Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

Making the case for the affirmative will be DoulosforGod.

This is a continuation of a discussion that began on Facebook and continued over
to our forum here.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

I am going to post 3 responses:
1. A direct response to the article
2. A response from the Messianic and Non-Messianic Jewish Community.
3. And a final note from myself.
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?
1. If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life" (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”
This includes:
Revised Standard Version
The American Standard
New English Bible
Today's English Version
The Douay-Rheims Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The argument here is not whether the Hebraic word, as the author insists, should be translated miscarry, but rather the dishonest insertion of the phrase "to the mother". The author tells us that all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal "goes forth" is with the word "miscarry". The scope of the Hebrew that is used here ranges from a still birth to a child that could sustain life, and everything in between. There are two camps, the one that the author is from and one that contains pro-lifers who insist that the terminology here refers only to a viable life. I find that the extreme stances here are not implied absolutely by this verse. Which is why verses 23-25 deal with the what the punishment should be, if there is injury all the way up to death.
A friend looked over this response and added the following: wrote: " 'The author tells us that all of the major scholarly translators think the best way to translate the literal "goes forth" is with the word "miscarry". The scope of the Hebrew that is used here ranges from a still birth to a child that could that could sustain life, and everything in between.' This is a much too restricted understanding of the word. It is not at all restricted to child birth. In Genesis 38, it is used to describe:
1. The order in which the twins 'came out', but also
2. The command that Judah gave when he found out that Tamar was pregnant through harlotry, 'Bring her out' – same root.
In the Exodus 21 passage, any injury to the woman is already covered in the Law through the equal damage clause, i.e. 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life'. To restate it for the woman would be redundant. Therefore the, 'But if there is any further injury', clause must relate to the fetus.
The argument that the fetus is not a human is a 'conscious smokescreen' that most pro – choicers don’t even believe. It is solely used to debate pro – lifers. In 1980 – 82ish, I was in the graduate program for Urban Counseling at Michigan State . This was less than 10 years after Roe v. Wade. I was the only white male and the only pro – lifer in the entire program; not just in this class but in the entire program. We were discussing abortion and I remember speaking out in the discussion that, as long as we do not know when life begins, perhaps we should not terminate it until we do know. The response was immediate and overwhelming. One woman said, 'We know there’s life there (This is thirty years ago) it’s just that we should still have control over our bodies.' Nobody took issue with her as to whether or not there was any doubt that the fetus possesses life. The entire class just stared at me in agreement. Had there been any doubt then, the subsequent thirty years of scientific research and knowledge in biology and genetics would have erased it. This is the same school in which the department head spoke to us during orientation saying,
'You’re not here to learn. You’re not even here to learn how to learn. You’re here to get letters behind your name so that people will listen to you.'
Hope this helps. I do not have the time to delve more deeply than this today."
Now, to address the deceitful insertion of the phrase, that appears in the article, but that is colored red; "if the mother was harmed", which does not appear in the Hebrew, or the majority of translations:

NIV
NASB
ESV
RSV
ASV
INTERLINEAR

I own an Interlinear Bible that contains the original Hebrew and Greek, the Interlinear with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and other tools, allow me to look into what is being said, as the verses are literally translated under the Hebrew words into English with a Strong's Reference number above them.
Exodus 21:22-24
"22 And when fight men, and they strike a woman pregnant, and goes forth her children (3206), and no there is injury; surely he shall be fined as may put upon him the husband the woman's and he shall give, through the judges. 23 But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,..."
STRONG'S REFERENCE #3206
I will see what I can do about putting a list together of the different terms in question here, the link below addresses this slightly. However, it should be noted that the phrase the author inserts into Ex. 21:22 is not there in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew. Which removes any and all classifiers from the verse with regard to whom the damages are being paid for. They can either be for the child or the mother.
ERRANT SKEPTIC
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 2. Numbers 5:17-31
…and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
This passage describes a method by which the husband could induce an abortion, with the help of the priest. If a husband suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship, then he would bring her to the tabernacle and the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would then have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce a miscarriage. There is no concern about the fate of the fetus. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require of her husband if she suspected him of adultery.
I would post the whole section here, but its lengthy so I provided a link so that it can be read in its entirety. What is being described here is a test of adultery, and had nothing to do with abortion. In fact even a light reading of the verse shows us that this test can occur at any time, whether adultery was committed or not. The verses point out specifically that the matter remain hidden from the husband, and it is strictly by a spirit of jealousy that the husband brings his wife to the priests. A husband would not need to bring his wife to a priest if she was pregnant with someone else's child, to identify that adultery had been committed.
Despite the author's assertions, there is absolutely nothing in these verses that would give way to speculating that any pregnancy would be aborted, the matter is not even addressed. In verse 28 it tells us that if she is found undefiled, then she will be free and conceive children. In all of this section the only notation to conception comes after she has been found clean. There is no evidence to support an abortion argument.
Num. 5
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 3. Leviticus 27:6
If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be…
A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three. Below the age of one month they were given no monetary value.
The majority of the first websites that pop up with regard to this verse and abortion, are stating that this verse supports abortion. I find that if it is taken out of context, then I can see how this assumption can be made. The section of Leviticus 27, deals with someone redeeming something or someone they have dedicated to God. These are the values assigned for someone to pay money to get, persons or property dedicated to God, back. There is nothing ascribing that children under 1 month were dedicated to the Lord. The one account I can think of is Samuel, whose mother swore to God that the child He blessed her with would be given back to Him, but she did not give Samuel to God until he was weaned from her. Even in this situation Samuel was sworn back to God for his entire life, as a stipulation for the blessing of conceiving him.
The chance of child fatality decreases the older the child gets. Conception to the first month sees the highest risk of mortality, and even today the first month of a child's life, after birth, has the highest risk of mortality. There is no case for abortion here, as this deals with the potential natural death of the child. In other wards with the concept of viability. Also there is nothing that says a child under 1 month would be dedicated to God, and therefore would not need to be redeemed.... I want to look into this more...
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 4. Numbers 3:15
…every male from a month old and upward you shall number.
Only male babies over one month of age were counted as persons during a census. A baby under one month of age and a fetus were not counted as a person.
Again, there is nothing in Numbers 3 that supports abortion. Most likely this has more to do with the high rate of mortality, than with a child younger than one month having no value in the eyes of God.
Below are verses that speak out against sacrificing children, and a link to an article that looks at archeological evidence as well as what the Bible has to say about it. This is pointed out because the children sacrificed were often new born, or aborted. This shows that even a child one month or younger is recognized by God, and the murder of them is considered an abomination.
Abortion and the Ancient Practice of Child Sacrifice wrote: Abortion and the Ancient Practice of Child Sacrifice(graphic picture in the top right corner) "In the same context Tertullian describes the Christian attitude towards both abortion and infanticide saying:
'For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away the life once born or destroy it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man, the fruit is always present in the seed.'"
Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:1-5; 2 Kings 16:3
Jeremiah 19:4-6; Jeremiah 7:31-32; Deuteronomy 12:29-31
Isaiah 57:1-9; Ezekiel 16:20-21
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 5. Hosea 13:16
…their little ones will be dashed to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open.
16 Samaria is held guilty,[e]
For she has rebelled against her God.
They shall fall by the sword,
Their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
And their women with child ripped open.
NKJV
I am always skeptical when someone quotes only part of a verse, and even showing a verse without at least 2 verses before an after it should be looked into to make sure that the context is kept, and if it has, then also that the attempted meaning being drawn from it does not contradict the spirit of the text as a whole. In this case the author partially quotes a verse, depriving it of its meaning and applying their own. This verse does not support abortion, nor the claim that the unborn child had no personhood status to God/ Jews or within the Bible. This is an indictment of God's wrath, a declaration of His judgment.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 6. Genesis 38:24
Tamar was found to be pregnant and because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that HE had impregnated Tamar when she posed as a prostitute.)
11 Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house till my son Shelah is grown.” For he said, “Lest he also die like his brothers.” And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house.
12 Now in the process of time the daughter of Shua, Judah’s wife, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And it was told Tamar, saying, “Look, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.” 14 So she took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place which was on the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife. 15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face. 16 Then he turned to her by the way, and said, “Please let me come in to you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law.
So she said, “What will you give me, that you may come in to me?”
17 And he said, “I will send a young goat from the flock.”
So she said, “Will you give me a pledge till you send it?”
18 Then he said, “What pledge shall I give you?”
So she said, “Your signet and cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” Then he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. 19 So she arose and went away, and laid aside her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.
20 And Judah sent the young goat by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand, but he did not find her. 21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, “Where is the harlot who was openly by the roadside?”
And they said, “There was no harlot in this place.”
22 So he returned to Judah and said, “I cannot find her. Also, the men of the place said there was no harlot in this place.”
23 Then Judah said, “Let her take them for herself, lest we be shamed; for I sent this young goat and you have not found her.”
24 And it came to pass, about three months after, that Judah was told, saying, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry.”
So Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!”
25 When she was brought out, she sent to her father-in-law, saying, “By the man to whom these belong, I am with child.” And she said, “Please determine whose these are—the signet and cord, and staff.”
26 So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again.
27 Now it came to pass, at the time for giving birth, that behold, twins were in her womb. 28 And so it was, when she was giving birth, that the one put out his hand; and the midwife took a scarlet thread and bound it on his hand, saying, “This one came out first.” 29 Then it happened, as he drew back his hand, that his brother came out unexpectedly; and she said, “How did you break through? This breach be upon you!” Therefore his name was called Perez.[a] 30 Afterward his brother came out who had the scarlet thread on his hand. And his name was called Zerah.
NKJV
These verses are chocked full of things that should have never been. The Bible often records things that are ungodly. I am thankful that it does, because if the Bible was just written by men, none of these things would have been recorded. The author seems to make a valid assumption in using these verses. But the claim that these verses supports the argument that the unborn does not have personhood status, falls fatally short. Both Judah and Tamar were horribly wrong in their actions. Judah for partaking in prostitution, and Tamar for playing the part of a harlot to trap her father in law.
In the mindset of the Jewish community at this time, the children conceived in sin were unclean, just by the nature of their conception. This mindset does not reflect God's thoughts on the matter as we are told:
Ezekiel 18:20 (New King James Version)
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Judah orders Tamar's execution, with no regard to the children because he thought they were not of his lineage. Even if Judah order her execution blindly in rage and gave no thought to the children, his actions do not declare to us God's thoughts on the murder of unborn children. It should be noted that when Judah was convicted of his guilt in this matter, and if it was not for him doing wrong first Tamar would not be in this place of condemnation, that he did not have her executed. Of even more importance, it should be noted that Perez is a direct descendent of the Christ Jesus.
Genealogy of Christ
Name Code
I would find it highly suspect that God, knowing the beginning from the end would have no regard for the man who was in the lineage of Christ, just because he had at one point of his life been a fetus. Which brings us back to the verse that declares that God is not a respecter of men. He does not judge one differently than another.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 7. 2 Kings 15:16
He [Menahem, king of Israel] sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. He apparently was angry that the people of Tiphsah refused to open the gates of the city. The king obviously gave no value to the life of a fetus.
16 At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.

Menahem King of Israel

17 In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria ten years. 18 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD. During his entire reign he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit.

If the author had continued to read, verses 17 and 18, he would have identified that Menahem did evil in the eyes of the LORD. There is nothing, in the bible recording the heinous acts of a man, that some how transposes those acts to God. David murdered a man because he got the man's wife pregnant. Just because this is recorded in the Bible, does not mean that God all of a sudden changed His mind and found adultery, murder and polygamy as acceptable. So in the case of 2 Kings 15:16, we can not infer that God some how does not place personhood status on the unborn, because a cruel and evil king decided he was going to murder the unborn children.
The argument that the author is making here could be likened to if the author had written. "The author of this article does not value the fetus, and because I am now alive in God's creation, this shows that God does not value the life of a fetus because I don't."
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 8. Numbers 31:17-18
Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Moses, under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin woman. Many of the latter would be pregnant so their fetus was killed too. Thirty two thousand female virgins were spared because they had value to the men. The fetuses were destroyed, because they were perceived to have no value.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One should notice that these are the words of Moses, not an incident in which God spoke to the people. In those cases in which God spoke through His chosen representative, the statement is always prefaced "The LORD said to Moses..."/ "These are the words of the LORD..." or something along these lines. The author of the article left out the fact that Numbers 31 records vengeance against the Midians for their actions towards the Israelites. While you can not dismiss the potential that some of those women may have been pregnant, it can not be absolutely stated that there were pregnant women amongst the captive non-virgins. This would not be the only compromise that Moses allowed the Israelites. Jesus tells us that because of the hard hearted nature of the Israelites Moses allowed certificates of divorce.
Matt.19
First, Midian was under God's judgment, which includes all Midians. There were no parameters given at the beginning of Numbers 31 that would lead me to believe that any Midianite was to survive. This again does not show that God did not place value, or personhood status on the unborn child.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 9. Deuteronomy 2:34
And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining;…
They exterminated all of the people, including children and the fetuses of pregnant women –- under the instruction of the God of the Bible. This is an early example of ethnic cleansing.
26 “And I sent messengers from the Wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon, with words of peace, saying, 27 ‘Let me pass through your land; I will keep strictly to the road, and I will turn neither to the right nor to the left. 28 You shall sell me food for money, that I may eat, and give me water for money, that I may drink; only let me pass through on foot, 29 just as the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir and the Moabites who dwell in Ar did for me, until I cross the Jordan to the land which the LORD our God is giving us.’
30 “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass through, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into your hand, as it is this day.
31 “And the LORD said to me, ‘See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to possess it, that you may inherit his land.’ 32 Then Sihon and all his people came out against us to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. 34 We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining. 35 We took only the livestock as plunder for ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we took. 36 From Aroer, which is on the bank of the River Arnon, and from the city that is in the ravine, as far as Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us; the LORD our God delivered all to us. 37 Only you did not go near the land of the people of Ammon—anywhere along the River Jabbok, or to the cities of the mountains, or wherever the LORD our God had forbidden us.

The author states that this is an early example of ethnic cleansing. To make this claim is to do so devoid of Biblical context. The nations in the land that the Jews were to occupy, were under God's judgment. The Jews freedom from Egyptian slavery coincided with the time that the nations in the promised land reached the point in which their wickedness brought about God's judgment. The Israelites were part of the vehicle of God's judgment against those nations. The people of those nations were to be wiped out, so that their abdominal practices would die with them. This does not say that God does not place value on the unborn child.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 10. 1 Sam. 15:3; see Ezekiel 9:6
Thus says the LORD… kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes:
Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status. (Abortion article, page 4)

For more information, visit http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php.
1 Samuel 15
The LORD Rejects Saul as King
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
Ezekiel 9
Judgment on the Idolaters
1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, “Bring near those who are appointed to execute judgment on the city, each with a weapon in his hand.” 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”
5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.
7 Then he said to them, “Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!” So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, “Alas, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?”

Both of these deal with an execution of judgment. The author deprives the verses of their context so that they may apply their own. These verses do not imply that God does not place personhood status on the unborn child. Nor do these verses support abortion.
It should also be noted that in Ezekiel 9:6 it says; "...women, mothers and children..." It would seem that anyone younger than adult age is considered a child in this verse, which includes the unborn...
The verses from Leviticus have already been addressed.
Oxford Companion to the Bible wrote:Oxford Companion to the Bible, page 4:
“Abortion. Abortion as such is not discussed in the Bible, so any explanation of why it is not legislated or commented on is speculative. One possibility is that the cultural preoccupation with procreation evident in the Hebrew Bible ruled out consideration of terminating pregnancy. Archeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent. It is also possible that, given the diet and living conditions at the time, female fertility was low. Male control of reproduction and a belief that numerous descendants are a sign of divine blessing are also found in the Bible. These factors support the view that abortion would not have been common.”
Oxford Companion to the Bible
In order to see it you have to click on the book image, click on first pages and then scroll down until you get to page 4. Sorry, Google books is no longer showing page 4....

While the Oxford Companion to the Bible, page 4, does argue both sides of the discussion, the author of this article wants us to believe that it is pro-abortion. The section on abortion both starts and ends with sections that assert that there is a Biblical call to procreate, and an argument against abortion. I personally believe that the author of this section did not fully comprehend the matter on which they were speaking of. A friend of mine who is now a Messianic Jew, was talking with me on this subject and she pointed to something, that I knew, but for some reason did not readily come to mind. EVERY Jewish woman, throughout the history of Ancient Israel hoped that she would be the one to bear the promised Messiah. No Jew in their right mind would abort a baby that could be the promised Messiah.

Carl Henry recognizes this fact in calling abortion "the horrendous modern immolation of millions of fetuses on the alter of sex gratification."
Open Bible


2 Samuel 12:14-31 (New King James Version)
14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house.
The Death of David’s Son

And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 So the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the ground. But he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead. For they said, “Indeed, while the child was alive, we spoke to him, and he would not heed our voice. How can we tell him that the child is dead? He may do some harm!”
19 When David saw that his servants were whispering, David perceived that the child was dead. Therefore David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?”
And they said, “He is dead.”
20 So David arose from the ground, washed and anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house; and when he requested, they set food before him, and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive, but when the child died, you arose and ate food.”
22 And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD[a] will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

In these verses a child under a month old dies. The whole time from birth to death David fasted asking God to spare the child. If children less than a month old had no value, David would not have gone through this. Likewise, God would not have used the death of the child as punishment upon David, if the fetus or child less than a month had no value.

Exodus 1:15-21
15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; 16 and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”
19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21 And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

The midwives did not kill the just born child, because they feared God... Why fear what He thinks, unless He real does care about the children under a month after birth in age...

Amos 1: (NKJV) wrote:
13 Thus says the LORD:
“ For three transgressions of the people of Ammon, and for four,
I will not turn away its punishment,
Because they ripped open the women with child in Gilead,
That they might enlarge their territory.
14 But I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah,
And it shall devour its palaces,
Amid shouting in the day of battle,
And a tempest in the day of the whirlwind.
15 Their king shall go into captivity,
He and his princes together,”
Says the LORD.
Last edited by DoulosforGod on Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

Messianic Jewish responses: wrote: "I am sending this to you as a brief explanation so that you can begin to combat this horrible and dreadful unholy words that this person and website declare as Truth.....
This law found in Exodus 21:22-25 turns out to be the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person.... No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman. Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life.... The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it.... Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22-25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life!

The sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Heb: murder) refers to every act of mur- der: child, wife, husband, stranger, self, etc. Since it is scientifically established that the fetus is a human being, the commandment applies to abortion as well. “Thou shalt not kill” is equivalent to “Thou shalt not commit abortion.”

In addition, a variety of biblical teachings collectively prove the value of the life of a 'fetes'
For example, the fact that every person has value and dignity because he is created in Elohim's image should influence our views. . Also, repeated biblical teaching on Yahweh's special care for the poor, the innocent and the defenceless, and that the Scriptures clearly teach that men and women in the act of procreation are co-workers with Elohim in relation to the process of bringing new life into existence.

Then, too, the Scriptures teach that Elohim forms the child in the womb, that the child is an “artwork” of Himself. . Finally, we find in the Bible that all human life is absolutely unique, precious, and loved by Yahweh. Those who destroy human life are held accountable by Yahweh.

All of the above and a great deal more indicate that the Bible is not silent regarding the value of human life, including the fetus formed in a mother's womb and also it is clearly AGAINST ABORTION….

To the contrary, a biblical understanding of Yahweh, man, procreation and conception, gestation, and life itself reveals that far from being silent on abortion, the Bible teaches that abortion is a crime against both Elohim and man.

Shalom and blessings
C.S.L and C.J.S
Messianic Jewish responses: wrote: A little bit more:
In the Scriptures, the Greek word brephos is often used of the newly born, infants, and other children. For example, in Acts 7:19, brephos refers to the children killed at Pharaoh's command. But in Luke 1:41,44, the same word is used for John the Baptist while he was yet a fetus in the womb, a pre-born infant.

The Scriptures inform us that John the Immerser was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, indicating personhood (Luke 1:15). In addition, the Greek word Huios means "son," but it is also used in Luke 1:36 to refer to John the Baptist's existence in the womb before birth, at six months.
The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children - a child, a boy, etc. But in Exodus 21:22, it is used of a child in the womb.
In Genesis 25:22, the word yeladim (children) is used in reference to Rebecca's children struggling while still in her womb.
In Job 3:3, the word geber is used to describe the conception of Job as "a man child is conceived." That word, geber, is a Hebrew noun that is usually translated as a man, male or husband.
In Job 3:11-16, Job equates the pre-born child with kings, counselors and princes.
All of these scriptures and many others indicate that the Bible views a fetus as being as much of a person as it does a child or an adult. The scripture repeatedly assumes the continuity of a person from conception to adulthood. In fact there is no separate word used exclusively of a fetus that will permit it to be distinguished from an infant as far as its personhood and value are concerned.
Again, I say the Bible regards a fetus is the same as a child.
The following are some scriptures that show that Yahweh relates to the unborn in a personal manner:
In Psalm 139:16, the psalmist says concerning Yahweh, "Your eyes saw my unformed body."
In Job 31:15 - "Did not He who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"
In Job 10:8-11 we read a poetic description affirming Yahweh's hand in our creation: "Your hands formed me and made me altogether. . . You have clothed me with flesh, and have knit me together with bones and sinews."
Psalm 78:5-6 reveals Yahweh's concern over "the children yet to be born."
Here are some more scriptures that show that abortion is wrong, that Yahweh has plans for people even before they are born:
Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Galatians 1:15-16a - "But when He who set me apart, even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles."
Isaiah 49:1,5a - "Listen to me, O Islands, and pay attention you peoples from afar. Elohim called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me. And now says the Master Yahweh, who formed me from the womb to be His servant . . . "
Judges 13:3 - The angel of Master Yahweh appeared to her, "you are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son."
Again these verses show that the Bible views people as people, even before they are born. No other reasonable conclusion is possible.
There also are scriptures that indicate that human life belongs to Yahweh, not to us:
Malachi 2:10 (portion) - "Did not one Yahweh create us?"
Psalm 24:1 - "The earth is the Yahweh's, and everything in it."
Zechariah 12:1 - "Yahweh . . . forms the spirit of man within him . . . "
Yahweh, Himself makes the statement in Ezekiel 18:4a - "Behold, all souls are mine, the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine."

Online Interlinear

The Tanakh (Old Covenant) (and the Brit Ha’Chadeshah (Renewed Covenant)) does indeed place value on the life of a Fetus, in fact a Fetus is a baby, a child. Here are some Scriptures:

Exodus 21:22
22 "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges.

The fact is if the women is struck and she conceives prematurely (the baby will die) it is her husband that decides the amount to be payed for the loss of life, and that amount is confirmed by judges. This shows that both the husband and the judges recognise the life lost.

Psalms 127:3
3 Children too are a gift from ADONAI; the fruit of the womb is a reward.

Psalms 139:13
13 For you fashioned my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb.

Isaiah 13:18
18 Their bows will tear young men to pieces, they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb, their eye will not spare children."

If the child in the womb had no value, there would be nothing to pity.

Isaiah 44:2
2 Thus says ADONAI, who made you, formed you in the womb, and will help you: Don't be afraid, Ya'akov my servant, Yeshurun, whom I have chosen.

(Several Scriptures say similar to the above, Isaiah 44:24)

Isaiah 46:3
3 "Listen to me, house of Ya'akov, all who remain of the house of Isra'el: I have borne you from birth, carried you since the womb.

Isaiah 49:15
15 Can a woman forget her child at the breast, not show pity on the child from her womb? Even if these were to forget, I would not forget you.

Here, YHWH says even if a mother forgets the child at the breast, or from her womb, HE would not. Notice, the word child is used for the one born (at the breast) but also the Fetus, both are children (human).

Isaiah 66:9
9 "Would I let the baby break through and not be born?" asks ADONAI. "Would I, who cause the birth, shut the womb?" asks your God.

The Fetus is a baby, and is thus human. It is also YHWH who creates the Fetus, it is life.

Hosea 12:3
3 In the womb he took his brother by the heel; in the strength of his manhood he fought with God.

This is about Jacob and Esau, in the womb they are life.

Luke 1:15
15 for he will be great in the sight of ADONAI. He is never to drink wine or other liquor, and he will be filled with the Ruach HaKodesh even from his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41-42
41 When Elisheva heard Miryam's greeting, the baby in her womb stirred. Elisheva was filled with the Ruach HaKodesh 42 and spoke up in a loud voice, "How blessed are you among women! And how blessed is the child in your womb!

The Fetus here is referred to as both a baby, and a child.

Luke 1:44
44 For as soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy!

The Fetus is referred to here as a baby.

In summary: A fetes is created by YHWH, it is considered a baby, and a child, and is thus life, and human. It is murder, to kill it.

Shalom! Hope this helps!
Jewish responses: wrote: Dear ...,
The Jewish understanding of when life begins derives from the Bible verse you cited. The question is “when is a life viable?” In the Bible, it appears that viability marker is one month after birth. Traditionally, the Mourner’s Kaddish is not recited for a baby who has died before reaching one month.

The way Jewish Law works is that the principle is retained, even as conditions change. Therefore, a widely accepted Jewish position today follows the principle of when a life is considered viable. Now that medical science has made it possible for premature births to be viable at, say, 24 weeks, then a reasonable Jewish position is that prior to that time in gestation the fetus is not considered a viable life. Different learned Jews have varying opinions about this, but almost all hew to the same principle of viability as laid out in the Bible.

I hope this is helpful.
Rabbi...
Jewish responses: wrote: Dear ...,
I can’t give this as much time as I would like, but I’m happy to respond to your thoughtful questions as best I can.
I don’t dismiss the Psalms as “just poetry”. For me they are the exalted, sometimes anguished, sometimes yearning, sometimes grateful voice of the human heart longing for God. They are a great inspiration to me. At the same time, I do not put their poetic voice in the same category as the more legal sections of the Bible. I do not find it possible to harmonize all the conflicting positions that can be assessed by reading the books of the Bible synoptically – the effort makes my head spin. Some of the Bible is the voice of poetry, and some is the voice of civil and criminal law. Clearly, when Moses concludes his oration in Deuteronomy by exhorting the people to “choose life!” we have gotten to the heart of Judaism. Translating that command into the complexities of life is then the task of the succeeding generations of the Jewish People and our teachers. Therefore in different eras and in different parts of the world, interpretations evolve and vary with changing conditions.

Because of that, I find it very problematic to take “a side” in the abortion debate in this country, and I use scripture as a general guide but not for the specifics of my position. I appreciate the historic, biblically based Jewish position about attempting to determine when a life is considered “viable”. It is therefore not precisely clear to me when “life” begins, in human terms. Because of the commandment to “choose life”, I never counsel women to get abortions, and at the same time I am aware of situations in which an abortion may indeed have been the most life-affirming choice in a given extreme situation. I suspect you would find many rabbis who share my general point of view on this complex and painful issue.

So, if you still feel it would be worthwhile for me to review the response you are working on, I will. I hope my responses are helpful.

By the way, where are you writing from?

Best wishes,
Rabbi ...
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

By now I have posted a counter argument to the article that attempts to support abortion by trying to establish that in the Bible an unborn child does not have personhood status in the eyes of God. In addition to that I have posted responses to this concept from the Messianic and the non-Messianic Jewish communities. I have tried to keep the argument that I have posted to showing why the aritcle's arguments are flawed and illogical. It was not my intent to affirm that God is prolife. He is of course, and I know that it still came through, but that is not what the attempt was aimed at. I thank you for the time and opportunity to place these on this site.

In the past I have argued and disputed with individuals who "argued" in a very similar manner to those I have encountered from this site. As I said before I am not here to argue and debate this point. God has made it clear that I am no longer to engage in that manner of dialog anymore. If you chose to respond to what has been placed here, I welcome that. This has not been an effort to win you over, to change your mind or hearts. It has been to simply get the truth out so that others who happen to stumble upon this site will not be lead astray.

Darrel is neither Christian, nor Jew and admits that he does not believe there is a god (let alone believe in YHWH). And therefore can not, by any stretch or measure, be an authority of the Judeo Christian faith. Nor can he be an accurate interpreter there of. No I am not promoting elitism, a Christian does not need to be taught by me or any other Christian, because the Holy Spirit is our teacher (1 John 2:24-27). Likewise, I am not supporting the view, that is out their, that Christians should abandon the churches, I believe in the regular gathering of Christians, and that there should be discipleship and mentoring done.

But those without the Spirit, who are not regenerated, will never be in a position of authority over, or on the meaning of, scripture. That being said the Bible warns us not to add or take away from the words of this Book. Darrel has done both (Rev. 22:18-19). The simple fact is, the Bible states that everything written in it is there by the authorship of God (2 Tim. 3:16), while Darrel attempts to argue that the Bible records God's thoughts on the "non-personhood" status of the unborn child, all the while he is convinced that there is no God, and doubts the authorship of the Bible. It is illogical to argue that the Bible records the opinions of a God that does not exist, and did not write it.

In closing, to maintain a position that the Bible some how supports abortion requires that one has not been exposed to the facts or the truth. Or there is a willful choice to deny the truth. From beginning to end the Bible supports and encourages life, and no other faith system in the world places such a high value on life, as that of the Judeo-Christian faith. In the beginning God said to be fruitful and multiple. That command was never recanted. Over and over again there is a call to protect those who can not protect themselves. There are countless mentions to the fact that God knits us together, forms us in the womb and knows us before we are even conceived. As stated earlier every Jewish woman desired, hoped and prayed to be the mother of the promised Messiah, no such society would view an unborn child as anything less than sacred (Psalm 127). Again, thank you for the opportunity to post this information, whether you receive it or reject that is between you and God.
Last edited by DoulosforGod on Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

Hello DoulosforG. I'm so glad that, even if it took three months, you kept your word and have remembered to come by and share your response.

I have to prepare for our monthly freethinker meeting tomorrow, but I look forward to going through and giving all of your points the careful consideration they richly deserve.

Darrel.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

Darrel wrote:Hello DoulosforG. I'm so glad that, even if it took three months, you kept your word and have remembered to come by and share your response.

I have to prepare for our monthly freethinker meeting tomorrow, but I look forward to going through and giving all of your points the careful consideration they richly deserve.

Darrel.
Thanks! and please do...
Hope your meeting is enjoyable and productive.

I actually can not thank you enough for you patience. My Spring semster ended and went straight into the Summer semester. I just finished one of the classes and have 2 more to complete. I also thank and praise God for this oppurtunity as well as stiffling my argumenative nature!
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

"DoulosforGod" provides a 16 page critique of our Does the Bible consider a Fetus a person? tract. I let him go first because I understood he was going to provide an affirmative for his position that the Bible does consider a fetus has having the legal status of personhood. In the following he seems use the arguments in our tract to begin his arguments. That works I guess.

He says:
I am going to post 3 responses:
1. A direct response to the article
2. A response from the Messianic and Non-Messianic Jewish Community.
3. And a final note from myself.
I will respond to 1-3 in separate posts. Most of his material is passed along from others, but no matter, I am happy to go thorough and respond to all of the points no matter the source.

He begins by quoting our argument #1.
DoulosforGod wrote:
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?
1. If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life" (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”
This includes: Revised Standard Version, The American Standard, New English Bible, Today's English Version, The Douay-Rheims Bible, The Jerusalem Bible
DOU
The argument here is not whether the Hebraic word, as the author insists, should be translated miscarry, but rather the dishonest insertion of the phrase "to the mother". 
This is an astonishing mistake right out of the box, and one that is continually referred to throughout this first response. How on earth could Doulos possibly think I was quoting the Bible in the above when it is so blatantly clear it is not a quotation of the verse? Doulos, you think I have inserted the words "if the mother was harmed" into the verse to make my case? Are you kidding me? This is ludicrous.

Doulos, this tract you are citing fits on a single half page of paper, using both sides. It is quite succinct and abbreviated. That is not a quotation of the verse, as anyone who understands English can see. Here are the clues:

a) it says; "the penalty was a fine" that's past tense. That is my reference to what the verse means
b) the part of the verse that is quoted verbatim was put in quotation marks and included only three words: "life for life."
c) this is a description of what the verse must mean, if "miscarriage" is the correct translation.
d) This description doesn't read anything at all like Exodus 21:22

I am astonished and amazed that you are accusing me of dishonestly making up scripture, or being so unbelievably stupid that I wouldn't know how to quote a verse correctly on a tract we have distributed more than a thousand copies of! Are you for real? This is ridiculous!

Okay, now on to the argument. You say (or someone you know says, you clearly are being sloppy when borrowing from your friends, as I will show):
DOU
"The argument here is not whether the Hebraic word, as the author insists, should be translated miscarry, but rather the dishonest insertion of the phrase "to the mother".
Wrong. This argument, argument number one is clearly, precisely and exactly whether the word should be translated miscarry (the notion that there was a dishonest insertion having been dismissed above). Let me explain this to you, since you clearly don't understand the argument at all. If the word is translated "miscarriage" as a preponderance of scholarly translations do (and I have more), then your goose is cooked. It means the monetary fine must apply to the miscarriage and death of the fetus. This necessarily means a fetus does not have the status of personhood. If it had, it would have been "life for a life" and no need mention of a fine. That's why this is important. That's why I didn't need to quote the verse. It is assumed the grownups reading this have access to a Bible and can look it up for themselves. This is argument #1 in total: the verse in question refers to a miscarriage. From that fact it follows that since the punishment is a fine, the fetus is deemed less than a person. The verse then goes on to say if "if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,..." After a miscarriage the fetus is already dead, and the term "life for life" must necessarily refer to the mother, which of course everyone understands to have the right of personhood.

Since the Bible is a Jewish book from start to finish, let me now refer to Jewish scholars who best know how to translate and interpret their own book. I quote the verse from my Jewish Study Bible, TANAKH TRANSLATION:

"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."  Exod 21:22-25

The annotation for this verse is:
"Other damage to the worman. Based on reckoning: perhaps reckoning the age of the fetus, but both this translation and the alternative "as the judges determine:" are questionable. Halakhic exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder (cf. 12-14 n.): hence, abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother (Rashi and Yad Ramah to b. Sanh, 72b; see also Gen. 9.5-6 n.)"

Incidentally, I hadn't read this until just now (a friend gave me this Bible few years ago, long after I wrote this tract). It's nice to know that my interpretation coincides so perfectly with Jewish scholarship.

All standard scholarly translations understand this premature expulsion to be a miscarriage which means, death of the fetus. If that's correct, then a fetus by definition is not a person, because a distinction is drawn between the death of a fetus (punishment a fine, not life for life, because it's not a person), and the death of the mother, which is ruled by the law of lex talionis, "life for life."

And Here's another reason why this interpretation makes the most sense. If the fetus lived, why would there be a fine at all? Where would the harm be? There wouldn't. It would just be a mother giving birth, and they wouldn't even necessarily be able to draw a line of cause and effect. If she was so late term that she goes on to give a successful birth, then maybe it was just time. And another problem. As you admit later on, infant mortality (death) was very high under the best circumstances back then. They obviously had no ability to deal with those born prematurely as we do now. How likely is it that, when a woman is struck with a blow so hard during a random time during her pregnancy, that the fetus is literal goes forth out of her, for that fetus to survive during those primitive times? Not very. Hence this verse id dealing with a remedy for this situation, and that remedy is a fine. A wife is carrying a fetus and that has some value to the father. So he is compensated with money. This is because the fetus does not have the right of personhood. The mother does. Hence the different remedies.
DOU
The author tells us that all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal "goes forth" is with the word "miscarry".
Correct. And note, Doulos is clearly passing along a rebuttal from someone else. It's not clear why he would refer to me as "the author." He then goes on to quote someone else, who uses the exact same words. So either he is just sloppy, or he's passing off someone else's comment as his own (probably sloppy). Anyway, the preponderance of scholarship clearly says "miscarriage," and this sinks Duolos argument. That's why we use this as argument number one. Unfortunately Doulos, you got so distracted thinking you had caught me doctoring a verse, that you failed to even understand the argument.
DOU
The scope of the Hebrew that is used here ranges from a still birth to a child that could sustain life, and everything in between.
Then let's see an argument showing this. Something beyond mere assertion. Here is what we know: a pregnant women is struck with a blow so hard that it causes her fetus to be expelled. This is understood to be a miscarriage, unless upon the rare occasion that it would happen to be very late term and could result in a live birth. The verse allows for this possibility, with a fine according to the damage "as the woman's husband may exact from him,...". Commonsense would dictate that in the vast majority of times when this happens to a woman, in this day and age, the fetus would be lost. The remedy? A fine. This is because a fetus is not a person, and does not rate the rank of "life for life."
DOU
There are two camps, the one that the author is from and one that contains pro-lifers who insist that the terminology here refers only to a viable life.
Let's see an argument that the terminology even could refer "only to a viable life." How ridiculous.
DOU
I find that the extreme stances here are not implied absolutely by this verse.  Which is why verses 23-25 deal with the what the punishment should be, if there is injury all the way up to death.
The reason verses 23-25 deal with further and serious "life for life" punishment is because it involves the mother, who is a person. The fetus is already accounted for at this point, and is only counted as worthy of a fine. Because the Jews did not consider a fetus a person.

Now we get Doulos' friends comment, which it turns out to be word for word the same.
A friend looked over this response and added the following: wrote: " 'The author tells us that all of the major scholarly translators think the best way to translate the literal "goes forth" is with the word "miscarry". The scope of the Hebrew that is used here ranges from a still birth to a child that could that could sustain life, and everything in between.' This is a much too restricted understanding of the word. It is not at all restricted to child birth. In Genesis 38, it is used to describe:
Your friend is confused. This doesn't hinge upon the definition of a single word. Words are often defined by their context. I refer to the preponderance of the best Bible scholarship which is conducted by translators with the proper training, expertise and scholarly peer review in order to know what they are talking about. Your friend, with his Strongs concordance in hand, shows no such expertise. In this instance, it is the context that reveals that, according to the best scholarship, the most accurate translation to use here for "go forth," is "miscarriage."
[snip]
In the Exodus 21 passage, any injury to the woman is already covered in the Law through the equal damage clause, i.e. 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life'. To restate it for the woman would be redundant.
That's why it's not a restatement. Its reference here only refers to the woman (a person). The fine, refers to the miscarried fetus (not a person).
Therefore the, 'But if there is any further injury', clause must relate to the fetus.
Wrong. The fetus is dead, that's why there is a fine with regarding this part of the event. The further injury refers to damage to the woman, and since she is a person, if she dies, the rule is "life for life."
The argument that the fetus is not a human is a 'conscious smokescreen' that most pro – choicers don’t even believe.
Here you friend slips into a blatant equivocation. Of course a fetus is "human" (my discarded toe nail clippings are human) but whether it is "a human" and thus "a person" is indeed the question. So he is either equivocating or begging the question. Neither of these ruses are useful (but they are very common).

Your friend then goes on to relate a story from his college days, where he makes the same slippery confusion, with a slightly different equivocation, "life":
Nobody took issue with her as to whether or not there was any doubt that the fetus possesses life. The entire class just stared at me in agreement.
Of course a fetus "possesses life" because it is alive. So are the 11 million sperm my body made in the last hour. So are the fleas on my cat. "Possessing life" is not the question, because being alive does not a person make. The question is, does the Bible give the status of personhood to a fetus. The answer is no, it specifically does not accord this status to a fetus, and we have several independent lines of evidence showing this.
Now, to address the deceitful insertion of the phrase, that appears in the article, but that is colored red; "if the mother was harmed", which does not appear in the Hebrew,...
Again, this is just breathtaking stupidity. No one with a reading comprehension beyond grade school could misunderstand the brief description of what the verse in question means, was not a failed attempt to quote what the verse says.

[big snip]
I own an Interlinear Bible that contains the original Hebrew and Greek, the Interlinear with a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and other tools, allow me to look into what is being said,...
I have those too. My Jewish friend, former missionary in Israel and English teacher in Israel, who grew up speaking Hebrew and is very knowledgeable of Biblical Hebrew specifically, says Strong's Concordance is a joke and filled with absurd mistakes. That's why I don't do my own translating but rather look to the best scholarship and those with the training and expertise to do competent scholarly translations, not some country bumpkin Christian with a concordance and a doctrinal agenda to fulfill and certainly no adequate knowledge of the nuances and complexity of the language in question! I look to the best scholars, and the scholars agree with me and my interpretation.
I will see what I can do about putting a list together of the different terms  in question here, the link below addresses this slightly.
You link is broken, but no matter, it looks like evangelical apologetic and is not hardly going to trump the mainstream Christian and Jewish scholarship I have already referred to. And I have much more which I already posted in our Facebook exchange. I will probably repost it.
it should be noted  that the phrase the author inserts into Ex. 21:22 is not there in a literal interpretation of the Hebrew.
Again, the author (me) clearly was not quoting the verse in question. Your glaring mistake is most rudimentary and reveals you apparently haven't read the verse in question very carefully.

Doulos moves on to #2, which he quotes from our tract in it's entirety, and I repeat here:
2. Numbers 5:17-31
…and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
This passage describes a method by which the husband could induce an abortion, with the help of the priest. If a husband suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship, then he would bring her to the tabernacle and the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would then have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce a miscarriage. There is no concern about the fate of the fetus. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require of her husband if she suspected him of adultery.
DOU
I would post the whole section here, but its lengthy so I provided a link so that it can be read in its entirety.
Actually, you just quoted argument #2 in its entirety, and that's fine. Going through these one by one is perfect.
DOU
What is being described here is a test of adultery, and had nothing to do with abortion.
Actually, it is a test of adultery which if you fail, results in a God induced miscarriage. An induced miscarriage is the very definition of an abortion and this means it certainly has something "to do with abortion."
DOU
In fact even a light reading of the verse shows us that this test can occur at any time, whether adultery was committed or not.
Right, hence the need for the test, to determine... "whether the adultery was committed or not."
DOU
The verses point out specifically that the matter remain hidden from the husband, and it is strictly by a spirit of jealousy that the husband brings his wife to the priests.  A husband would not need to bring his wife to a priest if she was pregnant with someone else's child, to identify that adultery had been committed.
Your claim makes no sense. If a husband's wife gets pregnant and he has suspicions about her activities, he has no way of knowing if the fetus is really his. It's a the problem that still goes on til today (see day time TV). Fortunately, we have a magical test (DNA) that actually works in determining parentage. In Bible times they wanted to have magic test so bad, they made one up and pretended that they had a test. Hence this magical adultery test, with it's magical floor sweeping concoction to sort it all out.
DOU
Despite the author's assertions, there is absolutely nothing in these verses that would give way to speculating that any pregnancy would be aborted, the matter is not even addressed.
Let's ask the Jewish scholars. That would seem to make sense since we are dealing with a Jewish book. I refer again to my Jewish Study Bible, TANAKH TRANSLATION. Here is the annotation for these verses:
DOU
14: The reason for the husband's jealousy is not stated but may be that his wife is pregnant and he questions the paternity of the child.
15-26: The husband brings a menial meal offering, and the priest prepares a mixture of sacral water, dust from the sanctuary floor, and ink rubbed off the inscription of the curse for the woman to drink. Most importantly, the priest administers the woman's oath and utters the curse that takes effect if she is guilty.
18: Water of bitterness seems to refer to the bitter taste of the water, which contains ink and dust, probably mixed with ashes fallen to the sanctuary floor from the altar. Alternatively, the "bitterness" can refer to the punishment, apparently a distended uterus, a possible miscarriage, and ultimate infertility (so medieval commentators). A third interpretation translates the Heb term "hamarim: as "instructing,: derived from a different verbal root ("y-r-h"). Thereby, the waters reveal the woman's innocence or guilt."
DOU
In verse 28 it tells us that if she is found undefiled, then she will be free and conceive children.
Right. She can hope the floor sweepings weren't really nasty that day!
DOU
In all of this section the only notation to conception comes after she has been found clean.
Wrong. If she was not found to be clean, then she gets this: "If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people."  --NIV, see 14 other translations of this verse here
DOU
There is no evidence to support an abortion argument.
Mere assertion. The Jewish scholars and their translation, disagree with you. I'll go with their word over yours.

Also, remember, if she had cheated on her husband, this was a most grievous crime, punishable by death (not in this instance because even these guys weren't dumb enough to probably really believe this silly test). If she was pregnant with another man's child, the husband would certainly have no interest in it. If she admitted her adultery, the punishment would be death.

On to #3.
3. Leviticus 27:6
If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be…
A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three. Below the age of one month they were given no monetary value.
DOU
  The majority of the first websites that pop up with regard to this verse and abortion, are stating that this verse supports abortion.
Careful readers will find it interesting to observe where your scholarship comes from... "websites that pop up." Oy.
DOU
I find that if it is taken out of context, then I can see how this assumption can be made.
Excellent. So all we need is for you to provide the missing context that shows why a person under one month old, shouldn't be valued as a person, if they are indeed a person.
DOU
The section of Leviticus 27, deals with someone redeeming something or someone they have dedicated to God.  These are the values assigned for someone to pay money to get, persons or property dedicated to God, back.  There is nothing ascribing that children under 1 month were dedicated to the Lord.
Show how this is relevant or helps your case. If a person gains personhood at birth, oh wait... that's not your argument, that would be an argument today (we assign personhood at birth), your argument is that a fetus has the right of personhood. So they should really counting and valuing the fetus, in the womb. But they didn't do that. And not only did they not do that, they didn't even value them as persons after birth, as we do now. They didn't count them until one month old. Hence the problem for your case. No context is going to fix that problem.
DOU
The one account I can think of is Samuel, whose mother swore to God that the child He blessed her with would be given back to Him, but she did not give Samuel to God until he was weaned from her.  Even in this situation Samuel was sworn back to God for his entire life, as a stipulation for the blessing of conceiving him.
I don't see how this in anyway helps your case. If a fetus was truly a person, they should have been counting them then. But we don't do that now, and they didn't do that then. And as we see from this example, they didn't even value them with full personhood status, until 30 days after birth.
DOU
The chance of child fatality decreases the older the child gets.  Conception to the first month sees the highest risk of mortality, and even today the first month of a child's life, after birth, has the highest risk of mortality.
That sounds plausible, makes sense. But this doesn't help your case. If a 29 day old infant has full personhood status, then they should be given a valuation. Jews gave no valuation before one month, regardless of what the reason may have been. Hence, personhood, in this instance (or sense), wasn't granted until one month.
DOU
There is no case for abortion here, as this deals with the potential natural death of the child.  In other wards with the concept of viability.  Also there is nothing that says a child under 1 month would be dedicated to God, and therefore would not need to be redeemed....  I want to look into this more...
Yes, you better do that. None of this fixes the problem or provides a context that changes the fact that they weren't even given full personhood status until 30 days (for whatever reason).

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 4. Numbers 3:15
…every male from a month old and upward you shall number.
Only male babies over one month of age were counted as persons during a census. A baby under one month of age and a fetus were not counted as a person.
DOU
Again, there is nothing in Numbers 3 that supports abortion.  Most likely this has more to do with the high rate of mortality, than with a child younger than one month having no value in the eyes of God.
It may be due to high mortality. But this doesn't help you. If 29 day old infants had full personhood status, they should have been counted as persons. That's what we do now. But the Jews didn't do that, and it doesn't matter why. What matters is that they did not even give 29 day old infants full personhood status, they weren't even worth counting! But on your argument, they should have been counting and assigning a value to a fetus! Not only did they not do that, they did it a month later than we do today.
DOU
Below are verses that speak out against sacrificing children, and a link to an article that looks at archeological evidence as well as what the Bible has to say about it.  This is pointed out because the children sacrificed were often new born, or aborted.  This shows that even a child one month or younger is recognized by God, and the murder of them is considered an abomination.
This is irrelevant, and wrong. "Being recognized by God," whatever that means, is not the question. And God was all for human sacrifices, on occasion, see our tract on morality here. See example #3. While there are instances in where people are commanded to not to sacrifice their children to Yahweh (Deut. 18:10, 12 and Jer. 7:31), there are instances in which they were told to perform human sacrifices. This is rather off topic, but you brought it up, so let's go there. From my book, page 69:

God has given statutes requiring human sacrifice
and has accepted the sacrifice of humans.


"Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not
good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they
caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the
womb, to the end that they might know that I am the
LORD. Ezekiel 20:25-26
[The NRSV gives:
"Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good
and ordinances by which they could not have life;
and I defiled them through their very gifts in
making them offer by fire all their first-born, that
I might horrify them; I did it that they might know
that I am the LORD."]

"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe
fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons
shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with
thine oxen, and with thy sheep..." Exodus 22:29-30

"Not withstanding no devoted thing, that a man
shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both
of man and beast, and of the field of his possession,
shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is
most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which
shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but
shall surely be put to death. These are the
commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses
for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." Lev. 27:28, 29, 34
Abortion and the Ancient Practice of Child Sacrifice wrote:DOU
...  "In the same context Tertullian describes the Christian attitude towards both abortion and infanticide...
I'm interested in arguments based on the Bible and modern scholarship, not some warmed over apologetic with a church father giving his mere doctrinal opinion.

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 5. Hosea 13:16
…their little ones will be dashed to the ground; their pregnant women ripped open.
DOU
16 Samaria is held guilty,[e] For she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword, Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, And their women with child ripped open.
NKJV
     I am always skeptical when someone quotes only part of a verse, and even showing a verse without at least 2 verses before an after it should be looked into to make sure that the context is kept, and if it has, then also that the attempted meaning being drawn from it does not contradict the spirit of the text as a whole.  In this case the author partially quotes a verse, depriving it of its meaning and applying their own.
Actually, no meaning was applied or given. The verse speaks for itself, so we simply quoted it. If you believe adding a few more verses changes something, then you need to explain how and why. You didn't do this.
DOU
This verse does not support abortion, nor the claim that the unborn child had no personhood status to God/ Jews or within the Bible.
If a fetus is an innocent person, independent of its mother (which is the status it would have if it was truly a "person"), then why is it being slaughtered along with its mother? Because the Jews didn't consider, and have never considered, a fetus as having rights of personhood. Nor did they consider a fetus as being even independent of it's mother (which of course it isn't, by definition, it is "dependent" on its mother for breath and life).
DOU
This is an indictment of God's wrath, a declaration of His judgment.
Mere assertion. A judgement that necessarily considered a fetus as part of it's mother, and not a separate person.

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 6. Genesis 38:24
     Tamar was found to be pregnant and because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that HE had impregnated Tamar when she posed as a prostitute.)
DOU
[verses Gen. 38:11-27 snipped, see above if needed]
  These verses are chocked full of things that should have never been.  The Bible often records things that are ungodly.  I am thankful that it does, because if the Bible was just written by men, none of these things would have been recorded.  The author seems to make a valid assumption in using these verses.  But the claim that these verses supports the argument that the unborn does not have personhood status, falls fatally short.  Both Judah and Tamar were horribly wrong in their actions.  Judah for partaking in prostitution, and Tamar for playing the part of a harlot to trap her father in law. 
  In the mindset of the Jewish community at this time, the children conceived in sin were unclean, just by the nature of their conception.  This mindset does not reflect God's thoughts on the matter as we are told:
Ezekiel 18:20 (New King James Version)
    20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Trying to find an argument in her somewhere. Hmmm.... so you quote some other verses that say a soul, person, whatever, bears it's own sin. Well this very example at hand refutes you. We have a fetus that was about to be punished due to the actions of its mother. This is just another example that Jews didn't consider a fetus as independent from the mother. No independent personhood for the fetus.

Now if we want to dig a little deeper, it is easy to find all sorts of counter examples directly refuting your assertion from Ezekiel 18:20 (which I don't think helps your case anyway). Let's look at those verses now. I quote my book, page 61:

God punishes children for the sins of their fathers.

"...I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children..."
Exod. 20:5

"Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity
and transgression and sin, and that will by no means
clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children, and upon the children's
children, unto the third and to the fourth
generation." Exod. 34:7 also Num. 14:18, Deut. 5:9

"Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given
great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to
blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee
shall surely die." 2 Sam. 12:14

"And the word of the LORD came to Elijah... Seest
thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because
he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the
evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the
evil upon his house." 1 Kings 21:28, 29

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity
of their fathers..." Isaiah. 14:21

"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and
recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the
bosom of their children after them..." Jer. 32:18

So let's have no more of this, God's mindset was: "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son." The Bible is chock full of instances of God doing exactly that.
DOU
Judah orders Tamar's execution, with no regard to the children because he thought they were not of his lineage.  Even if Judah order her execution blindly in rage and gave no thought to the children, his actions do not declare to us God's thoughts on the murder of unborn children.
I can of course bury you in examples of the Bible God, and his people, often upon his command, slaughtering people left right and center, with no regard to persons, or the unborn. In fact, we have posted a large compilation of these here. Perhaps give them a look.
DOU
I would find it highly suspect that God, knowing the beginning from the end would have no regard for the man who was in the lineage of Christ,...
You're way out in the bushes of conjecture now, pretending to know what your God thinks. Not really interested in what you find "highly suspect."
DOU
"...brings us back to the verse that declares that God is not a respecter of men.  He does not judge one differently than another.
I can bury you in examples of this God doing exactly that. See the list of atrocities already referenced. And here is a clear example that comes to mind (of no doubt hundreds), remember in 2 Samuel when David simply numbered the people and this made God so mad he killed 70,000 people. Would you say that God judged those people a little differently than he judged David? And incidentally, wouldn't you say this would be another grand example of God punishing someone else for the actions of another? Yes, it would be.

But we even have a closer example. You need not look further than the very verse before the verse in our example #1. That's in Exodus 21:21, where a slave owner is allowed to kill their slave, with no punishment, as long as the slave takes a day or two to die. Lost of the slave (their money) is consider punishment enough. One would be hard pressed to find a better example God definitely judging "one differently than another."

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 7. 2 Kings 15:16
He [Menahem, king of Israel] sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. He apparently was angry that the people of Tiphsah refused to open the gates of the city. The king obviously gave no value to the life of a fetus.
DOU
"verses 17 and 18, [show]... that Menahem did evil in the eyes of the LORD.  There is nothing, in the bible recording the heinous acts of a man, that some how transposes those acts to God.
This one is just another example of Jews, slaughtering pregnant women and not ascribing any special treatment to pregnant women. This was done throughout the Hebrew scriptures and often at the behest of God, and performed by the best of Bible heros. Let me know if you would many many examples (actually, see the list of atrocities). When God commands act such as the following:

"So Joshua… utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded." (Joshua 10:40)
"…do not leave alive anything that breathes." (Deut. 20:16)
"…Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:3)

It DOES necessarily transpose the "heinous acts of a man," "to God."
DOU
Just because this is recorded in the Bible, does not mean that God all of a sudden changed His mind and found adultery, murder and polygamy as acceptable.
A couple points:
a) Adultery was only a concern as it regarded the property of men (who wrote these verses in their own self interest, notice, no adultery concern for men)
b) Murder is by definition wrong, so probably best to avoid that word in this example.
c) We know God found polygamy acceptable. Most Bible heroes in the Hebrew scriptures had multiple wives. And if there was any question, we have at 2 Sam 12:7-8:

"Thus says the LORD,... I gave you your master's house, and your MASTER'S WIVES into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more."

This is God saying he gave David many wives, and if it wasn't enough, he'd give him more. This is hardly compatible with being "against polygamy."

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 8. Numbers 31:17-18
Now, kill all the boys. And kill every women who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Moses, under orders from God, ordered the soldiers to kill every boy and non-virgin woman. Many of the latter would be pregnant so their fetus was killed too. Thirty two thousand female virgins were spared because they had value to the men. The fetuses were destroyed, because they were perceived to have no value.
DOU
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

One should notice that these are the words of Moses, not an incident in which God spoke to the people.
Perhaps you should have began your reading at the beginning of this chapter, which reads:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying..." LINK

The notion that Moses wasn't acting as the proper agent of the LORD in this instance, is of course, absurd.
DOU
In those cases in which God spoke through His chosen representative, the statement is always prefaced "The LORD said to Moses..."/ "These are the words of the LORD..." or something along these lines.
See Numbers 31:1, referenced above. You're getting desperate now.
DOU
While you can not dismiss the potential that some of those women may have been pregnant, it can not be absolutely stated that there were pregnant women amongst the captive non-virgins.
Pure desperation. See the hundreds of examples of atrocities already provided. They didn't care about the fetuses.

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 9. Deuteronomy 2:34
And we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed every city, men, women, and children; we left none remaining;…
They exterminated all of the people, including children and the fetuses of pregnant women –- under the instruction of the God of the Bible. This is an early example of ethnic cleansing.
[snip verses 26 - 37]
DOU
The author states that this is an early example of ethnic cleansing.  To make this claim is to do so devoid of Biblical context.
The "context" that ethnic cleansing is a favorite pastime of these people, as supposedly encouraged by their God? Yes. Engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing really often doesn't make it any less abhorrent. In fact, reasonable people will understand that it actually makes it more so.
DOU
The nations in the land that the Jews were to occupy, were under God's judgment.
Yes, I know how the story goes.

Next.
Does the Bible consider the fetus a person? wrote: 10. 1 Sam. 15:3; see Ezekiel 9:6
Thus says the LORD… kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes:
Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status. (Abortion article, page 4)
For more information, visit http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php.
DOU
1 Samuel 15 [snip verses]
Ezekiel 9 [snip verses]

These verses do not imply that God does not place personhood status on the unborn child.  Nor do these verses support abortion.
I think reasonable people can see that

"Thus says the LORD… kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Shows that "the LORD" lumps in women in with their fetuses, and does not judge them separate them legally from their mothers. Which is the point.

[snip Oxford cherry pick quote from their abortion article.] If you read that entire article (which I have already quoted to you) you will see that certainly doesn't support your position. See above.

And now we finish with an interesting example...
DOU
2 Samuel 12:14-31 (New King James Version)
14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house.
The Death of David’s Son
[snip verses 15-22]
In these verses a child under a month old dies.  The whole time from birth to death David fasted asking God to spare the child.  If children less than a month old had no value, David would not have gone through this.  Likewise, God would not have used the death of the child as punishment upon David, if the fetus or child less than a month had no value.
Boy, you really don't want to bring this example up. It so flatly contradicts points you have made earlier. It's an excellent example of God punishing one person for the sins of another. An excellent example of God judging one person differently than another (why should the baby pay for David's sin?).

Now the obvious errors with this last bit:
a) David was praying for a child that had been born (and it would certainly have value to him), thus this is not an example of something even regarding a fetus. Example is not comparable or relevant.
b) It wouldn't matter anyway, a fetus certainly can have a value (see example #1), it's just that it does not have the value of personhood, according to the Bible.
c) Notice how you clearly admit God was using the death of the child to punish David, flatly contradicting your claim that God doesn't do that.

Hope this helps. I look forward to responding to (2) the opinions you've passed along from these "Messianic Jews" and then (3) final note.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

I suppose I should set aside the very addictive "Angry Birds" game for a little bit and take a look at some of these comments Doulos has passed along from some unknown "Messianic Jews" he found.

When we had talked on Facebook I had referred, with reference, to several facts about the Jewish position on this. I don't think Doulos knew this information or liked it very much. So he was determined to do some investigating, consult with some rabbis and get back to me. So three months later, he has these comments from "Messianic Jews."

I am normally all for people being able to label themselves as they wish. There are a few exceptions. This is one of them. The term "Jewish" refers to a couple different things. One can be culturally Jewish, ethnically Jewish, and or religiously Jewish. What one cannot be, honestly, with out doing violence to language, is be a religiously observant Jew, and one who also worships Jesus as almighty God. If you worship Christ, we already have word for that, and it is "Christian."

Imagine if a person was a catholic, and then started going to a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall, and doing and believing all of the things JW's do. But then they still wanted to call themselves, catholic. And they wanted to do this because it helped them "witness" to catholics. So they would hang out with catholics and say: "Yeah, I'm a catholic" now read this Watchtower. Oh, and by the way, the Pope and the church is the harlot that rides the ten headed beast in the book of revelation."

That's not what Catholics believe. That's what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. So this person would not be being honest with language. Can't do that. Just the other day a kid was trying to tell me that he didn't like "religion," and he wasn't "religious," but rather, he was one who has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." More word games and BS. Christianity, is a religion. If you are a Christian, you are a member of Christianity, and are to that extent, the member of a religion. That's what the words mean. Anything else is a just word games. This is a common game currently employed since religion is starting to have an even worst reputation than normal, so people try to pretend they aren't religious, by changing and avoiding the words. It's pathetic and childish, but it fools some people.

And that's what these "Messianic Jews" are doing. They are fooling you. They may be ethnically or culturally Jewish and are trading on this overlap to hide their overt Christianity within a bogus cloak of "religious Judaism." Can't do that. And worse, they do this very perniciously as a method to peddle and evangelize their Christianity while making Christianity more palatable to Jews. It's a Christian outreach missionary program and a ruse is so obvious that even the supreme court of Israel has ruled on this. Note:

"In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews... In its summary of the ruling, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the belief that Jesus is the Messiah "cannot be reconciled with Judaism" and "marks the clear separation between Judaism and Christianity."

Learn more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus

Jackie Mason was a little more to the point: "There's no such thing as a Jew for Jesus. You can't be a table and a chair. You're either a Jew or a Gentile."

So, to counter act the information I provided showing how Jews and Judahism think about abortion, Doulos was supposed to investigate the matter and find differently. I suspect that didn't go so well for him, so instead he found these pseudo-Jews, who are really Christians pretending to be Jews (who no doubt are culturally/ethnically Jewish). What Doulos has done then is found some Christians who agree with his position on abortion. Big surprise! But more importantly, aside from exposing his (not really) Jews, do these people have any better arguments than what Doulos has already presented? Let's see how it holds up.

First, let me repost some of the material I just referred to above, and he (or the friend who wrote what he is passing along) carefully avoided when citing the Oxford Companion article on abortion. I can't imagine why they would have missed quoting this part:
Excerpts from "The Oxford Companion to the Bible"; edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan; Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 4

On Abortion:

"Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3- 7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.

"A key text for examining ancient Israelite attitudes is Exodus 21: 22-25: (snipped, but translated as "MISCARRIAGE, and yet no further harm follows....") Several observations can be made about this passage. The Hebrew text at v.22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury. The monetary judgment given to the woman's husband indicates that the woman's experience of the miscarriage is not of significance, and that the damage is considered one to property rather than to human life. This latter observation is further supported by the contrast with the penalties for harm to the woman herself."

What did the Rabbis say?:

The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being ex ecuted. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]

This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position."
I'll also quote this opinion.
Exodus 21:22-23:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

"The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

This was the traditional interpretation -- until recently, that is, when pro-life Christians became alarmed by the pro-choice side's successful use of it in the debate on abortion. They took a close second look at the passage, and discovered a second possible interpretation. The text actually turns out to be ambiguous. It does not say who exactly suffers the "mischief" or harm; it could be the fetus as well as the mother. In that case, a miscarriage resulting in a live birth was punishable by a monetary fine, but a miscarriage resulting in fetal injury or death would call for the same from the assailant.

This new interpretation suffers from three drawbacks. First, the Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation. Second, the laws of surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hammurapi and Eshnunna) were similar to Israel's, due to widespread copying of laws. There is no ambiguity in their laws; any harm caused clearly refers to the mother. Finally, miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths; saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science."
Now let's look at these assertions from the "Messianic Jews" Doulos found somewhere.
Messianic Jewish responses: wrote:
"This law found in Exodus 21:22-25 turns out to be the most decisive positive evidence in scripture that the fetus is to be regarded as a living person.... No matter whether one interprets the first or second penalty to have reference to a miscarriage, there is no difference in the treatments according to the fetus and the woman.
It couldn't be more clear that this claim is false. Apparently this person fails to understand argument #1, or they have reading comprehension problems with the verse in question. If the first penalty (a fine) is in reference to a miscarriage (and it certainly seems to, the scholarship is on my side), then the destruction of a fetus is not considered the death of a person, and "life for life" does not apply. This stands in contrast to the second penalty, which is reserved for when a person is killed. Like their neighbors, and almost every culture throughout history, Jews don't (and didn't) give a fetus the status of personhood.
Either way the fetus is regarded as a living person, so that to be criminally responsible for the destruction of the fetus is to forfeit one’s life....
Wrong. The first penalty here, which clearly applies to the expulsion of the fetus (miscarriage), is a fine.
The fetus, at any stage of development, is, in the eyes of this law, a living being, for life (nephesh) is attributed to it....
If your Christian friend was a little more Jewish, perhaps they would know that for the Jews, an important part of being a living being, a life, a soul, is "breath." Even in biblical times they were aware that a fetus does not literally breathe.
Consistently in the relevant data of Scripture a continuum of identity is evident between the fetus and the person subsequently born and Exodus 21:22-25 makes it clear that this prenatal human being is to be regarded as a separate and distinct human life!
Well, that is what this person wants to believe, no doubt. But we aren't in church where you can just assert something that sounds nice and agrees with your beliefs. We need good arguments. And this restatement of this persons belief, is not an argument. It's just a naked assertion.
The sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Heb: murder) refers to every act of mur- der: child, wife, husband, stranger, self, etc. Since it is scientifically established that the fetus is a human being, the commandment applies to abortion as well. “Thou shalt not kill” is equivalent to “Thou shalt not commit abortion.”
Again, mere assertion. And saying it's "established that the fetus is a human being," is just blatant question begging. Whether it is a person, or an entity that has the rights of a human being, is in fact the very question. It doesn't do to just assume this. That's question begging (a logical fallacy).

And this bit about "murder" is just a muddle. The Bible is horribly confused and contradictory on the matter of "thou shalt not kill/murder." Saying one can't murder is redundant since the word murder means "wrongful killing" by definition. So it's silly to say, "it's wrong to do something wrong." It's like saying, "thou shalt not do what it is not right to do." Murder is by definition "not right." If one commits murder, they are by definition committing a wrongful killing. On the other hand, saying "thou shalt not kill" is a little absurd in the Bible considering God and his agents were engaged in a nearly endless blood bath of killing. And when they weren't actively out killing everything that breathes (perhaps taking a break), they were telling others to go out and kill and slaughter.

Anyway, as my numbered arguments have already shown, killing a fetus was not considered equivalent to killing a person, this is because the Jews didn't consider a fetus a person. That's why they didn't count them in a census (just like we still don't today) or even assign a value to them for a month.
In addition, a variety of biblical teachings collectively prove the value of the life of a 'fetes'
This changes the question. A fetus indeed may have some value, and this is recognized in example #1 where a fine is charged for the destruction of one. But this doesn't mean it has the same value accorded to a person. One of my fingers, or kidney has a value, but it's not the same value as the whole person.
For example, the fact that every person has value and dignity because he is created in Elohim's image should influence our views. .
More question begging.
Also, repeated biblical teaching on Yahweh's special care for the poor, the innocent and the defenceless,
More question begging. Learn about this fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_begging
...and that the Scriptures clearly teach that men and women in the act of procreation are co-workers with Elohim in relation to the process of bringing new life into existence.
This comports quite nicely with that new life coming into existence and being granted personhood status the day they are born and breathing on their own, like we do now (or 30 days later for the ancient Jews).
Then, too, the Scriptures teach that Elohim forms the child in the womb, that the child is an “artwork” of Himself. .
Well, since in some sense Elohim forms everything, it doesn't follow that this give a fetus special status, or makes them equivalent to a "person." This "Elohim" storm god also forms about 11 million sperm every hour in the average adult male human. Each one sperm is genetically unique, alive and human. Does each one of them have personhood status? I hope not. Out of the 6.7 trillion or so sperm that my body will make during my 70 or so years of fertility, only one of them is going to get to make a person. If each sperm is a person, this sure makes God out to have made a system that destroys or throws away 99.9999999999999% of it's "persons." That makes Him out to be an even bigger killer than I thought!
Finally, we find in the Bible that all human life is absolutely unique, precious, and loved by Yahweh.
Wow, this person really needs to get a Bible, and then read it too. Or they can just start with the several hundred examples given here where Yahweh most certainly did not consider that "all human life is absolutely unique, precious, and loved." Far from it! And it's right there in your own book. Stating otherwise is either delusional or more ridiculous word games.
Those who destroy human life are held accountable by Yahweh.
Right, if they don't kill the right person, in the right fashion, on the right day, in the name of the right LORD, they might get into trouble, and be killed for it. As the story goes. But then, we are talking about fables stories with talking animals.
All of the above and a great deal more indicate that the Bible is not silent regarding the value of human life,
including the fetus formed in a mother's womb and also it is clearly AGAINST ABORTION….
More question begging. The Bible isn't silent on this issue, that's why I was able to compile a list of reasons showing the Bible is pro-choice and does not consider a fetus to be a person, ever.
To the contrary, a biblical understanding of Yahweh, man, procreation and conception, gestation, and life itself reveals that far from being silent on abortion, the Bible teaches that abortion is a crime against both Elohim and man.
Shalom and blessings
C.S.L and C.J.S
Blah blah blah. I guess in church people learn this habit of saying over and over what they want to be true, and then from that bad habit they then begin to think it lends credibility to the idea that the claim is true. But that's just silly and childish. We have very good reasons for knowing why the Jews back then, and now, don't consider a fetus to be a person. Just saying otherwise, as a statement of faith, and doesn't address the actual arguments I've presented.

I think I'll save these other opinions from these "Messianic Jews" (Christians in Jewish disguise) for tomorrow. Maybe there will be a good argument buried in there somewhere.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

Let's look at "Messianic Jew" number two, then we can get on to the real Jews...
Messianic Jewish responses: wrote:
A little bit more:
In the Scriptures, the Greek word brephos is often used of the newly born, infants, and other children. For example, in Acts 7:19, brephos refers to the children killed at Pharaoh's command. But in Luke 1:41,44, the same word is used for John the Baptist while he was yet a fetus in the womb, a pre-born infant.
That's nice. This material was clearly written after John the Baptist was grown (and later killed). So it is quite easy to refer to a person, after you know them, in earlier forms. That someone used a word to describe an earlier form of John the Baptist, as they spun a yarn about him kicking in the womb because he got near Jesus, does not in anyway ascribe the legal status of personhood to a fetus. It's just a nice story.

You know, before I continue wading through this list of really pathetic Christian anti-abortion excuses made out of the most absurd stretches, I think it's time to point something out. While there are multitudes of verses which take the time to condemn every sort of little thing from wearing clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19) to touching the skin of a dead pig (Leviticus 11:7, 10) along with pages and pages of instructions for making a holy box, a tent, curtains, lamps, candlesticks and wash basins (see Exod. chapters 25-30) including the length of the priest skirt (Exod. 28:42). And then God took the time to rule that they can't eat bats but grasshoppers and locusts are OK (Lev. 11:19-22), and tattoos are forbidden (Lev. 19:28). God even has to have a man bashed to death with rocks because he was picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week (even though it had NOT been "declared what should be done to him"! Num. 15:34). But we are being asked to believe, seriously, that SOMEHOW this ALL KNOWING god couldn't find the time to give a SINGLE negative insight or advisement on the travesty or wrongness of ABORTION! Not one verse, not one word. You know, if it had mattered to Him, one would think he could have penned a single verse about it. But no, he didn't, not one. So now we are treated to an endless parade of absolutely silly and ridiculous stretches of logic as Christians bend and twist reason like a pretzel as they try to find something, anything, to support their moral intuition that their God was such a nice guy that really must care about child/babies and the fetus too, even though, as anyone can read their Bible and see, he clearly didn't.

Okay, onward.
The Scriptures inform us that John the Immerser was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, indicating personhood (Luke 1:15).
Are you saying your God doesn't have the power to fill any object He wants with his holy spirit? He made animals talk. Surely he can go into a foot or an arm, or a fetus. I know a Pentacostal fellow who had his bass instrument taken over by the Holy Spirit during church service once. And then someone in the congregation stood up and interpreted his bass solo. Really. That people can pretend that a Holy Ghost is going into something, it doesn't mean the object necessarily has the status of personhood.

Also, you are clearly reading this verse wrong anyway. As the NIV puts it: "for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth." Some translations use "from the womb" but in this context it clearly means the same thing. He doesn't take wine, or other fermented drink, and will be filled with the HS "FROM the womb" or "from birth." These are actions that happen after birth, not "while still in his mother's womb" as this "Messianic Jew" is trying to have us believe. But a very creative attempt!
Wouldn't it have been so much easier if Yahweh had just thought to have given you a verse to work with? Then you could just point to that and shut the skeptics up. But he didn't. Maybe he forgot.
In addition, the Greek word Huios means "son," but it is also used in Luke 1:36 to refer to John the Baptist's existence in the womb before birth, at six months.
So decades later, a person pens this anonymous book of Luke, and refers to John the Baptist's mother as having conceived a son. That's supposed to be an argument? Careful readers, please note the quality of argument these Christians are reduced to using in support of their position on personhood. Amazing.
The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children - a child, a boy, etc. But in Exodus 21:22, it is used of a child in the womb.
So? And incidentally, according to: "The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon," it doesn't. See:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons ... yeled.html

See also here, where it seems to refer to: "to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail"

http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible ... nt=na&sr=1

But no matter, I don't see how this helps your case in anyway. You aren't going to define this problem away.
In Genesis 25:22, the word yeladim (children) is used in reference to Rebecca's children struggling while still in her womb.
People often mistakenly refer to what something may become in the future. It's just sloppy use of language. The correct term for a womb resident, is "fetus." The correct term after birth has occurred is "baby."
In Job 3:3, the word geber is used to describe the conception of Job as "a man child is conceived." That word, geber, is a Hebrew noun that is usually translated as a man, male or husband.
That's nice. I think this person is thinking they will be able to use a dictionary to win this argument by definition.
In Job 3:11-16, Job equates the pre-born child with kings, counselors and princes.
Well, someday a fetus, or a sperm, or an egg may be come some of those things. But that doesn't make them those things earlier in the process when they are not those things. Be careful to not confuse the potential with the actual. It's a common mistake but there is a difference.
All of these scriptures and many others indicate that the Bible views a fetus as being as much of a person as it does a child or an adult.
Ludicrous. Not only is a fetus never accorded the status of personhood, it specifically is not granted this status, see my arguments already given, especially 1-4.
The scripture repeatedly assumes the continuity of a person from conception to adulthood.
No it doesn't, not once. But even if it did, this wouldn't mean that the same value is given to the organism at each stage in the process. And indeed, the Bible doesn't. For instance, see the value of child vs. that of adults.
In fact there is no separate word used exclusively of a fetus that will permit it to be distinguished from an infant as far as its personhood and value are concerned.
Doulos, you really need to get some smarter phony Jews. These ones are a little dim.

Note:

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day." Since the fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law, it would be impossible to consider its abortion a murder. Indeed, most Jewish scholars have agreed that abortion was legal under Jewish law.” --Steve Kangas

And again, a quote from the Oxford Companion:
"What did the Rabbis say?:
The Rabbis ruled that the fetus was "animated" with a "life" similar to vegetables or animals, but only after birth did an immortal soul, a living person, a "nefesh adam," come into being. In fact, unless a full nine-month pregnancy was definitely known to have been completed, a female child was not considered a "bar Chaiyama" (a viable, living thing) until thirty days after its birth (males were required by the Law to be circumcised on the 8th day after birth, so a male only had to survive for eight days to be given a name).
The Talmud used the phrase, "ubar yerekh imo" ("The fetus is the thigh of its mother") [TB Hulin 58a and elsewhere] and, "the fetus is regarded as one of her limbs" [TB Gittin 23b]. Clearly, as the Rabbis understood the scriptures, the fetus is considered a "part of its mother" rather than an independent entity. [ Cf. "Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law" by David M. Feldman (New York: Schocken Books) , p. 253.] The Mishnah [Arakhin, I.4 (7a)] ruled that there is no need to wait for a pregnant woman convicted of a capital crime to give birth before being executed. The Talmud and the Mishnah have actually required abortion in cases where the mental or physical health of the mother was jeopardized by a pregnancy. [Ibid, p. 275]
While Jewish law forbad men to sterilize themselves, women were allowed to sterilize themselves, either temporarily or permanently [Talmud, Tosefta Y'vamot Ch. 8]. Men were believed to be subject to the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," but women were not.
This decidedly "Pro-Choice" stance is still held by the majority of Jewish organizations today. The United Synagogue of America passed a resolution that says in part: "In all cases, the mother's life takes precedence over that of the fetus up to the minute of its birth. This is to us an unequivocal position." Abortions, "though serious even in the early stages of conception, are not to be equated with murder, hardly more than is the decision not to become pregnant."
Your claim is just false.
Again, I say the Bible regards a fetus is the same as a child.
You are totally and completely wrong. In the Bible they counted children in a census, they didn't count fetuses. In the Bible children had a certain value, no value was given to the fetus. Etc.

Let's take a little break from these ridiculous arguments and contemplate how your God treats children. Christians like to go on about how God loves the children. Let's look at some of the better examples:

1) According to God's law, children are not persons but the property of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7).

2) God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him, he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53).

3) God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all of the people in the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34; etc.).

4) If you do not obey God, he will punish your children and your children's children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5, 34:7; etc.).

5) The bible says, “Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts” (Hosea 9:14)

6) God says a “stubborn son” can be killed (Deut. 21:18)

7) God kills Uriah’s seven day old infant because David sinned. (2 Samuel 12:15)

8) God sends a bear to kill 42 children for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)

9) God says, "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling..." (1 Samuel 15:3).

10) God says, “dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” (2 Kings 8:12)

11) God says, "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9).

12) God says, “slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children” (Ezekiel 9:6)

13) Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6 & 7).

Well that's enough, Isn’t that #12 twelve a nice one? “Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.” Has a nice ring to it. You don’t see Christians putting that one up in the kitchen very often do you?

Now back to the claims (I haven't read this stuff in advance, just respond as I go).
The following are some scriptures that show that Yahweh relates to the unborn in a personal manner:
In Psalm 139:16, the psalmist says concerning Yahweh, "Your eyes saw my unformed body."
In Job 31:15 - "Did not He who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"
In Job 10:8-11 we read a poetic description affirming Yahweh's hand in our creation: "Your hands formed me and made me altogether. . . You have clothed me with flesh, and have knit me together with bones and sinews."
Psalm 78:5-6 reveals Yahweh's concern over "the children yet to be born."
All worthless. Since this storm God knows all things, of course he knows these things. Meaningless.
Here are some more scriptures that show that abortion is wrong, that Yahweh has plans for people even before they are born:
Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Galatians 1:15-16a - "But when He who set me apart, even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles."
Isaiah 49:1,5a - "Listen to me, O Islands, and pay attention you peoples from afar. Elohim called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me. And now says the Master Yahweh, who formed me from the womb to be His servant . . . "
Judges 13:3 - The angel of Master Yahweh appeared to her, "you are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son."
Again these verses show that the Bible views people as people, even before they are born. No other reasonable conclusion is possible.
Not at all. It just shows this God is supposedly able to know the future before it happens. But we already knew that. Again, worthless, meaningless and accomplishes nothing whatsoever for your case.
There also are scriptures that indicate that human life belongs to Yahweh, not to us:
Malachi 2:10 (portion) - "Did not one Yahweh create us?"
Psalm 24:1 - "The earth is the Yahweh's, and everything in it."
Zechariah 12:1 - "Yahweh . . . forms the spirit of man within him . . . "
Yahweh, Himself makes the statement in Ezekiel 18:4a - "Behold, all souls are mine, the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine."
Again, since "everything" supposedly belongs to Yahweh, this accomplishes absolutely nothing special for the fetus. Most of these verses can apply equally to my pet goats.
Online Interlinear
The Tanakh (Old Covenant) (and the Brit Ha’Chadeshah (Renewed Covenant)) does indeed place value on the life of a Fetus, in fact a Fetus is a baby, a child.
No, a fetus is a fetus and has distinctly different characteristics from a baby or a child. That's why we use different words for them. Babies and children, for one thing, breath air and don't share blood with their mothers. Etc.
Here are some Scriptures:
Exodus 21:22
22 "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges.
The fact is if the women is struck and she conceives prematurely (the baby will die) it is her husband that decides the amount to be payed for the loss of life, and that amount is confirmed by judges. This shows that both the husband and the judges recognise the life lost.
Oops, Doulos and his friends are apparently passing along some cut and paste material that they didn't read or think carefully about. They just confirmed my position on my argument number one. They admit the baby will die, and that the punishment is a fine. This leaves the latter consequence of "life for life" to refer to the death of the mother. This means categorically that a fetus is not given the status of personhood.

Thanks for coming out folks, game over.

Doulos took three months to perfect these 16 pages he posted. Did he not even read his own material? For pity sake.
Psalms 127:3
3 Children too are a gift from ADONAI; the fruit of the womb is a reward.
Psalms 139:13
13 For you fashioned my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother's womb.
Isaiah 13:18
18 Their bows will tear young men to pieces, they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb, their eye will not spare children."
If the child in the womb had no value, there would be nothing to pity.
This refers to the person doing the slaying not having pity before slaughtering pregnant women. This could be said of chopping down a tree ("they will have no pity on the trees"). It doesn't give the status of personhood to this "fruit."
Isaiah 44:2
2 Thus says ADONAI, who made you, formed you in the womb, and will help you: Don't be afraid, Ya'akov my servant, Yeshurun, whom I have chosen.
(Several Scriptures say similar to the above, Isaiah 44:24)
Isaiah 46:3
3 "Listen to me, house of Ya'akov, all who remain of the house of Isra'el: I have borne you from birth, carried you since the womb.
Isaiah 49:15
15 Can a woman forget her child at the breast, not show pity on the child from her womb? Even if these were to forget, I would not forget you.
Here, YHWH says even if a mother forgets the child at the breast, or from her womb, HE would not. Notice, the word child is used for the one born (at the breast) but also the Fetus, both are children (human).
Boring.
Isaiah 66:9
9 "Would I let the baby break through and not be born?" asks ADONAI. "Would I, who cause the birth, shut the womb?" asks your God.
The Fetus is a baby, and is thus human. It is also YHWH who creates the Fetus, it is life.
A fetus is a fetus, not a baby. It is human, but then so are bodily fluids (if they come from a human). And yes, a fetus is alive. That doesn't make it a person.
Hosea 12:3
3 In the womb he took his brother by the heel; in the strength of his manhood he fought with God.
This is about Jacob and Esau, in the womb they are life.
And sperm are live too. Doesn't make them persons. There is a difference.
Luke 1:15
15 for he will be great in the sight of ADONAI. He is never to drink wine or other liquor, and he will be filled with the Ruach HaKodesh even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:41-42
41 When Elisheva heard Miryam's greeting, the baby in her womb stirred. Elisheva was filled with the Ruach HaKodesh 42 and spoke up in a loud voice, "How blessed are you among women! And how blessed is the child in your womb!
The Fetus here is referred to as both a baby, and a child.
A common informal sloppiness with language that still goes on today ("she is with child"). This refers to a future potential. The term for the organism in a womb, is fetus, zygote or Blastocyst etc. It's not a baby/child until it is born. That's just what the words mean and it's best to be accurate with language in a discussion like this.
Luke 1:44
44 For as soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy!
The Fetus is referred to here as a baby.
Happens all the time. Course, if it miscarries, it never would be able to experience being a baby. Although someone might informally say: "she lost her baby." This doesn't mean that the fetus has a right of personhood.
In summary: A fetes is created by YHWH,
Just like everything else in the universe, according to this religion.
it is considered a baby, and a child,
Nope, there is a difference. You can't define your way out of this problem with word games.
and is thus life, and human.
It is alive, and it is human, but then, so are my skin cells and they fall off by the millions every single day. So you need something more than "alive" and "human" to make your case.
It is murder, to kill it.
Not according to the Jews. Read your Bible.
Shalom! Hope this helps!
It didn't.

In the next installment, we'll look at what the genuine religiously observant Jews have to say. Actually, I did read ahead and there isn't much if anything to disagree with. They seem very reasonable and nuanced. And they agree with me. So we might even be done here.

Got anything else Doulos?

D.
--------------------
PS "Duolos" means "slave" for those who don't know.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

Okay, suppose I should finish up with these loose ends. Looks like two rabbi opinions and Doulos' summary comment are left. I am tempted to just leave the comments from the Rabbi's as they are, they seem to agree with me. But let's see what we can find.
Jewish responses: wrote:
Dear ...,
The Jewish understanding of when life begins derives from the Bible verse you cited.
When life begins isn't the question. Life is a biological term, and as I said, sperm and eggs are alive. The question is regarding "personhood" and when the legal status of personhood is obtained/granted in the Bible. If the rabbi wasn't clear here, perhaps they are just dancing around breaking the news to you, because the answer is clear (as even they reveal in their comments).
The question is “when is a life viable?”
No, that's not the question at all. Doulos, either you were sloppy and didn't present this problem to the rabbi's carefully and accurately, or for whatever reason, they didn't get "the question." And that's rather important. It's really not that difficult. Here is what you should have asked them:

Does the Bible grant the status of personhood to a fetus? The answer is no, and it's quite clear even in these responses that these rabbis know this.
In the Bible, it appears that viability marker is one month after birth. Traditionally, the Mourner’s Kaddish is not recited for a baby who has died before reaching one month.
Right.
The way Jewish Law works is that the principle is retained, even as conditions change. Therefore, a widely accepted Jewish position today follows the principle of when a life is considered viable. Now that medical science has made it possible for premature births to be viable at, say, 24 weeks, then a reasonable Jewish position is that prior to that time in gestation the fetus is not considered a viable life. Different learned Jews have varying opinions about this, but almost all hew to the same principle of viability as laid out in the Bible.
I hope this is helpful.
Rabbi...
This is a modern approach and one that I have very little trouble with. A modern person, not stuck in dogma, can see that there is a continuum, a process, and an increase in value as this organism progresses from sperm/egg (not very valuable, except in retrospect) to fetus but not viable (more value) to viable fetus (much more value but less than mother) to birth (full personhood status).

But again, this modern approach, or "widely accepted Jewish position today," is not the question. The Bible doesn't get updates it seems and the question is with regard to what the Bible says on this. As I have shown above, the Bible does not consider a fetus a person.

Next rabbi.
Jewish responses: wrote:
Dear ..., ...
I don’t dismiss the Psalms as “just poetry”. For me they are the exalted, sometimes anguished, sometimes yearning, sometimes grateful voice of the human heart longing for God.
You don't share with us what you sent to the rabbi's but it is clear from this that you (Doulos) told them I dismissed something as "just poetry." No, that is not accurate. Pointing out that many of your arguments are taken from poetry is just an aside. It wouldn't matter if it was poetry or not. An example, from an exchange I've had (one of many like this):
PR: "Try this from Psalm 139:13 “truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb …”>>

DAR
I am very familiar with this verse and the handful of others you may appeal to. This verse is a bit of Hebrew poetry but it accomplishes nothing for your position. Here’s why. Since God, as the story goes, knows all things from beginning to end, he knows of you before you are born, he knows you before your parents were born and before the earth was formed. So this verse, and God “knowing” something at any point in time, gets you absolutely nothing regarding the status or personhood of a fetus. Think about it.
Now, you don't think Yahweh used little knitting needles to make things (as he makes all things), this is poetry, not to be taken literally. But it wouldn't matter to the argument either way. God could make everything by way of knitting. The argument still gets you nothing, for the reason cited in my example above.
Rabbi continued:
They are a great inspiration to me. At the same time, I do not put their poetic voice in the same category as the more legal sections of the Bible. I do not find it possible to harmonize all the conflicting positions that can be assessed by reading the books of the Bible synoptically – the effort makes my head spin. Some of the Bible is the voice of poetry, and some is the voice of civil and criminal law. Clearly, when Moses concludes his oration in Deuteronomy by exhorting the people to “choose life!” we have gotten to the heart of Judaism. Translating that command into the complexities of life is then the task of the succeeding generations of the Jewish People and our teachers. Therefore in different eras and in different parts of the world, interpretations evolve and vary with changing conditions.
Because of that, I find it very problematic to take “a side” in the abortion debate in this country, and I use scripture as a general guide but not for the specifics of my position. I appreciate the historic, biblically based Jewish position about attempting to determine when a life is considered “viable”. It is therefore not precisely clear to me when “life” begins, in human terms. Because of the commandment to “choose life”, I never counsel women to get abortions, and at the same time I am aware of situations in which an abortion may indeed have been the most life-affirming choice in a given extreme situation. I suspect you would find many rabbis who share my general point of view on this complex and painful issue.
So, if you still feel it would be worthwhile for me to review the response you are working on, I will. I hope my responses are helpful.
By the way, where are you writing from?
So it appears as if you mucked up your questions to the rabbis Doulos. Perhaps you asked them "when life begins" or something like that. That wasn't the question. Oy.

Now, on to your summary statement.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

DOULOS
...I have posted a counter argument to the article that attempts to support abortion by trying to establish that in the Bible an unborn child does not have personhood status in the eyes of God. In addition to that I have posted responses to this concept from the Messianic and the non-Messianic Jewish communities. I thank you for the time and opportunity to place these on this site.
You're welcome.
In the past I have argued and disputed with individuals who "argued" in a very similar manner to those I have encountered from this site. As I said before I am not here to argue and debate this point.
A little candor please. Don't be ridiculous. Of course you are here to argue and debate this point, and that's exactly what you are doing.
God has made it clear that I am no longer to engage in that manner of dialog anymore.
Well then God didn't make it clear enough for you to get the message.
If you chose to respond to what has been placed here, I welcome that. This has not been an effort to win you over, to change your mind or hearts.
Of course it has. Be honest!
It has been to simply get the truth out so that others who happen to stumble upon this site will not be lead astray.
That's why I'm here, to correct your errors. And there were a bunch.
Darrel is neither Christian, nor Jew and admits that he does not believe there is a god (let alone believe in YHWH). And therefore can not, by any stretch or measure, be an authority of the Judeo Christian faith. Nor can he be an accurate interpreter there of. No I am not promoting elitism, a Christian does not need to be taught by me or any other Christian, because the Holy Spirit is our teacher (1 John 2:24-27).
This is the ludicrous notion that I can't examine these questions because I don't purport to have a ghost whispering in my ear. I can't imagine a sane person taking your claim seriously so I'll just ignore it, other than to point out that, if I were to claim the opposite it would make more sense. That is, the fact that you think you DO have a ghost whispering the correct answers in your ear, is rather a good reason to think that you aren't in a position to make rational decisions about these questions, not me. This is a question regarding Bible scholarship, no ghosts required.
But those without the Spirit, who are not regenerated, will never be in a position of authority over, or on the meaning of, scripture.
Nonsense. If your claims have merit and make sense, then you should have good arguments for your beliefs. That's why you came here, you actually believed you have good arguments for your beliefs. You thought they were better than mine. I doubt if readers have found that to be the case.
That being said the Bible warns us not to add or take away from the words of this Book. Darrel has done both (Rev. 22:18-19).
As I have shown repeatedly, this was your simplistic misunderstanding of our tract. It's clear what was being stated was a (necessary) interpretation of the verse (if the word "miscarriage" is correct), not a quotation of the verse in question (Exod. 21:22). So your claim is false.
The simple fact is, the Bible states that everything written in it is there by the authorship of God (2 Tim. 3:16),
As I cover in my book, the Bible didn't exist when whoever wrote 2 Timothy (it wasn't Timothy) made that claim. So whatever they were referring to, we know for sure it was not the Bible as it exists today. But it wouldn't matter anyway. There is no good reason to believe this verse is true, and a great many very good reasons to know it is not true. And that's what matters. Here's a bit of advice, don't believe things just because someone scribbles it on a piece of paper.
...while Darrel attempts to argue that the Bible records God's thoughts on the "non-personhood" status of the unborn child, all the while he is convinced that there is no God, and doubts the authorship of the Bible.
Who wrote the Bible is quite irrelevant to this question of what the Bible says on this matter. This question regarding personhood doesn't rest upon any particular position regarding authorship of the Bible or existence of God. So you are simply all wet on this claim.
It is illogical to argue that the Bible records the opinions of a God that does not exist, and did not write it.
No, that doesn't follow at all. Non sequiter fallacy. Whether God exists or not, or where she had any input on this book, is quite irrelevant to this question of when personhood was granted in the Bible.
In closing, to maintain a position that the Bible some how supports abortion requires that one has not been exposed to the facts or the truth. Or there is a willful choice to deny the truth. From beginning to end the Bible supports and encourages life, and no other faith system in the world places such a high value on life, as that of the Judeo-Christian faith.
One must truly marvel at the concentration to which the religious kool-aid must be mixed for a person to be so completely delusional as to not see that the Bible is filled with the glorification of blood, gore, death and destruction from beginning to end. And then, in the Christian version that isn't enough to fear so they've added eternal punishment on for almost everyone, just for good measure.

Again, anyone who could say the Bible "supports and encourages life" must be holding their Bible upside down. The book is clearly filled with myriad examples of genocide, mass slaughter, cannibalism and even human sacrifice, even offered to your God. To suggest it doesn't, is just ludicrous.
In the beginning God said to be fruitful and multiple. That command was never recanted.
Well, unless you consider drowning the whole world as sort of a counter productive measure to that goal...
Over and over again there is a call to protect those who can not protect themselves.
Really? Citation please. And I can provide an example, probably ten examples of "Go and cut their heads off" and "kill everything that breathes" for every example you can provide.
There are countless mentions to the fact that God knits us together,
This God supposedly knits all things together, thus, no special status for the fetus.
forms us in the womb
God forms everything, thus, no special status for the fetus.
and knows us before we are even conceived.
God knows everyone before their grandparents were conceived and before the universe was formed. Thus, no special status for the fetus.
As stated earlier every Jewish woman desired, hoped and prayed to be the mother of the promised Messiah, no such society would view an unborn child as anything less than sacred (Psalm 127).
Then every Jewish woman has been disappointed, because the Messiah never came. The Jewish society clearly didn't view a fetus as a person. That's why they made this rule:

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."

If it was a person, they would be allowed to mourn for it. They are allowed to mourn for persons.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to post this information, whether you receive it or reject that is between you and God.
I didn't find any of your arguments persuasive, but thanks for sharing them.

Now my summary:

Our argument #1 (Exod. 21:22) is quite solid. Doulos made a major error when he passed along some cut and paste from a Christian missionary (pseudo) Jew who let the cat out of the bag with the following:
Here are some Scriptures:
Exodus 21:22
22 "If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges.
The fact is if the women is struck and she conceives prematurely (the baby will die) it is her husband that decides the amount to be payed for the loss of life, and that amount is confirmed by judges. This shows that both the husband and the judges recognise the life lost.
That's exactly right. The fetus' life is lost (miscarriage) and the penalty is a fine, meaning the fetus is not considered a person.

Okay, this is long enough, so no need for me to go through each one again. I think I did learn one thing from this and it will prompt me to adjust and improve our tract a bit. I think I will include this point that the Jews were not even allowed to mourn the loss of a fetus. It's traditional and not in the Bible as far as I know, but goes way back.

What do you think Doug and other readers, should we use this "bar kayama" as an argument on this personhood issue?

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:
What do you think Doug and other readers, should we use this "bar kayama" as an argument on this personhood issue?
Yes. Even if it's not in the Bible, it shows the Jewish interpretation of their holy scripture. That is evidence in favor of your interpretation.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

Response to a person on Huff Po [their post didn't make it through]:

***
Yesiamaconservative: "don't have several hours it would take to read" [the above]>>

I understand. You can read the concise and summarized list I made at this link (already given) in less than 5 minutes:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

YES: "[no EV minister] would EVER say God doesn't consider the unborn child a "person" or would EVER endorse abortion, etc..">>

Doesn't matter. The Bible clearly shows this as I demonstrate at that link. Ministers are profoundly misinformed on this and a lot of things. I wrote a book about it actually.

YES: "what do you mean " complaining about the source of the claim">>

Truth is independent of its source. To dismiss a claim because of it's source is the genetic fallacy and never a rebuttal. See:

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

YES: "I would only trust a Christian source">>

As if all Christian sources can be trusted. Ridiculous.

YES: "and NEVER an Atheist.">>

This is the genetic fallacy on steroids. Best to avoid logical fallacies when making your points.

YE: "Atheist would say the very same thing.">>

Wrong. I would never dismiss a claim because of it's source.

YE: "do you ever take what any conservative says as truth/fact?">>

I follow the Bible here: "Test all things; hold fast what is good." 1 Thess. 5:21
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by DoulosforGod »

Found an interesting video for anyone willing to watch it...
Heart Changer 180
OCR Talk History
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?

Post by Dardedar »

It's time for Doulos's quarterly visit! Welcome.
DoulosforGod wrote:Found an interesting video for anyone willing to watch it...
Heart Changer 180
Why, that's our old buddy, Ray Comfort. A man who's arguments are so powerful, he can prove the existence of God with a mere banana. Who else can do that?
Sometimes we have Livingwater drones walking Dickson street trying his ludicrous and tired material (have you ever sinned?!). Comfort is bottom of the barrel, and that's putting sugar on it.

Doulos, if Ray Comfort has anti-abortion arguments that are so powerful they can flip a teenage pedestrian's opinion in a minute or two, perhaps you can articulate in a paragraph or two, what this powerful argument is? It must be a doosey. Or maybe those kids aren't too bright.

Okay, I skimmed the first 15 minutes or so. Standard stuff, lots of lying about Nazis, and then on to lying about fetus's etc.,. Standard Ray Comfort word games, dishonesty with language and lot's of crapola.
More irrelevant Nazi hogwash. I guess the anti-choice crowd finds it useful to lean upon emotionalism and the imagery of the Nazi's. Of course Ray Comfort is too ignorant or dishonest to note that Hitler and his Nazi's were thorough going Christians, and they were definitely on Ray Comfort's side on the abortion question. Hitler was very much anti-abortion, just like Ray Comfort.
ABORTION FORBIDDEN FOR HEALTHY 'ARYAN' WOMEN

SS chief Heinrich Himmler wrote to Field-Marshal Willhilm Keitel the following in 1939:

"According to statistics there are 600,000 abortions a year in Germany. The fact that these happen among the best German racial types has been worrying me for years. The way I see it we cannot afford to lose these young people, hundreds and thousands of them. The aim of protecting this German blood is of the highest priority. If we manage to stop these abortions we will be able to have 200 more German regiments every year on the march. Another 500,000 or 600,000 people could produce millions of marks for the economy. The strength of these soldiers and workers will build the greater Germany. This is why I founded Lebensborn in 1936. It fights abortions in a positive way. Every woman can have her child in peace and quiet and devote her life to the betterment of the race." (Master Race: The Lebensborn Experiment in Nazi Germany, 1995, pp.66-7)
This is why abortion was forbidden for 'Aryan' women who were considered healthy and had no hereditary diseases. Abortion for young German women who were members of the Lebensborn ("Lifefountain" stud-farms) was absolutely forbidden; because the very pupose they were sent there was to have as many children as possible." LINK
Course, those other races, he didn't care about.

Doulos (slave) for God, if you have a good argument for your position, let's hear that. You aren't going to get one from Ray Comfort. And do try to avoid references to those Christian Nazi's while you're at it. They're not really relevant and we are well acquainted with the ignorance and dishonesty of Ray Comfort.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Post Reply