Not just does the bible never claim abortion is murder, or even a serious sin, but it clearly allows for it.>And if men fight, and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, surely he shall be punished accordingly as the husband of the woman imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judges; but if harm follows, then you shall give life for lifeExodus 21:22-25 in the interlinear HebrewNow you might be asking what "harm follows" means. Well according to the LXX here's what the ancient jews thought the passage meant:>And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.>But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life [etc.]I.e a fetus that isn't fully formed is considered property rather than a full human life. Our ancient jewish commentators agree on this aswell:>But if anyone has a fight with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, then he shall be executed.Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 3.108-109
I wish I was aborted
>>18044230It's ok anon, I love you :3
>>18044229.
>clearly allows for it>prescribes a punishment for doing itNot to mention this is on accident so more like baby manslaughter than purposeful abortion.
>>18044381No, it says that if the baby isn't fully formed then it is mearly property damage (to the father) wheras if the baby is fully formed then it's considered murder. I.e a fetus that isn't developed isn't a person, and hence killing it isn't murder.
>>18044230:(
>>18044381It says that killing a fully formed baby gives the death penalty wheras killing a fetus that isn't fully formed only gives a fine. I.e a fetus only becomes human later in development.
>>18044229Exodus 21 says the exact opposite of what you claim. If the man tries to kill the unborn child but the child is unharmed, he still has to pay a fine (Exodus 21:22). If the child eventually dies, the penalty becomes life for life according to Exodus 21:23."If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,"(Exodus 21:22-23)Note verse 23. In other words, the man who caused the unborn child to die is assigned the death penalty as a result. This actually shows that abortion is murder according to the Bible and specifically this passage. Ironically, this the exact opposite of what is being claimed. There are also other passages that show the same thing, for example Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1."I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."(Psalm 139:14-16)"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."(Jeremiah 1:5)
>>18046267It's ambiguous whether "her fruit depart from her" refers to a miscarriage or a premature birth (some English translations interpret it one way, some the other), and then it's ambiguous whether "mischief follow" refers only to harm to the woman (as it would under the miscarriage interpretation) or if harm to both the woman and the child are meant (which would make sense under the premature birth interpretation). I assume this ambiguity was recognized even thousands of years ago, which is why the LXX translators split it into two cases depending on how far along the pregnancy was.
>>18046354>It's ambiguous whether "her fruit depart from her"It refers to what their intent was. It modifies the verb "strive." They were striving in a way that was intended to cause her to miscarry. The question then becomes whether or not they were successful. If not, they still have to pay a fine for assaulting the woman. If they do succeed in causing the child to die, then it is a life for a life, according to the principle "an eye for an eye," etc. This is according to Exodus 21:23.
>>18046267>tries to kill the unborn childIntent isn't mentioned.>child to die is assigned the death penalty as a resultYes, if the baby is fully formed, otherwise a fine follows. Our 1st century jewish sources agree with this, I already quoted Philo, but Josephus is even more liberal in his interpretation:>He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman is caused to miscarry, he shall be fined in property by the judges, as he has reduced the population by the destruction of what was in her womb, and let property also be given to the woman’s husband by the culprit. But if she die from the blow, let him also be put to death, since the law deems right that life should be paid for life.Jewish Antiquities 4.278
>>18046402What if Philo and those other guys are just wrong?
>>18046364In the English it's ambiguous whether it refers to their intent, because "so that" can just mean "in such a way that," and I'm not sure whether that ambiguity maybe implying intent is even present in the Hebrew.If you're gettin this from "strive" meaning "to make effort to accomplish something" in modern English, that doesn't seem to be the meaning of the Hebrew, which is why most modern English translations say "fight" or "quarrel" there. I assume it didn't mean that in KJV English either, since the oldest meaning of strive seems to be to struggle or fight (related to "strife") though from a quick googling I'm not sure when the "make effort to accomplish something" meaning would've become dominant.
>>18046408>But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.Attempted murder would lead to the death pentalty, so why wouldn't attempting to kill a fetus do so?
>>18046473The ancient idea could've been that a person is only properly alive after taking their first breath. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
>>18046457>I assume it didn't mean that in KJV English either, since the oldest meaning of strive seems to be to struggle or fight (related to "strife") though from a quick googling I'm not sure when the "make effort to accomplish something" meaning would've become dominant.It's entirely possible for two men to pretend to fight, as a deniable pretext for their underlying intent of assaulting the woman and the child in the process of doing so.>>18046473>why wouldn't attempting to kill a fetus do so?My guess is the operative word "neighbor." So the prohibition in Exodus 21 has to do with all pregnant women regardless of affiliation. The penalty prescribed for harming an unborn child may be harsher than how they were expected to treat adult aliens.
>>18046514>It's entirely possible for two men to pretend to fight, as a deniable pretext for their underlying intent of assaulting the woman and the child in the process of doing so.Do you really find that believable? This also doesn't work since there is only punishment for one of the men.>My guess is the operative word "neighbor.""Well, who's my neighbor?"
>>18046554>"Well, who's my neighbor?"The standards given by Jesus Christ in the Gospel are higher than those originally described in the Old Testament Law, as seen in the Sermon on the Mount. The point of raising the standards was to demonstrate that it was impossible for men to live up to any acceptable standard that would satisfy God, implying their need for a Savior."When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."(Matthew 19:25-26)"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."(Galatians 3:22)"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."(James 2:10)In the context of what we are discussing here, it shows that even by the standard of the Mosaic Law, abortion was seen as certainly evil, even against enemies of the people of Israel at the time.
Didache condemns abortion, reflecting an early Christian moral stance.
>>18046575>In the context of what we are discussing here, it shows that even by the standard of the Mosaic Law, abortion was seen as certainly evil, even against enemies of the people of Israel at the time.No, you didn't show this at all, as I already said interpretation makes no sense as only one person is actually fined, at beat it's ambigous, but I think it straight up allows for early abortions.>>180466171 Clement supports subordinationism, what's your point?
>>18046665>as I already said interpretation makes no sense as only one person is actually fined,That objection applies regardless, and it's not even a valid one. Whoever does the assault on the woman is implied to be the guilty party.>at beat it's ambigous,No, not really. It literally says "a life for a life" in Exodus 21:23. It's really not ambiguous at all here. Not in the least bit.>but I think it straight up allows for early abortions.This doesn't matter because what you think can be factually wrong and incorrect."Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2 Peter 1:20)According to the Bible, abortionists are murderers. It's consistent throughout (see also >>18046267). You might disagree with this value judgement, but that means rejecting the Holy Bible. Whoever causes the unborn child to be killed is the killer who has committed homicide, and anyone who facilitates it is a knowing accomplice to it.
>>18046692>It literally says "a life for a life" in Exodus 21:23Yes if the fetus is fully formed.>see also >>18046267 #None of these passages actually says a fetus is a human being, it just implies God knows the future.
>>18046692>and it's not even a valid oneIf two men get into a pretend-fight in order to kill a fetus (a ridiculous scenario to begin with) then obviously both men are guilty.
>>18046779>then obviously both men are guilty.If they both assaulted the woman and caused the child to die, then the pronouncement would be the same for both. And guess what, that's just one possible scenario that's being used as an example. If they assaulted the woman under other pretexts, the outcome would be the same. If they caused the child to lose its arm due to their assault, then according to the Mosaic Law in Exodus 21, they would have to have their own arm cut off. That's what it implies in Exodus 21:24.For another example of how this works, see the following:"As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:"(Deuteronomy 19:5)Would you be surprised to learn that this same scenario applies even if a man accidentally killed another person through some other means than a loose axe head? Or do you think this is only supposed to apply to that one specific scenario?
>>18046815An acomplice to a crime is also guilty...>Would you be surprised...No because this is an actually realistic scenario and it's clear what type of situation is being dealt with, i.e involuntary manslaughter. Exodus 21:22-24 is far mor vauge in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint supports my position.
>>18046815>>18046849Besides I'm not actually sure why intent matters here, the point is just that an unformed fetus is assigned less value than a formed one, with killing a formed fetus giving the death penalty and an unformed one only giving a fine, meanig an unformed fetus is property rather than a human.
>>18046665Glad that we agree that the fine applies to the man, not a moral condemnation of abortion itself.
>>18044229>Well according to the LXX here's what the ancient jews thoughtthe LXX we have today has not been substantiated to be the same as what was written in Ptolemaic Egypt.
I think abortion is fucked up but should be allowed in some cases. If the Bible is literally true wouldn’t that mean God killed pregnant women in the flood and sodom and gomorrah?
>>18047155>If the Bible is literally true wouldn’t that mean God killed pregnant women in the flood and sodom and gomorrah?God created all things, and God has the right to give and to take away. We don't, according to the Bible.
The law of moses was insufficient to save mankind. This murky tooth for a tooth shit was dismissed summarily.>not to abolishno, but to fulfill it. and what is just for handling the ruthless law of moses? grace and mercy.using abortion as a method of birth control for sex out of wedlock, vacuuming nascent infants from wombs after blending them into glop is doubtless not covered by the septuagint.There is a clear suggestion here, i'll admit, that there is some progression from early embryonic stages to viable infant outside the womb, but given the environment, the technical capacity for keeping a fragile preemie alive was fairly slim besides. The point here I think, is if the thing could have lived outside the womb, pragmatically, its death is more significant, and worthy of heavier punishment than a much earlier stage of development.This is in no way equivalent to the modern abomination that is abortion, where otherwise viable embryos caught in mid-development are intentionally destroyed simply for convenience, or because it's wednesday. Conflating these two issues is the sort of dissimulation one expects from a child of the snake. I don't expect an honest response, so don't bother giving any.
>>18044229>>18044229actually, rereading it, the "no harm follows" is harm to the infant in question, if no harm, as in no harm to the infant follows, then the guy has to pay for the premature birth itself, the stress and pain that causes. if the baby dies, "harm follows", then the guy gets executed. yeah, you've twisted it to suit your wicked needs. very shitty behavior.
>>18047004The commentary by Philo backs up the reading thoughever.>>18047474The Septuagint literally says it is only murder if the child is fully formed, "harm follows" doesn't mean anything unless it is specified, it might aswell refer to damage done to the mother unless specified further.>yeah, you've twisted it to suit your wicked needsWhat "wicked needs" do you think I'm trying to justify?
>>18047635>the jews have twisted the language to serve their needs, that proves i'm right!no it doesn't.>what are my wicked needsapparently you have some desire to use the bible to justify killing infants in their wombs. I can't speak to your specific intentions, but the son of the snake isn't all that difficult to spot.I do wonder, sincerely, is it possible for you to be candid?
>>18047639So you're saying Philo is just making stuff up that wasn't actually in the LXX of his time but that is in it today? That's a pretty weak position.>the son of the snake isn't all that difficult to spotYou're the one trying to argue he knows better than the Bible, which says nothing explicit about fetuses being humans anywhere and in this passage clearly shows they're not. The closest you can get is John the baptist jumping in his mother's womb, but Elizabeth was in the 6th month so it doesn't contradict Exodus.
>>18047658>so you're sayingno. there you go, being willfully obtuse again.time to dust off my feet, i see.
>>18044381This
>>18047688Ok so what are you saying then? The LXX clearly doesn't consider early abortion murder and the Hebrew is too vague so what's the deal?
>>18047692The Septuagint pretty explicitly says a fetus that isn't developed isn't human, and hence early abortion isn't murder.
