Abortion debate thread

Doctor DooM · 24-11-2012 10:04PM

martinnew wrote: »

Abortion is an intentional act. Miscarriage is not.

What I do know that intentionally targeting the child by terminating the pregnancy is wrong. And from a Christian point of view we can never accept this. Its not compatible with Christianity.

You didn't answer my question: I don't feel that is a legit passage for you to be judging another Christian with.

If that passage is in the context you mean, God has caused every misscarriage, from the way I see it.

Lingua Franca · 24-11-2012 10:05PM

martinnew wrote: »

Why are you going off on another topic.. Lets debate the issue at hand in this Thread.

Where does it say in Christianity that its ok to intentionally abort a Child.

P.S. if you had read my post.. you would see I quoted from old and new testament.

I actually went back to take a look at your post to see where I'd missed you quoting from the new testament (and for your information, the Romans snippet doesn't even mention abortion ) and huh... you're cutting and pasting entire answers? For real? Is that what passes for debate here? Can you not defend your religion by yourself?

Lingua Franca · 24-11-2012 10:07PM

martinnew wrote: »

Hey,, You called yourself a Christian

Err... no I didn't.

martinnew · 24-11-2012 10:08PM

Siuin wrote: »

Well, no, if you understood the original Hebrew you would know that it says "לא תרצח" which directly translates as "thou shalt not murder", which allows for justified killing in the cases of war, capital punishment and self-defence. While I am well aware that you are looking at things from a Christian perspective, you are quoting a part of the bible which originates from Christianity's Jewish origins.

This article on views on abortion in Judaism may help shed some light on the passages you are quoting;
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

Some interesting points being made are:

Of course.. You are correct. If my family were attached and I didn't not defend them from a Criminal by possibly killing him, I would be doing a greater sin.

That's why when a Doctor terminates a pregnancy because the Mother and Child won't survive, its morally right, because allowing both to die is morally wrong.

But intentionally targeting he Child for termination, just because they don't want it, is morally wrong, and this is what we are discussing.

The abortions that happen in the UK as mostly because people don't want the kids. 80% of Down Syndrome children are aborted. 19 with Cleft Pallet aborted. And may normal children aborted, as a lifestyle choice.

martinnew · 24-11-2012 10:10PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Err... no I didn't.

Apologies, You are correct, my mistake, I was replying to another poster.

lmaopml · 25-11-2012 02:29AM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think there are two different schools of thought on the pro-choice side of things. And I call it pro-choice rather than pro-abortion because most of the pro-choice people I know, myself included, are particularly keen on abortions.

The two schools of thought are 1) the foetus is not a human, or 2) whether or not it is human it is a conflict of rights and the rights of the born person are supreme. Personally I fall into the second camp.

I don't view the foetus as less than human, I don't devalue it, except insofar as I believe its rights are not as strong as the mother's. You are, of course, going to argue that that is devaluing it, and you are probably correct, but I still see it as a human, I never see it as anything other than that, and that is my point.

Whilst there is clearly a need for us to understand more fully what exactly happened in Savita's case, there are some conclusions we can draw from what we have been told (making the assumption we have not been lied to) and what other medical professionals have been saying:

The foetus was going to die whatever happened.

Being fully dilated with a burst amniotic sac caries a risk of serious infection.

Allowing that being fully dilated with a burst amniotic sac increases the risk of infection it seems logical to suggest that the longer one is in this situation the greater the risk.

Savita asked for a medical termination or abortion on several occasions and this was refused on the basis that there was a foetal heartbeat.

As a result of this refusal she was in a position which exposed her to a greater risk of infection for a period of time that was greater than it could have been.

Given these things it is not unreasonable to suggest that had she been given the treatment she ask for, when she first asked for it, we would not even be aware it happened and we would not be having this discussion.

You worry about seeing something as less than human, of being considered disposable, of being reducible or a victim of biology and choice. Well, I am sorry but in this particular case the only person who had any of those things inflicted on them was Savita.

MrP

Of course Mr. P. Savita is a tragedy of medical science and it's limits. It has increasingly provided a scientific view on life that has had to be folded back and back in order to provide a good reason to end a tiny life in lieu of another and their 'choice'.

We need to pass legislation to protect those decisions, so that they can be made..clearly and plainly to one and all- we need to protect doctors who are trained to promote life. That's the job!

That's where Irish law falls down. It's not about allowing 'abortion', but in protecting life, always.

Did you know that a woman died from an abortion at the same time as Savita requested it, and sadly died due to a lack of direction for those who are trained to 'deliver' life? That is a reality..

So while we learn from Savita, lets not forget those other women too, who are 'hushed'...and nobody really wants to know about.

Obliq · 25-11-2012 11:58AM

"Let's talk about shame for a minute, Enda. I believe you think abortion is a shame. I do too. I'd love to live in a society where every woman who conceived would be given the nurturing - you might call it the social mothering - she'd need to transform an unwanted pregnancy into a happy birth and a cared-for child.

Yes, I'd love that, just like I'd love world peace, universal riches and a home for every person on our streets. Abortion happens because we, men and women, are human and flawed. We might think it a shame - but if it is, it's a social shame, like war or poverty or homelessness, a shared shame, not an individual one.

There is no shame in being a woman who knows that life is too much for her right now to be able to give birth, to carry and bear and raise another life through all the years of parenting it takes a bring a human child to adulthood. There is no more shame in needing an abortion than there is shame in being a soldier, or in being poor, or homeless.

This shame, and its bullying big brother, silence, has kept the truth about Irish abortion concealed. For whatever our opinion about it, none of us can deny that it happens, has always happened, will go on happening, whatever laws are there - or not there. Women have abortions. Irish women have abortions. Irish Roman Catholic women have abortions. Hell, even Irish, Roman Catholic, anti-abortion women have abortions."

Orna Ross
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/orna-ross/open-letter-to-enda-kenny_b_2174972.html

martinnew · 25-11-2012 02:22PM

Obliq wrote: »

Irish women have abortions. Irish Roman Catholic women have abortions. Hell, even Irish, Roman Catholic, anti-abortion women have abortions."

Orna Ross
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/orna-ross/open-letter-to-enda-kenny_b_2174972.html

Men kill other men. People degrade other people. Children bully other Children.

Just because wrong has happened, and still happens does not make it right.

We don't need the liberal huffintonpost to tell us what is right and wrong.

Killing a Child because you don't want it or because its not perfect.. Is always wrong.

Obliq · 25-11-2012 03:31PM

martinnew wrote: »

Men kill other men. People degrade other people. Children bully other Children.

Just because wrong has happened, and still happens does not make it right.

We don't need the liberal huffintonpost to tell us what is right and wrong.

Killing a Child because you don't want it or because its not perfect.. Is always wrong.

That's an Irish woman speaking to you through the medium of the Huffington Post. I happen to agree with every word she has written.
By the same as your regard, we also don't need a bunch of illiberal anti-choice groups who claim to be Irish, but are in fact predominantly over 60% american membership, telling us what is right and wrong.
Women have always, and will always, take these choices. No more shaming - THAT is what is wrong.

laoch na mona · 25-11-2012 05:07PM

some times having a child just isnt right for people due to their situation

Siuin · 25-11-2012 09:58PM

martinnew wrote: »

Killing a Child because you don't want it or because its not perfect.. Is always wrong.

According to religious doctrine (or common sense) a fetus can never be described as being a 'child'. See my earlier post for the religious basis for why a fetus is considered part of the woman's body and not an individual life in its own right.

PDN · 25-11-2012 11:23PM

Siuin wrote: »

According to religious doctrine (or common sense) a fetus can never be described as being a 'child'. See my earlier post for the religious basis for why a fetus is considered part of the woman's body and not an individual life in its own right.

That all depends on whose religious doctrine or common sense we are talking about. Genesis 25:21 speaks about Esau and Jacob as 'children' while they are still in their mother's womb.

Also, since this is the Christianity Forum, I might point out that the New Testament also speaks about a foetus of six months as a 'baby' (Luke 1:41).

Siuin · 25-11-2012 11:59PM

PDN wrote: »

That all depends on whose religious doctrine or common sense we are talking about. Genesis 25:21 speaks about Esau and Jacob as 'children' while they are still in their mother's womb.

Also, since this is the Christianity Forum, I might point out that the New Testament also speaks about a foetus of six months as a 'baby' (Luke 1:41).

Genesis is from the Jewish tradition, and Judaism is very clear about what it defines as a 'child'.
I'd be interested to see the actual original version of that verse in Luke - I think it's a real hinderance to Christians that the vast majority only read the bible in an English translation. It really hands over the reigns of interpretation to someone else and you can be very misled if that person in question has an agenda.

PDN · 26-11-2012 12:25AM

Siuin wrote: »

Genesis is from the Jewish tradition, and Judaism is very clear about what it defines as a 'child'.
I'd be interested to see the actual original version of that verse in Luke - I think it's a real hinderance to Christians that the vast majority only read the bible in an English translation. It really hands over the reigns of interpretation to someone else and you can be very misled if that person in question has an agenda.

This is the Christianity Forum, so it matters very little to us if Jews have subsequently chosen to ignore what Genesis says.

The original of Luke 1:41 reads: και εγενετο ως ηκουσεν η ελισαβετ τον ασπασμον της μαριας εσκιρτησεν το βρεφος εν τη κοιλια αυτης και επλησθη πνευματος αγιου η ελισαβετ.

How's your Greek? Mine is very good.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 12:33AM

PDN wrote: »

This is the Christianity Forum, so it matters very little to us if Jews have subsequently chosen to ignore what Genesis says.

The original of Luke 1:41 reads: και εγενετο ως ηκουσεν η ελισαβετ τον ασπασμον της μαριας εσκιρτησεν το βρεφος εν τη κοιλια αυτης και επλησθη πνευματος αγιου η ελισαβετ.

How's your Greek? Mine is very good.

'If Jews have subsequently chosen to ignore what Genesis says'? Jews were the ones who wrote Genesis to begin with- if Christians have chosen to change their mind on what it states, that's their decision, but Genesis ie Bereshít (lol the computer thinks I'm swearing :P) was first and foremost a Jewish text.

Haven't had the need for Greek seeing as how I don't believe that Jesus was divine. Care to give us your thoughts on the various ways of interpreting the verse? Anyone who has studied languages can tell you that these things are far from being cut and dry. Most debates we have in the synagogue revolve around differing interpretations of various words, which I think makes them all the more interesting.

PDN · 26-11-2012 12:52AM

Siuin wrote: »

'If Jews have subsequently chosen to ignore what Genesis says'? Jews were the ones who wrote Genesis to begin with- if Christians have chosen to change their mind on what it states, that's their decision, but Genesis ie Bereshít (lol the computer thinks I'm swearing :P) was first and foremost a Jewish text.

Jews don't exclusively own the book of Genesis. Nor can they dictate to others how they interpret it.

If you want to lobby boards.ie for a Jewish Forum then please feel free to do so - but evading what Genesis says and then saying, "I'm allowed to do so if I'm Jewish" won't cut any ice round here.

Haven't had the need for Greek seeing as how I don't believe that Jesus was divine

Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not a prerequisite for learning Greek. I learned Classical Greek when I was an atheist.

Care to give us your thoughts on the various ways of interpreting the verse? Anyone who has studied languages can tell you that these things are far from being cut and dry.

The verse is clear. John the Baptist, three months before birth, was called a baby (brephos). It is the same word as in Luke 2:12 - "you shall find the baby (brephos) wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger".

Most debates we have in the synagogue revolve around differing interpretations of various words, which I think makes them all the more interesting.

Then I suggest you discuss the use of the word הַבָּנִים֙ in Genesis. It is the same word used in Ezekiel 18:2 - "The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge".

Please let us know how your friends in the synagogue are going to translate that word to avoid having Genesis make the error of referring to an unborn foetus as a 'child'.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 09:37AM

PDN wrote: »

Jews don't exclusively own the book of Genesis. Nor can they dictate to others how they interpret it.

But they did write it and it is in their ancient language- therefore I don't see how Jews could have 'ignored what Genesis subsequently said'

PDN wrote: »

Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not a prerequisite for learning Greek. I learned Classical Greek when I was an atheist.

Medal's in the post.

PDN wrote: »

The verse is clear. John the Baptist, three months before birth, was called a baby (brephos). It is the same word as in Luke 2:12 - "you shall find the baby (brephos) wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger".

Few things are usually clear cut in such instances, unfortunately! I'm finding sources which are describing it as either a child or an 'embryo, a foetus' (which in the context would be more suitable).

PDN wrote: »

Then I suggest you discuss the use of the word הַבָּנִים֙ in Genesis. It is the same word used in Ezekiel 18:2 - "The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge".

I've just read the verse and am rather confused as to why you think he's talking about the unborn? הַבָּנִים֙ can mean 'sons' (plural of בן) or it can mean 'boys'/'lads' - if they wanted to say 'children' they would have used the correct term 'ילדים' - in the context of the verse they're talking about, they means 'sons' because it's challenging the notion of the sins of the father being visited on his sons and promoting personal responsibility. That's the point of the whole verse. You took בנים from the verse:
מַה-לָּכֶם, אַתֶּם מֹשְׁלִים אֶת-הַמָּשָׁל הַזֶּה, עַל-אַדְמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר: אָבוֹת יֹאכְלוּ בֹסֶר, וְשִׁנֵּי הַבָּנִים תִקְהֶינָה.
"What do ye mean, ye who use this proverb in the land of Israel, saying: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the son's teeth are set on edge?"
This talks about how the 'fathers' (ie one's ancestors) have 'eaten sour grates' (ie sinned) and the 'sons's teach are set on edge' (his descendants are punished as a result) -- no pro-life dogma here.

Obliq · 26-11-2012 09:46AM

PDN wrote: »

Jews don't exclusively own the book of Genesis. Nor can they dictate to others how they interpret it.

If you want to lobby boards.ie for a Jewish Forum then please feel free to do so - but evading what Genesis says and then saying, "I'm allowed to do so if I'm Jewish" won't cut any ice round here.

Believing in the divinity of Jesus is not a prerequisite for learning Greek. I learned Classical Greek when I was an atheist.

What a welcome to your forum and your faith PDN. I'm feeling left out - as an atheist who doesn't interpret scripture at all, I didn't even attract such a (*ahem*) Christian welcome. Perhaps it's because another (older) religion's interpretation would muddy the waters even more than you lot manage to do amongst yourselves?!

And I didn't know you used to be an atheist PDN. How interesting. My dear ol' Da always says "There's none more pure than the purified".

PDN · 26-11-2012 11:24AM

Obliq wrote: »

What a welcome to your forum and your faith PDN. I'm feeling left out - as an atheist who doesn't interpret scripture at all, I didn't even attract such a (*ahem*) Christian welcome. Perhaps it's because another (older) religion's interpretation would muddy the waters even more than you lot manage to do amongst yourselves?!

And I didn't know you used to be an atheist PDN. How interesting. My dear ol' Da always says "There's none more pure than the purified".

Hardly a welcome to the forum. It is not that poster's first visit to this forum. They've already been here to tell us what nasty anti-Semites we are (and waging a rather nasty and personbal campaign on the Help Forum against a mod who tried to stop such nonsense). But we would we better advised to stay on topic here.

The point is that the verse in Genesis refers to unborn babies as children - therefore invalidating Siuin's quite sweeping and extraordinary claim that according to religious doctrine and common sense "A foetus can never be referred to as a child".

Turning around and saying, "Ah, but I'm a Jew and as Jews we don't interpret that verse to mean what it actuially says" has zero relevance for Christians. We believe that the Old Testament Scriptures were given by God through the Jewish people as a preparation for the coming of Christ. But as for some interpretation that has been developed by a rabbi or a school within Judaism at some point since the coming of Christ, that really has very little to say about how Christians understand the Word of God.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 11:40AM

PDN wrote: »

The point is that the verse in Genesis refers to unborn babies as children

No, it doesn't. As I've already explained, the verse in Genesis/Bereshít is speaking about how the sins of the father (ie one's ancestors) should not be visited upon the 'sons' (ie future generations). This isn't some Rabbinical creation after Jesus' death, it's simply what it says.

JimiTime · 26-11-2012 11:50AM

Genesis 25:
..........These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham fathered Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you[c] shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”
24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. 26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob.[d] Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 12:12PM

JimiTime wrote: »

Genesis 25:
..........These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham fathered Isaac, 20 and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah, the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean, to be his wife. 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you[c] shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”
24 When her days to give birth were completed, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. 26 Afterward his brother came out with his hand holding Esau's heel, so his name was called Jacob.[d] Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.

A perfect example of why it's important to study texts in their original language and not rely on poor second hand translations.
Genesis 25:
וַיִּתְרֹצְצוּ הַבָּנִים, בְּקִרְבָּהּ, וַתֹּאמֶר אִם-כֵּן, לָמָּה זֶּה אָנֹכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, לִדְרֹשׁ אֶת-יְהוָה.
They are not talking about 'children' struggling within her, it says that her sons ('בנים') are struggling inside her. As I already told you, בן is son, בנים is sons. They are obviously her sons, but this doesn't mean that they have been considered individuals in their own right.

For the second half I'm going to assume that you're talking about the part which you have translated as 'the peoples within you' which, if you go back to the original Hebrew is :
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה לָהּ, שְׁנֵי גֹיִים בְּבִטְנֵךְ, וּשְׁנֵי לְאֻמִּים, מִמֵּעַיִךְ יִפָּרֵדוּ; וּלְאֹם מִלְאֹם יֶאֱמָץ, וְרַב יַעֲבֹד צָעִיר.
"and the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. "
- If they were talking about people (ie human beings) they would use the word 'אנשים' (anashim). However, in this case they use the word 'אמים' (the ל is a prefix) which means 'nations'. Also note the use of the future tense in this verse- "and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels"- they have the potential to be nations, but as of yet are fetuses.

PDN · 26-11-2012 01:31PM

Siuin wrote: »

No, it doesn't. As I've already explained, the verse in Genesis/Bereshít is speaking about how the sins of the father (ie one's ancestors) should not be visited upon the 'sons' (ie future generations). This isn't some Rabbinical creation after Jesus' death, it's simply what it says.

I think there's some confusion there. The verse in Ezekiel (not Genesis) refers to the sins of the fathers.

My Hebrew is pretty rusty (undergraduate level 20 years ago) so I checked this with a friend who is fluent in Hebrew (did his PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). The word refers to children.

It takes remarkable mental gymnastics to argue that a mother's 'sons' were struggling in her womb but that it is wrong to call those sons 'children'.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 01:46PM

PDN wrote: »

I think there's some confusion there. The verse in Ezekiel (not Genesis) refers to the sins of the fathers.

My Hebrew is pretty rusty (undergraduate level 20 years ago) so I checked this with a friend who is fluent in Hebrew (did his PhD at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem). The word refers to children.

It takes remarkable mental gymnastics to argue that a mother's 'sons' were struggling in her womb but that it is wrong to call those sons 'children'.

I'd love to talk with your 'friend' because I'm very certain that he's wrong.

I don't see any 'mental gymnastics' at play here- to afford the fetuses the term 'children' is to give them status as a person and life in their own right, which is clearly not the case. You may want to re-read the article I posted on the definition of the child in the womb from the 'old testament' standpoint.

PDN · 26-11-2012 02:01PM

Siuin wrote: »

I'd love to talk with your 'friend' because I'm very certain that he's wrong.

I don't see any 'mental gymnastics' at play here- to afford the fetuses the term 'children' is to give them status as a person and life in their own right, which is clearly not the case. You may want to re-read the article I posted on the definition of the child in the womb from the 'old testament' standpoint.

So, two sons can struggle - but they ain't people? You're seriously advancing that as an argument?

PDN · 26-11-2012 02:07PM

Siuin wrote: »

to afford the fetuses the term 'children' is to give them status as a person and life in their own right,

And there we have the crux of the matter. If you can deny someone their personhood then it becomes easier to kill them. It was wrong in Germany in the 1930s, and it's wrong today.

Siuin · 26-11-2012 02:09PM

PDN wrote: »

So, two sons can struggle - but they ain't people? You're seriously advancing that as an argument?

How is 'struggling' (a highly metaphorical term at that) exclusively reserved for people?

Once again, I quote:

In keeping with the frequent focus in the abortion debate on the status of the embryo or fetus, Feldman notes that
the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin pars viscerum matris. That is, the fetus is deemed "a part of its mother," rather than an independent entity. This designation says nothing about the morality of abortion; rather, it defines ownership, for example, in the case of an embryo found in a purchased animal. As intrinsic to its mother's body, it belongs to the buyer. In the religious conversion of a pregnant woman, her unborn child is automatically included and requires no further ceremony. Nor does it have power of acquisition; gifts made on its behalf are not binding. These and similar points mean only that the fetus has no "juridical personality," but say nothing about the right of abortion. This turns rather on whether feticide is or is not homicide. (81-82)
Even given the designation of the embryo / fetus as intrinsic to the mother's body and thereby lacking, we might say, personhood - is feticide, the killing of at least a potential human being the same as homicide? The biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus (part of the Torah - teaching, path, law - in Judaism, and canonical "Old Testament" books for Christians), as understood through the Talmud and Rashi (one of the most important Rabbinic authorities), argue that the answer to this question is, "No."
The law of homicide in the Torah, in one of its formulations, reads: "Makkeh ish..." "He who smites a man..." (Ex. 21:12). Does this include any many, say a day-old child? Yes, says the Talmud, citing another text: "...ki yakkeh kol nefesh adam" "If one smite any nefesh adam" (Lev. 24:17) - literally, any human person. (Whereas we may not be sure that the newborn babe has completed its term and is a bar kayyama, fully viable, until thirty days after birth, he is fully human from the moment of birth. If he dies before his thirtieth day, no funeral or shivah rites are applicable either. But active destruction of a born child of even doubtful viability is here definitely forbidden.) The "any" (kol) is understood to include the day-old child, but the "nefesh adam" is taken to exclude the fetus in the womb. The fetus in the womb, says Rashi, classic commentator on the Bible and Talmud, is lav nefish hu, not a person, until he comes into the world. Feticide, then, does not constitute homicide, and the basis for denying it capital-crime status in Jewish law - even for those rabbis who may have wanted to rule otherwise - is scriptural. Alongside the above text is another one in Exodus that reads: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befall [her], then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess...But if harm befall [her], then shalt thou give life for life" (21:22). The Talmud makes this verse's teaching explicit: Only monetary compensation is exacted of him who causes a woman to miscarry. Note also that though the abortion spoken of here is accidental, it contrasts with the homicide (of the mother) which is also accidental. Even unintentional homicide cannot be expiated by a monetary fine. (82)

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/Forum/abortion/background/judaism1.html

Siuin · 26-11-2012 02:10PM

PDN wrote: »

And there we have the crux of the matter. If you can deny someone their personhood then it becomes easier to kill them. It was wrong in Germany in the 1930s, and it's wrong today.

Wow, you actually managed to bring the Holocaust into this? And also manage to get the wrong decade... very intelligent.

PDN · 26-11-2012 02:14PM

Siuin wrote: »

Wow, you actually managed to bring the Holocaust into this? And also manage to get the wrong decade... very intelligent.

You aren't aware of how Nazi propaganda in the 1930s paved the way for the 'Final Solution'?

Making digs about other people's intelligence (particularly when they are factually correct) doesn't actually strengthen your case.

Fanny Cradock · 26-11-2012 02:14PM

The primary entry for בֵּן in Strongs Hebrew concordance is son, grandson, child, member of a group.

It looks to me that the both of you are correct given the context. However, even if we grant that the correct reading can only be son(s), could you please provide some information to back up the claim that the Jews considered a "son" in the womb to be a non-person? That is your claim, right?

Abortion debate thread

Comments