What the Bible actually says about abortion may surprise you

[TitanTiger 21,242]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Maybe if the moral code was as sweeping and apparent as the hypothetical broad swath of Christians you refer to, the sincerity of the motivation would be a bit easier to accept. It rarely seems to come from a place of love, even from those citing so-called Christian motivation.

Maybe so.  I'm not here to argue that Christians always do the right thing or are pure as the wind-driven snow in all their motivations.  My point was simply to respond to the notion that Christians don't "get to subject others to the requirements of their faith under penalty of law." I don't think you really agree with that, at least in the way you said it.  I think you would agree that sometimes, even if you're in the vast minority, you have to advocate for what's right and do all you can to get the laws changed to reflect that.  Right isn't determined by majority sentiment.  And the truth is - we all get to do this.  We ALL get to advocate for laws that reflect what we believe, based on our moral and ethical code - on things of critical importance to human life and flourishing.

[TexasTiger 14,303]

Let’s look at this. Shall not murder a child by abortion. When is it murder? 

And the second commandment of the teaching: You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery...you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one already born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor...
 

For English common law it wasn’t murder until a certain point in the pregnancy:

For centuries the quickening also had important legal ramifications. British common law, eventually imported to Colonial America, outlawed abortion only if it took place after the quickening. Likewise, a pregnant woman could not be executed post-quickening. The English jurist William Blackstone wrote in 1770, “To be saved from the gallows a woman must be quick with child—for barely with child, unless he be alive in the womb, is not sufficient.” In other words, a fetus whose movements could not yet be detected was not yet fully alive. An 1812 Massachusetts court case, Commonwealth v. Bangs, confirmed that pre-quickening abortions “would remain beyond the scope of the law.” Even though states began to pass criminal abortion statutes in the 1820s, courts before 1850 rarely heard cases involving pre-quickening abortion.

This was written by folks raised in the Jewish faith, which doesn’t believe life begins at conception:

“ In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.”
 

Does not murder by abortion mean very late in the term? If you think it means from conception, what’s your basis for that?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes it has.  It has been the impetus for all sorts of legal prohibitions AND protections for people over the centuries.  Hell, it was the impetus behind MLK and every Christian who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  It was the impetus for William Wilberforce getting slavery outlawed in England and the abolitionist movement here in the US.  I could go through a litany of laws and political movements over centuries where Christians - motivated by their faith and the teachings of Scripture - advocated for changes in the law in their societies, either to prohibit harmful acts, create affirmative protections, or to remove harmful provisions in the law. 

Agreed.  However, these examples are political movements led by Christians, not Christians being led by political movements.

I believe you know the origin of the abortion debate.

I appreciate your position.  I truly do.  I just do not respect the political support for power that ultimately has complete disregard for the human condition.  I particularly cannot support the idea of imposing your views, from the minority. 

[TitanTiger 21,242]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Agreed.  However, these examples are political movements led by Christians, not Christians being led by political movements.

I believe you know the origin of the abortion debate.

I appreciate your position.  I truly do.  I just do not respect the political support for power that ultimately has complete disregard for the human condition.  I particularly cannot support the idea of imposing your views, from the minority. 

I know the origin of the modern abortion debate (circa 1973 and on) and I agree that some of those who fomented it did so for ulterior motivations.  I don't think that makes those who are pro-life wrong on the core matter however, or that it means they're just being (mis)led.

But again, I don't really think you believe your last line either.  Our entire system of government was partly conceived with the idea that minorities have as much right and ability to persuade, advocate, vote, run for office, legislate and so on to craft or change laws in ways that reflect their moral outlook on important matters. 

Not to mention, whether pro-life people are a "minority" on this issue is up for debate.  What I mean is, while one could say that a majority wouldn't be in favor of an abortion law that prohibits all abortions without exception, on the other hand a sizable majority does favor a law that basically lines up almost exactly with the Mississippi law that was the impetus for the Dobbs ruling - which banned abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.  Basically, the "majority" nationally neither lines up with the Democratic party platform's stance on abortion, nor the more restrictive laws passed in other states such as Oklahoma.  All those people looking at the issue and saying there's good reason to impose some limits on abortion that are much more restrictive than what Roe permitted can't all be deceived MAGA Christians.

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

Abortion was only consistently seen as an evil/sin by the Catholic Church for most of Americas history. Much of American Protestantism either outright supported pro-choice views or were indifferent to the issue with no clear stance on the issue till the 1980's. 

 

All through the 1970's the Southern Baptist convention was officially pro-choice. Like ICHY says, American Christians only became strictly anti-abortion as a matter of political convenience for Conservatives who at the same exact time that they were trying to push anti-abortion views, were also  trying to fight against racial de-segregation.

 

The Bible and historical texts have always said what they've said, Christians interpretations of them and what they mean just change over time on various issues. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The Bible is not a book to be understood in a vacuum.  What the page says is obviously important, but to understand the author's intent it helps to see how those who learned under the Apostles, and who taught on the Scriptures in the early church understood it.  In other words, we rightly interpret it by looking to see how it was always understood and has been understood over the centuries, not just reinventing the wheel every time society changes direction.

Kind of like the Constitution?

[CoffeeTiger 5,876]

28 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Not to mention, whether pro-life people are a "minority" on this issue is up for debate.  What I mean is, while one could say that a majority wouldn't be in favor of an abortion law that prohibits all abortions without exception, on the other hand a sizable majority does favor a law that basically lines up almost exactly with the Mississippi law that was the impetus for the Dobbs ruling - which banned abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.  Basically, the "majority" nationally neither lines up with the Democratic party platform's stance on abortion, nor the more restrictive laws passed in other states such as Oklahoma.  All those people looking at the issue and saying there's good reason to impose some limits on abortion that are much more restrictive than what Roe permitted can't all be deceived MAGA Christians.

 

The difference is you're going to find that a vast majority of Republican controlled states are going to institute nearly full abortion bans across the board. Don't forget that Mississippi's 15 week ban was specifically filed to bring to the Supreme Court to allow the Republican judges to do their magic. Mississippi now has a trigger law in effect that makes all abortion illegal except for medical emergencies. Republican's in Mississippi never had any intention of allowing abortions up to 15 weeks.

 

Will the wider population end up compromising with Democrats and allowing wider abortion access than they might agree with, or will people start siding with Republicans and accepting that Abortion just wont be legally allowed or accessible for 90%+ of pregnancies from day 1? 

We'll see i guess. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[icanthearyou 4,468]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I know the origin of the modern abortion debate (circa 1973 and on) and I agree that some of those who fomented it did so for ulterior motivations.  I don't think that makes those who are pro-life wrong on the core matter however, or that it means they're just being (mis)led.

But again, I don't really think you believe your last line either.  Our entire system of government was partly conceived with the idea that minorities have as much right and ability to persuade, advocate, vote, run for office, legislate and so on to craft or change laws in ways that reflect their moral outlook on important matters. 

Not to mention, whether pro-life people are a "minority" on this issue is up for debate.  What I mean is, while one could say that a majority wouldn't be in favor of an abortion law that prohibits all abortions without exception, on the other hand a sizable majority does favor a law that basically lines up almost exactly with the Mississippi law that was the impetus for the Dobbs ruling - which banned abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality.  Basically, the "majority" nationally neither lines up with the Democratic party platform's stance on abortion, nor the more restrictive laws passed in other states such as Oklahoma.  All those people looking at the issue and saying there's good reason to impose some limits on abortion that are much more restrictive than what Roe permitted can't all be deceived MAGA Christians.

Has nothing to do with "MAGA Christians".   This isn't about Christianity.  This IS the manipulation of Christianity which began in 1976, politically, not from the church.

There can be no compromise because, for the political right, the issue is too valuable.  The political right will not let this rest until there is a total abolition.

This issue represents how, you can do everything antithetical to Christianity by taking one action that the vast majority of Christians will support. 

I will not change your mind.  I know that.  I will point out however, that you are being used and ultimately, the righteousness that you wish to impose is only justifying countless other policies that are anything but Christian, utterly inhumane.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

36 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Kind of like the Constitution?

Exactly, the "devout" interpretation of centuries old beliefs/opinions are undoubtedly the correct one in this static world.  New thinking, new reasoning has got to be heretical.

Absurd.

Edited July 21, 2022 by icanthearyou

[AuburnNTexas 7,317]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Sounds nice. If it were actually true, the same folks concerned about outlawing abortion (and many of the same want to outlaw contraception) would be equally passionate about pre-natal, post-natal care, childcare, healthcare for the mother & child and frankly, education as  “ issues that pertain to human health, life and basic dignity and worth,” instead of considering folks that actually advocate for those things lazy commies.

You are correct some Christians are hypocrites' they should be equally passionate about pre-natal, post-natal care, healthcare for the mother and child and they aren't. That doesn't make the belief in the sanctity of life wrong it just means people are not perfect.  One thing that Christians have done is provide multiple facilities for providing that type of care for women who need help and choose not to be aborted. These are the facilities that a small minority of people of the pro-abortion viewpoint are vandalizing and in some case firebombing. I do want to emphasize it is small minority just like sadly in the past we have had a few zealots on the pro-life side have attacked people and facilities involved with abortion. 

I have worked with Catholic Charities that provide formula, diapers, wipes, clothes to women who have children and can't afford the care. This includes medical care, some times money and finding access to government services. These are the type of things all pro-life people should do either directly or via donation. These programs are not perfect because they don't have enough resources and sadly despite the fact they often do a better job then government programs they are not allowed to get money from the government because they are religious organizations. 

[TexasTiger 14,303]

14 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You are correct some Christians are hypocrites' they should be equally passionate about pre-natal, post-natal care, healthcare for the mother and child and they aren't. That doesn't make the belief in the sanctity of life wrong it just means people are not perfect.  One thing that Christians have done is provide multiple facilities for providing that type of care for women who need help and choose not to be aborted. These are the facilities that a small minority of people of the pro-abortion viewpoint are vandalizing and in some case firebombing. I do want to emphasize it is small minority just like sadly in the past we have had a few zealots on the pro-life side have attacked people and facilities involved with abortion. 

I have worked with Catholic Charities that provide formula, diapers, wipes, clothes to women who have children and can't afford the care. This includes medical care, some times money and finding access to government services. These are the type of things all pro-life people should do either directly or via donation. These programs are not perfect because they don't have enough resources and sadly despite the fact they often do a better job then government programs they are not allowed to get money from the government because they are religious organizations. 

Some people do provide assistance. They aren’t memorializing such care into law, though. Just the forced birth part. If these principles drive the laws one advocates for, there’s not many Christians doing both.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Exactly, the "devout" interpretation of centuries old beliefs/opinions are undoubtedly the correct one in this static world.  New thinking, new reasoning has got to be heretical.

Absurd.

Lawful today, unlawful tomorrow, same text. That sounds great!

[AU9377 6,032]

On 7/20/2022 at 5:17 PM, jj3jordan said:

Luke 1:15  Description of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb.

Luke 1:39-45  Describes the meeting of Elizabeth and her cousin Mary and the reaction of John the Baptist in her womb when Mary entered the house and greeted Elizabeth.

This to me clearly implies life inside the womb. 

The article above is trying desperately to find some Biblical support for abortion and failing miserably. 

That is perfectly fine for you to believe.  The real question is why an individual's rights in the United States should be controlled by bible passages?  I believe that churches do a great deal to help society, but we should not legislate individual rights by blurring the line between church and state.  By doing so, we are becoming more like Iran and less like the free country we proclaim to be.

[Leftfield 3,376]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Lawful today, unlawful tomorrow, same text. That sounds great!

With respect, I think you've touched on one of the main disconnects that is driving so much division. The Bible, and really any religious text I'm aware of, is static. It is considered sacrilege to change it (even though there are already different versions). It makes a good base for how we should act and what we should aspire to be as individuals, but it's horrible when applied as a framework for a dynamic society. That, as I'm sure you're well aware, is the main purpose of government - to supply a relatively stable structure for society to operate, while being able to change that structure and its laws as who we are and what we know or understand evolves. 

I am not going to pretend to know what the Bible says about abortion. I was very young when I lost my faith and only read parts of the Bible when I was too young to have a good understanding of it. What I do know is that it really shouldn't matter what the Bible says, because a substantial portion of our society does not believe in it. 

The gap that is so difficult to overcome with abortion is the very definition of life. Yes, life technically begins at conception, but it's life in the same sense that plants and even bacteria and viruses have life. It is just a mass of cells and not conscious life. Those that argue life begins at conception and therefore should not be aborted are really saying that the soul begins at conception. Does the soul actually exist? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly if you're religious you believe it to be, but not everyone agrees. It cannot be proven, it can only be taken on faith. 

I get that those who have been raised with a firm belief in God, the afterlife, and the human soul find it difficult or even impossible to understand the thinking of those that were not, but that's precisely why the oversized influence of religion in governance is so dangerous. When it remains rigid to a changing society it only serves to drive division with those who are not a part of it.

[autigeremt 7,208]

Christianity, in my opinion, should be a personal relationship between the individual and their God. When religion and government/politics get together it opens up a pandoras box of manipulation, division and quite honestly death and destruction. 

[homersapien 12,238]

On 7/21/2022 at 4:02 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

The difference is you're going to find that a vast majority of Republican controlled states are going to institute nearly full abortion bans across the board. Don't forget that Mississippi's 15 week ban was specifically filed to bring to the Supreme Court to allow the Republican judges to do their magic. Mississippi now has a trigger law in effect that makes all abortion illegal except for medical emergencies. Republican's in Mississippi never had any intention of allowing abortions up to 15 weeks.

 

Will the wider population end up compromising with Democrats and allowing wider abortion access than they might agree with, or will people start siding with Republicans and accepting that Abortion just wont be legally allowed or accessible for 90%+ of pregnancies from day 1? 

We'll see i guess. 

We'll also see just how far Mississippi and other strict "pro life"    states support the (poor) women - and the resulting unwanted babies.  I expect zilch.

 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Lawful today, unlawful tomorrow, same text. That sounds great!

Same text.  Many interpretations.  Unfortunately, the legal profession has become more about bending/contorting the law.  Justice and humanity are sacrificed.

 

[homersapien 12,238]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Christianity, in my opinion, should be a personal relationship between the individual and their God. When religion and government/politics get together it opens up a pandoras box of manipulation, division and quite honestly death and destruction. 

I totally agree with you. but you are unfortunately too late.  That ship has sailed.

Conservatism has co-opted the Christian church in every practical sense.  And the church welcomed the opportunity to politicize itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

[jj3jordan 2,171]

5 hours ago, AU9377 said:

That is perfectly fine for you to believe.  The real question is why an individual's rights in the United States should be controlled by bible passages?  I believe that churches do a great deal to help society, but we should not legislate individual rights by blurring the line between church and state.  By doing so, we are becoming more like Iran and less like the free country we proclaim to be.

The thread was about what the Bible says about abortion. I posted it and it is clear and incontrovertible. It doesn’t require your belief to exist. Nowhere does the government and legislation become a topic. When you introduce it it means you have lost the original debate and are moving on to one you think you can win. So no, as far as this thread goes, your “real question” is irrelevant.

[AU9377 6,032]

20 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The thread was about what the Bible says about abortion. I posted it and it is clear and incontrovertible. It doesn’t require your belief to exist. Nowhere does the government and legislation become a topic. When you introduce it it means you have lost the original debate and are moving on to one you think you can win. So no, as far as this thread goes, your “real question” is irrelevant.

I wasn't discussing whether or not something was part of the thread.