Abortion: How the Bible says we're supposed to do it.

I'm banking on this being much more likely to have happened than not.

So you have absolutely nothing to back up your charge that Jews and Christians were performing these "abortions" for years. Except you own 'perverted' anti religious 'magic'.

I see, thanks.

Please re-read my note on Christians and the Law and yes we ignore it and eat BBQ ribs (pork) Even if it was not ignored I know of nothing in the bible recounting a successful example of this ritual.

Are you suggesting that they just ignored this part?

I'd rather suggest that any female infidelity in Ancient Israel was an anomaly so negligible in practice. it makes the point moot. I can't picture female adulteries running rampant in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Regardless, you don't have any proof for your anti 'Judeo-Christian' prejudice.

Yes, I do. Even having some crap like that including in any religion's handbook is a clear sign of a religion gone completely insane.

Glad to see you admit you're prejudiced. So prejudiced in fact that you are moving in the direction of insanity yourself.

Yeah, I forgot... modern man invented lust. That's why there's no mention of it in the bible... at all. /sarcasm

Modern man didn't invent lust, he just made it legal and trendy. How much adultery is going on among married women in Saudi Arabia or Iran? The Biblical Israelites lived in a similarly religious culture with heavy penalties for adultery.

Please post the passages wherein either Jesus or his apostles commanded or advocated abortion. We'll wait, while you fail to do so.

interestingly ...

the bible clearly states that 'the life is in the blood ' ... a fetus doesn't have any for the first 22 days ... hence by biblical standards not a life.

also

In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with a human soul.This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. 1 The difference was of little consequence, because in those days, there were no tests to detect the start of pregnancy or to determine the gender of an embryo. Ultrasound devices and pregnancy test strips were millennia in the future.Thus abortions were not condemned if performed early in gestation when the embryo had a vegetable or animal soul. It was only condemned if the abortion was done later in pregnancy that a human soul was destroyed. By coincidence, this 90 day limit happens to be approximately equal to the end of the first trimester, the point at which the US Supreme Court decided that states could begin to restrict a woman's access to abortion. The 40 and 90 day limits also bear a striking resemblance to the 40 and 80 day periods when a woman was considered ritually impure after birth in Judaism (Leviticus 12:2-6)
4th Century BCE TO 1st Century CE
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

Early Christian thought on abortion
The society in which Christianity expanded was one in which abortion, infanticide and exposition were commonly used to limit the number of children (especially girls) that a family had to support.[80][81] These methods were often used also when a pregnancy or birth resulted from sexual licentiousness, including marital infidelity, prostitution and incest, and Bakke holds that these contexts cannot be separated from abortion in early Christianity

Between the first and fourth centuries AD, the Didache, Barnabas and theApocalypse of Peter strongly condemned and outlawed abortion.[82][83] However, early synods did not term abortion "murder", and imposed specified penalties only on abortions that were combined with some form of sexual crime[3] and on the making of abortion drugs: the early 4th-century Synod of Elvira imposed denial of communion even at the point of death on those who committed the "double crime" of adultery and subsequent abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Early_Christian_thought_on_abortion

early christianity and abortion

http://books.google.com/books?id=VBN6r3cC6v0C&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=early+christianity+and+abortion&source=web&ots=Ew-3l3eEYS&sig=JWPvHb7VXPN37YXN4GeiVL2iKNI#v=snippet&q=abortion&f=true

The Roman household
http://books.google.com/books?id=PcsNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA98&dq=roman+abortion+exposition+infanticide&hl=en&ei=GZ48TefXCIOAhAf1zamlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=roman%20abortion%20exposition%20infanticide&f=falseJane

Carrick, Medical Ethics in the Ancient World (Georgetown University Press 2001 ISBN 0-87840-848-7), p. 123
http://books.google.com/books?id=vcj1hq1nFWsC&pg=PA123&dq=roman+abortion+exposition+infanticide&hl=en&ei=tKI8TfT6Ko65hAfRn4i3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=roman%20abortion%20exposition%20infanticide&f=true

logically , if one uses reason ........

the first christians did indeed practice abortion. It was only later opinion that changed the rules.

Jesus would have been well versed with women having abortions in his time and said nothing of it. No condemnation as sin.

Sorry Ripley, but you remain on ignore, until someone else vouches for your reformed behavior in terms of reasoned discourse.

UNA ...

oh boo hoo for you ! sorry facts frighten you !

lmao !

I thought you put me on ignore some time ago ? so much for that !

Good article. It must be pointed out that in Leviticus, God places a monetary value on all forms of human life in terms of silver shekels except any child under one month old. All fetuses qualify as being worthless in God's own eyes, by his own words.

Please post the passages wherein either Jesus or his apostles commanded or advocated abortion. We'll wait, while you fail to do so.

Please post the passages wherein either Jesus or his apostles commanded or advocated AGAINST abortion. or prohibited it. We'll wait, while you fail to do so.

Clara, use common sense: You can't prove a negative - Jesus did not command his followers to to relieve themselves either, so would we then conclude that going to the bathroom is sinful? We have only what Jesus taught, and we know he did not teach that abortion was allowed. The article in question asserts that Leviticus shows abortion to be acceptable, but we know Jesus at no time said anything of the sort.

Or you could use some common sense and see that it is telling us that our sins affect others beside ourselves.....the scripture in question is not about the baby, it is about accusations of adultery and if the accusation is true......

People prove negatives all the time in mathematics and in forensics, so nobody can tell me that negatives can't be proven. "Common sense" conforms to no standards and it's only in the eye of the beholder. No sale.

The word "sin" is the name of a moon god which acts to counter the sun god, which is why the word "sin" means "transgression". No "common sense" exists on matters of sin outside of the realm of superstition and paganism.

Proving a negative is not required for establishing that nowhere in The Bible is abortion prohibited. It isn't. And God himself was one of the worst child killers/abusers in the universe--to ban abortion is to hold mankind up as holier than God. Now THAT's common sense.

how about exodus 23 seems to place a life for life value on a fetus.

Exodus 21:22-24

New International Version (NIV)

²² “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely^[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. ²³ But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ²⁴ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Seems Chris simply hates the idea that we are held responsible for disobedience to God.....

That in essence is what it all boils down too, how dare God set the penalty for our rejection/disobedience to him and then actually hold us to it......

UNA_Lion

Clara, use common sense: You can't prove a negative

lmao UNA telling someone else to use common sense ?

oh stop ! my sides !

that which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof !!

TruettCollins

Seems Chris simply hates the idea that we are held responsible for disobedience to God.....

That in essence is what it all boils down too, how dare God set the penalty for our rejection/disobedience to him and then actually hold us to it......

your mythical belief has no proof.

that which is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof !!

Christians love to cite Jewish law when it's convenient, don't they. That eye for an eye bit was countermanded by Jesus' order to forgive seventy times seven times. Here's a clear example of a Christian who rejects Christ.

clara

You need to read with more comprehension this post used Jewish law to point that God committed abortions and therefore was all for it and used scripture to justify his point. I simply followed his lead. Are you suggesting Jesus was pro choice.

earlier I pointed to Jesus orders about the law and the seeder refuted the premise so I used his /her own example.

I was responding to a previous post in this thread, not the article. It was thoughtfulconservative's post.

The context is that there is a penalty for sin.....and that that penalty affects more than the sinner many times.

Chris,

Your objection is based entirely upon how you feel about it. That's fine. You're allowed to have your opinion. Yet I don't think you're taking everything into account.

First, the people this ritual applied to didn't care how you felt about it. Their concern was obeying God. It was the basis of their entire social order. It was the foundation of their lives and existence as a people. It was their identity. The issue was supremely important to them.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament describes it thus.

Sentence of God upon Wives Suspected of Adultery. - As any suspicion cherished by a man against his wife, that she either is or has been guilty of adultery, whether well-founded or not, is sufficient to shake the marriage connection to its very roots, and to undermine, along with marriage, the foundation of the civil commonwealth, it was of the greatest importance to guard against this moral evil, which was so utterly irreconcilable with the holiness of the people of God, by appointing a process in harmony with the spirit of the theocratical law, and adapted to bring to light the guilt or innocence of any wife who had fallen into such suspicion, and at the same time to warn fickle wives against unfaithfulness. This serves to explain not only the introduction of the law respecting the jealousy-offering in this place, but also the general importance of the subject, and the reason for its being so elaborately described.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary further expounds on the reason for the ritual

5:11-31 This law would make the women of Israel watch against giving cause for suspicion. On the other hand, it would hinder the cruel treatment such suspicions might occasion. It would also hinder the guilty from escaping, and the innocent from coming under just suspicion. When no proof could be brought, the wife was called on to make this solemn appeal to a heart-searching God. No woman, if she were guilty, could say Amen to the adjuration, and drink the water after it, unless she disbelieved the truth of God, or defied his justice. The water is called the bitter water, because it caused the curse. Thus sin is called an evil and a bitter thing. Let all that meddle with forbidden pleasures, know that they will be bitterness in the latter end. From the whole learn, 1. Secret sins are known to God, and sometimes are strangely brought to light in this life; and that there is a day coming when God will, by Christ, judge the secrets of men according to the gospel, Ro 2:16. 2 In particular, Whoremongers and adulterers God will surely judge. Though we have not now the waters of jealousy, yet we have God's word, which ought to be as great a terror. Sensual lusts will end in bitterness. 3. God will manifest the innocency of the innocent. The same providence is for good to some, and for hurt to others. And it will answer the purposes which God intends.

So it wasn't a simple example of what you might call hocus pocus. Real isues were at issue here. That you do not believe in the God of the bible (apparently) does not make it less real ,but you are welcome to your opinion.

What troubles me is why wasn't there something like this concerning the husband as well?

If the intent is to demonstrate how the ancient theocracy of Israel was governed, so be it. They also were not allowed to wear garments woven from two or more different kinds of material or plant crops with two different kinds of seed.

If the intent is to somehow extend Mosaic law to Christianity, read the following:

Acts 15

⁴ When they arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas and Paul were welcomed by the whole church, including the apostles and elders. They reported everything God had done through them. ⁵ But then some of the believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and insisted, “The Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to follow the law of Moses.”

⁶ So the apostles and elders met together to resolve this issue. ⁷ At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe. ⁸ God knows people’s hearts, and he confirmed that he accepts Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. ⁹ He made no distinction between us and them, for he cleansed their hearts through faith. ¹⁰ So why are you now challenging God by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? ¹¹ We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.”

¹⁹ “And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. ²¹ For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.”

The intent was to explain the purpose of the law. It was a lot more than a magic ritual it was being described as.

Although Christianity is not under any of the laws, it doesn't mean we ignore them, either. We just are to obey the spirit of it now.

it's merely an absoultion ritual, sort of like a ceremonial way of saying "I swear on the life of my first-born I'm telling the truth". notice that the husband has to let it go at that, even if she has a misscarriage later, it doesn't give him a license to stone or divorce her as an adulterer, because the text doesn't actually treat that as conclusive evidence of such, contrary to how you're trying to spin it.

the concepts may be foreign to us, but it doesn't really fit the definition of superstition. superstition would be conducting such a test to determine guilt, and then punishing the accused based on the outcome. the concept of valuing childbirth and seeing miscarriage as a curse unfortunately also seems to be foreign to you, but your logic is as flawed as arguing that since miscarriages happen in nature that God approves of them.

First of all for Christian's Jesus fulfilled the Law thus rendering this Ritual a non starter. Second If the woman is to be killed after the miscarriage is does not sound like approval for the woman's activities that got her pregnant in the first place and it only mentions Married women.. This sounds like a way for husbands irrational jealousy to be removed . Since you consider God to be a myth then the ritual would always end in the woman's favor. A child of mine was aborted some 50 years ago with my knowledge and approval. not a day passes without an almost overwhelming sense of guilt on my part and while God may forgive me i won't or more truly I can't.. the blow-back is never mentioned and i don't believe anyone with a conscience can participate in kind this murder and remain undamaged.

That being said under Modern Islam she would still be stoned in 2012 even if she was raped.

A child of mine was aborted some 50 years ago with my knowledge and approval. not a day passes without an almost overwhelming sense of guilt on my part and while God may forgive me i won't or more truly I can't.. the blow-back is never mentioned and i don't believe anyone with a conscience can participate in kind this murder and remain undamaged.

Very movingly and eloquently stated.

Thank you for sharing your story with us.

I would like to see polling done on how many women who have had abortions in the past, now regret it

These are all signs of dysentery

???? how do you know this was a description of dysentery. Also many but not all I agree do not take bible literally but rather the stories were used to demonstrate how sin separates people from God. There probably was not a job at least a job of the bible but the story is recounted to make the point that rewards in the world are not the rewards we should strive for and that material success or the lack of it are not rewards or punishment. I realize that is not the reading of the bible by all but it is mine. You seem to express the idea that it is false due to a literal reading but I think there is a point being made that is greater than the literal ritual recounted and that is the sanctity of family. Remember the laws of inheritance in those times passed ownership to children based on their sex and birth order. The idea that a married woman could give birth for example to a male son that is not fathered by her husband has repercussions beyond fidelity. The cultural aspects of a first born male that might be illegitimate. My guess is that if DNA testing were available at that time that test would have been required.

First of all, you are interpreting the language where Jesus says "I have come to fulfill the law" to mean that he came to put an end to mosaic law.

That is not what i was referring I was referring to John 3-16 which we think means that keeping the law is no longer what is required but rather belief in and acceptance of Jesus. is all that is necessary to be a Christian.

The beauty of it is that they can interpret it anyway they want. They have been doing that since it as been written and re-written and re-written. Move the goal posts just enough to try and keep up with science. So sick of them saying "Proof". If I had a dollar for every time I heard a religious nut nut say that I would be a millionaire. If anyone needs to show proof it's you. Don't worry I know you can't.

Good job Chris!

show me the Higgs... prove it by finding it.. are we really just masses of strings at different vibrations with 11 different dimensions 8 of them we cant see, touch, or hear. talk about belief!!!!! You are touting something way beyond your ability to prove or for that matter understand. 11 dimensions prove it.

The smartest that mankind have to off are working on it. What have you geniuses got? Let me know when you find the remants of a talking snake ... or better yet, when your absent god finally decides to utter a single convincing word. The Mary grilled cheese sandwiches aren't cutting it.

thoughtful - You picked a poor example. The scientist's are %99.96 sure they have found the Higg's, they won't say they have found it until they reach %99.9999. Which means they just need to collect a little more data from additional collisions to push it to the desired number.

If you are going to use string theory as an example, please use it correctly. It is 6 compacted dimensions, 2 time dimensions and the 3 dimensions that we see. The physics is explained by the math. BTW - There are some conditions where things happen in 23 dimensions. The LHC may be able to detect some aspects of this theory whenever they reach full power. Only time will tell.

As for abortion in the Bible, I will say that at the time of the Bible, they did not know how conception worked. They thought that man's fluids mixed with the woman's fluids and then babies. If there were illnesses or death that didn't obvious causes like old age, then it was something evil or the devil, but nothing can occur without God allowing it. Most of the arguments above are based current day knowledge, not the knowledge of 2000 years ago, so the interpretations of the Bible scriptures then would be different than today.

s for abortion in the Bible, I will say that at the time of the Bible, they did not know how conception worked. They thought that man's fluids mixed with the woman's fluids and then babies. If there were illnesses or death that didn't obvious causes like old age, then it was something evil or the devil, but nothing can occur without God allowing it. Most of the arguments above are based current day knowledge, not the knowledge of 2000 years ago, so the interpretations of the Bible scriptures then would be different than today

Very true. Which is why I give God minus points for coming up with the absurdity called "circumcision". Arguments forwarded by Christians that this was actually a sanitary thing to do are equally countered by Jewish arguments that sanitation had nothing to do with it. I'm familiar with the Lilith reasons for doing it, but I'm ALSO aware that this all-knowing wise and loving God said nothing about anesthesia or antibiotics with that procedure.

If sanitary reasons are what makes it a good thing, then you'd think this all-knowing and loving God would have said something about antibiotics at LEAST. And there's no love without the anesthetics.

what he said!

Wow! That's the first argument for the idea that the unborn are not actually alive that someone has come up with that might actually make sense. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it is sommething I need to think about. Thanks.