it might ruin her future, the fact that it would put her through unneccessary hardship are no reasons at all???

Let me ask you a question : If you had termites in you house, what would you do? Or, if insects don't count, rats?



We have agreed on the fact that the bible doesn't make any assumptions as to when the soul enters the body of the baby-to-be.
Therefore, the bible neither agrees nor disagrees with abortion. You cannot use it to justify abortion, but you cannot use it to oppose abortion, either.

Are we presuming a soul here or not? I'm always going to presume there is, since I find no good reason not to, and you may always presume there isn't. Obviously that affects the answer, which is manifest in this argument. The answers are obvious.


The Bible doesn't speak to it, no. But I believe, again, on that fact and on the passages I listed, that the soul is there at the point of creation. Once again, I think it extremely difficult to justify the position for abortion using the Bible, and fairly easy to go against it using Biblical principle.

In fact, the argument could easily be made that since there is a *chance* that the baby could have a soul, there should not be an abortion, since protecting a possible sould is certainly a higher priority than taking it, especially when other options such as adoption are available.

In fact, the argument could easily be made that since there is a *chance* that the baby could have a soul, there should not be an abortion, since protecting a possible sould is certainly a higher priority than taking it, especially when other options such as adoption are available.

Nah. I'd rather protect the person who has a soul that we already know exists: the mother. I think we should respect that person, her ability to choose and make her own decisions (perhaps even her right, as a person with a human soul, to rule over soulless beings such as the perhaps soulless potential human).

Are we presuming a soul here or not? I'm always going to presume there is, since I find no good reason not to, and you may always presume there isn't. Obviously that affects the answer, which is manifest in this argument. The answers are obvious.


The Bible doesn't speak to it, no. But I believe, again, on that fact and on the passages I listed, that the soul is there at the point of creation. Once again, I think it extremely difficult to justify the position for abortion using the Bible, and fairly easy to go against it using Biblical principle.

In fact, the argument could easily be made that since there is a *chance* that the baby could have a soul, there should not be an abortion, since protecting a possible sould is certainly a higher priority than taking it, especially when other options such as adoption are available.


Well, since we normally assume that everything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed, I would say it is possible to justify abortion using the bible.
After all, at one point it was possible to justify witch hunts and crusades with the bible... but to be honest, I personally don't care.

I don't rely on that book to make my moral decisions, I deduct them myself from principles I find valuable and liveable.

So the answer to the thread's original question (:Are there any Bible passages specifically condemning abortion?) is no?


If you're going to enter at the end of the argument, at least go back and read it. My very first post said:


The answer is very simple:

No the Bible doesn't mention abortion. Nor does it mention cars, guns, or radioactive material.

Times change, and if laws are going to work for the ages, they aren't going to be specific (for the Americans, a la the Constitution).


The nexus for condeming abortion is quite easily made though. Murder (intentional killing of a person) is explicitly forbidden, and the Bible also says in Jeremiah 1:5 (and a few other places) that God knows us before we are formed in the womb.



And I believe abortion can be justified and abortion isn't an unjust killing. This isn't related to the Bible condemning anything - it is your personal moral view that abortion is wrong.

The fact that most people think something isn't really relevant.

And does the justification needed for killing a living thing extend to when you itch your arm and kill bacteria and living skin cells? Does it extend to when you walk and crush insects?



I being pro-choice, strangely enough I believe that it's fairly obvious that an your argument is much more difficiult to achieve. And you've nothing to back up the "Biblically speaking" point you made.

Everything you're now saying is nothing to do with the Bible or with God condemning abortion but you, personally, with no religious backing, condemning it.

What are your "personal moral views" based upon? Yourself? If so, what makes you worthy to decide? As a Christian, I don't believe in "grey" morality- you're either wrong or right.


No, the difference is in my belief in the Bible, and since it says "God knew you before you were formed" "God created you in the womb," you (a person) are obviously a being which God knows of and created. The Bible doesn't make any distinction between "fetus" and "human" because the terms are simply modern inventions. There was no distiction. One is human from conception in Biblical form.

Whether or not you believe that depends upon whether you believe God's Word, not mine.

Has anyone actually read the bible fully? Like cover to cover, not missing a page?

*lol

I've been waiting for that argument for some pages now.
If there are no more arguments left to support your cause, resort to blind faith... :D

I think the discussion has become rather pointless...


Faith (not blind) is the fundamental difference between a Christian and an aethiest. Without faith, you have nothing. With even a little faith, you have everything. As Christ said, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Belief in yourself only fails.

What are your "personal moral views" based upon?
Rationality. Proof. Compassion. Experience.

If so, what makes you worthy to decide?
I cannot choose for other people because I am not worthy to make other people's choices on abortion and I believe they should choose themselves.

One is human from conception in Biblical form.
You have not shown that. Nowhere have you any Biblical proof that conception = human soul (the fundamental thing you believe seperates it).

You cannot say that one minute it's open to interpretation and a minute later argue as if it is iron cast and valid to base views upon.

This is getting pointless. You admit that nowhere does the Bible specifically condemn abortion. Therefore it must be personal views based on other things (such as your view that times have changed and rules need to be brought in for abortion), or at the most a personal, easily inaccurate interpretation of the Bible. A second ago you were saying only God is worthy to decide things but now you say that you are worthy of deciding how the Bible should be interpreted, deciding what new laws God would choose in the modern day, and deciding what he would have said if he had been more specific.

Faith (not blind) is the fundamental difference between a Christian and an aethiest. Without faith, you have nothing.

I would disagree. I'd say I have a hell of a lot of things which I value and which make my life worth living. But this isn't a convert thread so lets stick to the topic.

If your arguments are fundamentally based on faith, there is little point trying to argue something with people who don't have that faith. Logic, rationality, consistent arguments and common sense are the crazy, crazy things we like :p

Has anyone actually read the bible fully? Like cover to cover, not missing a page?
Yes. Four or five times over my lifetime. Why??

I'm too lazy to read all of this. I don't think the Bible directly addresses the issue of abortion. Though it does talk about unborn children in ways that makes them seem valuable and sometimes even aware. Such as somewhere in Luke it talks about John the Baptist leaping in the womb after hearing Marry was nearby. Sorry I'm too lazy to find the verse.

Not everything Christians support comes from the Bible. Just because the Bible doesn't directly condem something doesn't mean that it is okay. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit, which guides them to make moral decisions. I think most Christians are opposed to abortion because they feel this strong conviction that it is wrong which is attributed as coming from the Holy Spirit. Is their anyone out their who feels God is telling them something different about abortion?

There is also a lot of teachings that have been passed down through the ages that weren't written in the Bible.

Not everything Christians support comes from the Bible. Just because the Bible doesn't directly condem something doesn't mean that it is okay. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit, which guides them to make moral decisions. I think most Christians are opposed to abortion because they feel this strong conviction that it is wrong which is attributed as coming from the Holy Spirit. Is their anyone out their who feels God is telling them something different about abortion?

There is also a lot of teachings that have been passed down through the ages that weren't written in the Bible.

Yes. And because they're not talked about in the Bible, they shouldn't be talked about as if the Bible (and therefore God) condemns them when it/He doesn't.

Yes. And because they're not talked about in the Bible, they shouldn't be talked about as if the Bible (and therefore God) condemns them when it/He doesn't.

Ah, but just because it isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean its not sin. Though I agree Christians shouldn't go around saying God condemns you or implying something is in the Bible that is not. But Christians shouldn't be condemning anyone for anything. It's God's place to condemn. Christians are asked to love others and lead them to the truth, not to pass judgement.

I'm not talking just about 'Do not murder.' Either side (pro-/anti- choice/life whatever) could interpert that commandment either way. Is there biblical instructions that abortion is immoral?

Yes, I'm familiar with Psalm 139. But it doesn't seem to say much about abortion, (maybe it's just me) just that 'God is involved in the creation of human life.'

I know this will turn into a flamewar very quickly, but I want to get some kind of answer, please.

Yes, though it's a civil matter [review Exodus 21:22-25]... Does not really apply to the present system whereby abortion is a matter of choice.

God hates them most of all. :D

Kidding aside: Staunch conservatives not only mistrust, but desparately hate women. They don't trust them to make choices for their own bodies, they want to put women in a burka and hide them under the iron fist of their husband, and they refuse to let them teach, much less preach, in their churches.

It's a sad state of affairs, really.

Do you actually believe this, or are you just trying to flame? Most of the pro-life advocates I know are women. It seems women care more about this issue then men on both sides of the asile. I suppose you could argue they are self hating. But if you listen to the pro-life argument you will come to realize that they truely believe that abortion is murder. If you can accept they believe this (though you may dissagree) then their position makes sense.

Well, the bible usually has something to say on just about everything. It is an enormous book.

But seriously, there are passages like Exodus 21:22-25 that seem to imply that abortion isn't a serious crime if it even is a crime. Are there any from the other side at all?
I know it is late in the thred but I had to comment.
The RSV is one translation that supports the pro-choice conclusion. It says,

When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The RSV assumes that a "miscarriage" happens, and the foetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no "harm," because it says, "If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows . . ." It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as "harm" which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc.

This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if "harm follows" (to the woman!) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc.

But is this the right translation? The NIV does not assume that a miscarriage happened. The NIV translates the text like this:

If men who are fighting 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 . . .

What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc.

I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew:

And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?

In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:

1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'). "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse') red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)

So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Is. 33:3). But these words are not used here.

4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. "Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form"

5. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB). The word "further is NOT in the original text.

The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.

Likewise in verse 23 when it says, "But if there was injury . . ." it does not say "to the woman," as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, "If there was injury (to the child or to the mother)."


If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . .



If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother.

Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born.
from here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html)

Has anyone actually read the bible fully? Like cover to cover, not missing a page?
I have at least 5 times (it takes me a while though because I spend a lot of time in study more than just reading it)

Well, since we normally assume that everything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed, I would say it is possible to justify abortion using the bible.
After all, at one point it was possible to justify witch hunts and crusades with the bible... but to be honest, I personally don't care.

I don't rely on that book to make my moral decisions, I deduct them myself from principles I find valuable and liveable.


For Christians, I entirely disagree, the Scripture cannot be construed to condone Christians getting abortions...


Genesis 48:9 "They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place."
Joshua 24:3 "I took your father Abraham...and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."
Ruth 4:13 "The Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son."

It is clear that the very conception of Children itself is a gift from God. And additionally, for the Christian…

Matthew 18 1-6
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

He stresses the burden and importance of parenting, if deficient or negligent: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” It is clear that Christ is raising the importance of being honored with the gift of children to a new level and appointing us the responsibility of raising the children in Christ-like love so that they all can achieve their full God-given right to a relationship with him.

In the Old Testament, the emphasis was placed on the parents being comfortable in this world if they took care of their children. In the New Testament, however, Christ is reaffirming the responsibility of parenting to even a higher level by stating the consequence of ill-parenting by saying that it would have been better for one who leads the children to sin, “not to have been born.” Christ expanded on the earlier understanding that children are/were great gifts alone and commanded that we love all children, and especially our own.

We see it clearly qualified in the NT that Jesus puts a high value and priority in the children themselves and he delegates that responsibility to us.

Christ says: “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him!” (Matthew 7:11) Unmistakably, for Christ it is a no-brainer, it is understood that even though we are not as good and perfect as God we must still give our best gifts to our children. Moreover, in Christ’s statements it is understood that parents are responsible for their own children.

Christ elevated the class of children when he said: “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the One who sent me.” (Mark 9:37) No one can call himself or herself a ‘Christian’ and a follower of Christ if he or she does not take good care of the children.

Christ is speaking not only of physically hurting or abusing a child, but more importantly, he is referring to neglecting a child’s spiritual needs. “See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 18:10) Clearly, Christ is asking us to not only attend to our children’s physical needs, but also to assure that they are truly nurtured spiritually.

Who then, after understanding the value God places in the children themselves and can fathom the great gift and honor we have when God shares them with us and when we understand the responsibility entrusted in us in their care, who then can turn around and claim that God might think it’s okay for us to ‘throw them away’ at our will? Ridiculous.

The gift of children as valued higher than pearls. We are told not to throw pearls to the swine for they will trample on them… It is clear then that if we discard our children we are worse than pigs with treasure.

Do you actually believe this, or are you just trying to flame?

Believe it .... I live in Texas ... I see it all the time. I actually know a man who divorced his wife of 15 years because she wouldn't vote the way he demanded her to do.