The legalization of murder by abortion

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
By Alan McDougall

Pro-abortion groups recognise that it is legal to convict a person for the murder of a foetus if the foetus is removed from the womb of its mother by force and against her will. This indicates to me that the Law is ambiguous and vaguer of this issue, if the mother decides she does not want the foetus or child in her womb, she can legally have it removed by some doctor, and decide that her foetus was not a person, but simply a piece of flesh to cut out of her body.

To me an anti-abortionist this is murder just like the previous case. To reiterate why is it then legal in many countries to abort or murder a foetus, which is a living human, but allows the exact same act on the request of the mother, a case of double standards not so?

By aborting a foetus, we might be killing a potential Albert Einstein or a Mahatma Gandhi, or some great person, who might have changed the lives of all humanity for the better.

So how can these laws apply selectively to the unwanted killing of a foetus, while the complicity of the mother in the same killing is completely legal?
What I find really bizarre about the law are the exceptions to it. If someone were to kill or have their own child murdered, complicity on the part of the mother or father would not make it legal, it would be. Premeditated and calculated murder, which carries the death sentence in some countries

But the premeditated murder of a foetus, but is allowed by law the exact in many countries, including South Africa, where I reside? Why can a mother decide to murder her unborn child legally Why can a mother have the right of life and death over her unborn child simply because she does not want it only? Does this unborn human not also have value as human life?

If someone kills a foetus that the mother wants to keep, it suddenly becomes a living human being who has been murdered.

If a human is only human on the basis of whether or not he is wanted, then this leaves open the option of killing "street people" and handicapped individuals simply because they are "unwanted."

There are horrific stories about almost fully formed babies, being ripped apart in its mother's womb, into sizable pieces and their little heads crushed by these criminal doctors so they can pull our the still bleeding parts of the dead, murdered baby.

In contrast t to the Bible says that all people have equal worth since all are created in the image of God.

Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.

Please add your view on this subject?

Regards

Alan
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This double standard does have far reaching implications as to how the value of human life will be seen in the future. I wouldn't be surprised if there comes a time when each individual will have to justify their very existence to the state, or to the collective, based on your economic value. You are already seen as nothing than more a number, a human resource to be used up and tossed aside whenever the group concerned considers you to be more of a burden than you are worth. The ultimate goal of Satan is to become God, where he decides who lives and who dies and is bred for what their purpose is to be in life from birth for the sake of the collective, like some nightmarish Eugenics Brave New World scenario.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Alan McDougall said:
By Alan McDougall

Pro-abortion groups recognise that it is legal to convict a person for the murder of a foetus if the foetus is removed from the womb of its mother by force and against her will. This indicates to me that the Law is ambiguous and vaguer of this issue, if the mother decides she does not want the foetus or child in her womb, she can legally have it removed by some doctor, and decide that her foetus was not a person, but simply a piece of flesh to cut out of her body.

To me an anti-abortionist this is murder just like the previous case. To reiterate why is it then legal in many countries to abort or murder a foetus, which is a living human, but allows the exact same act on the request of the mother, a case of double standards not so?

By aborting a foetus, we might be killing a potential Albert Einstein or a Mahatma Gandhi, or some great person, who might have changed the lives of all humanity for the better.

So how can these laws apply selectively to the unwanted killing of a foetus, while the complicity of the mother in the same killing is completely legal?
What I find really bizarre about the law are the exceptions to it. If someone were to kill or have their own child murdered, complicity on the part of the mother or father would not make it legal, it would be. Premeditated and calculated murder, which carries the death sentence in some countries

But the premeditated murder of a foetus, but is allowed by law the exact in many countries, including South Africa, where I reside? Why can a mother decide to murder her unborn child legally Why can a mother have the right of life and death over her unborn child simply because she does not want it only? Does this unborn human not also have value as human life?

If someone kills a foetus that the mother wants to keep, it suddenly becomes a living human being who has been murdered.

If a human is only human on the basis of whether or not he is wanted, then this leaves open the option of killing "street people" and handicapped individuals simply because they are "unwanted."

There are horrific stories about almost fully formed babies, being ripped apart in its mother's womb, into sizable pieces and their little heads crushed by these criminal doctors so they can pull our the still bleeding parts of the dead, murdered baby.

In contrast t to the Bible says that all people have equal worth since all are created in the image of God.

Although liberalism teaches that certain "unwanted" humans have less inherent worth than others who are wanted, the Bible states that all human life has worth in God's eyes.

Please add your view on this subject?

Regards

Alan
Alan,

Your heading within this article is incorrect. It is not 'a Profile Position' but 'a Prolife Position'.

As for the murder of abortion, many of the secularists in my country do not regard the foetus as a living human being. Pre-human, maybe, but not a human being.

Therefore, I spend time with them (when I can) explaining the science that life is continuous from conception to old age. There is much medical evidence to demonstrate that human life begins at conception. I have included some of this in my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sword

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
OzSpen said:
Alan,

Your heading within this article is incorrect. It is not 'a Profile Position' but 'a Prolife Position'.

As for the murder of abortion, many of the secularists in my country do not regard the foetus as a living human being. Pre-human, maybe, but not a human being.

Therefore, I spend time with them (when I can) explaining the science that life is continuous from conception to old age. There is much medical evidence to demonstrate that human life begins at conception. I have included some of this in my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

Oz
My mistake sorry, but we are on the same page!

I will go to your link and report back?

Alan
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. the State has determined that it has no vested interest in the foetus. Therefore it is the personal property of the mother; or as they love to say, "it's her body". So it is a personal property rights issue in the eyes of the State. Christians need to recognize this, and address the issue from that perspective. The State is not going to recognize biblical or religious arguments, so it is up to us to come up with arguments that will outlaw abortion, regardless of how bizarre or nonsensical they may sound. It's called thinking outside the box.

For example. The cost of abortions is ridiculous, and when the tax payer is obliged to pay for these procedures due to a woman's inability to pay for an abortion, much less to take care of a baby, then it's time for the State to do the right thing and sterilize her. Now she can have all the sex she wants at no cost to the tax payer.

The dangers inherent in abortions also demand a safer alternative. Here again, sterilization is simple and easy, not to mention requires no follow up procedures like abortions do, especially with people who are simply too stupid to understand how to utilize birth control or contraception.

What about if a woman decides that she'd like to have children later? Hand her a complimentary cooler with her frozen and intact ovaries. If she is serious about having children in the future she'll take the steps necessary to protect her eggs herself. Let it be her responsibility. When she can afford to have children, she can pay for artificial insemination.

Abortion should therefore be used as a means of identifying who these people are, at least at first. Then it becomes a matter of letting people know that they need to make their choice before they engage in sexual activity.

This was Margaret Sanger's solution to end poverty; get rid of the impoverished. Sterilization may seem a bit harsh to some, but it isn't murder and I suspect that there are plenty who would jump at the chance for this free procedure rather than an abortion. This is the world we live in today. Why doesn't anyone notice this?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
shnarkle said:
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. the State has determined that it has no vested interest in the foetus. Therefore it is the personal property of the mother; or as they love to say, "it's her body". So it is a personal property rights issue in the eyes of the State. Christians need to recognize this, and address the issue from that perspective. The State is not going to recognize biblical or religious arguments, so it is up to us to come up with arguments that will outlaw abortion, regardless of how bizarre or nonsensical they may sound. It's called thinking outside the box.
shnarkle,

Your position is not thinking outside of the box at all. It is accommodating to the secular worldview. My responsibility as a committed Christian is to challenge the secular view and show the holes in it, not the least of which is that scientists have confirmed what Christians have maintained - the foetus/baby is human from the moment of conception.

I have provided medical evidence to support the Christian perspective on when life begins in my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

If I supported your line of reasoning, it would be easy for me to fall into line with supporting the genocide of Hitler's Holocaust and the regimes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao and Castro.

'Thinking outside the box' means becoming a biblical thinker who will not fall into line with the secular state and thus become like a Jeremiah.

Oz
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
shnarkle,

Your position is not thinking outside of the box at all. It is accommodating to the secular worldview. My responsibility as a committed Christian is to challenge the secular view and show the holes in it, not the least of which is that scientists have confirmed what Christians have maintained - the foetus/baby is human from the moment of conception.
Thanks for making my points for me. The State doesn't care that the foetus/baby is human from conception. The State has ruled that it has no vested interest in the foetus/baby/citizen, and therefore, we have to form an argument that proves that the State does have a vested interest. Fat chance of that any time soon. Hey, I'm all for challenging the secular view, but when it comes to the life of all those innocent babies, maybe we ought to try something a little more effective. Something that might just save millions of lives.



I have provided medical evidence to support the Christian perspective on when life begins in my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective
I don't think anyone is disputing that the foetus/baby is alive. They wouldn't be trying to kill it if it were dead.

If I supported your line of reasoning, it would be easy for me to fall into line with supporting the genocide of Hitler's Holocaust and the regimes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao and Castro.
That's on its way whether you fall in line or not. I'm not suggesting we support it, just that we spotlight what's going on. Do you want to point out that we're all starting to stew in some warm water now, or wait until its too late for anyone to do anything about it. It's called shock and awe.

'Thinking outside the box' means becoming a biblical thinker who will not fall into line with the secular state and thus become like a Jeremiah.

Oz
I'm not familiar with your reference to Jeremiah. Regardless, we live in a world where promiscuity is rampant. People have no self control, and aren't even able to figure out that they have a problem. If the State came along and offered to sterilize all of these "useless eaters" and "feeble minded" among us, we'd be well on our way to saving untold thousands of lives. Granted, it wouldn't be long before the State had no vested interest in our lives either, but that's really beside the point, that ship has already sailed. What you fail to see is that I am a biblical thinker. I'm Lot offering his daughters to safeguard the well being of strangers. If you're more worried about your own life than the lives of the unborn, then you've already lost your own life. The issue needs to be forced so that people can see how horrid it all is to begin with. Put all the cards on the table and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise we're just sitting in line waiting for our number to come up. What is quickly approaching is a world with no objective standard for morality. We need to spotlight this by leading the charge ourselves. We don't have to defend it, just simply point out that this is what we're heading for and let's just cut to the chase and do it right now so that those who aren't so doped up they can't tell their left hand from their right, will be able to rouse themselves from their stupor. If we wait, the rhetoric will continue to seep into our own biblical views as it has already. We aren't playing on our own field anymore. Let me give just one example out of many: The gay marriage issue. Pray tell, explain what parroting "one man, one woman" means exactly? How exactly does this address, or even refute the gay marriage issue and how is the church supposed to be able to refuse to marry homosexuals without being sued or shut down?

Abortions are expensive. They're dangerous. Sterilization is inexpensive in comparison and with government subsidies people will be signing up in droves. Resurrect the ghost of Margaret Sanger and maybe a few real Christians will get a swift kick in the pants from the Holy Ghost Himself and do something effective. We need to get out there and defend a woman's right to abort her baby for any reason whatsoever. Including, but not limited to; gender, potential gender orientation, race, etc. We have too man women in this country being abused and taken advantage of, let's get those numbers down by lowering the numbers of women being born. There is a high probability that this foetus is going to have gender identity problems therefore we need to get rid of it. This one is of mixed race and will have problems; get rid of it.

How difficult is it to walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and make an appointment? How difficult is it to cancel two minutes beforehand...ooops. How long does it take to book up a clinic for the week? and then cancel? Does anyone remember the concrete company in Texas that refused to pour the foundation for the new clinics that had been permitted? What biblical principle states that the clinic has to have admitting privileges at a hospital in order to do business? The bible says to be "wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove." Kill them softly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTKv5F9FqsQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgl-VRdXr7I
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
shnarkle,


If I supported your line of reasoning, it would be easy for me to fall into line with supporting the genocide of Hitler's Holocaust and the regimes of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mao and Castro.

'Thinking outside the box' means becoming a biblical thinker who will not fall into line with the secular state and thus become like a Jeremiah.

Oz
"Do unto others as you would have them do to you". Are we to just apply this to ourselves? Is this not a prescription for all? Those who would take away the rights of the unborn are asking for their own rights to be taken away, are they not? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you because what you do to others you are doing to yourself. They're asking for it. This is what they would have done to them. It's what they want.

Why are only the wealthy allowed to be sterilized? Why aren't we funding these procedures for those who can't afford this? Why don't we provide the funds for those who want to be sterilized? If the thought of all the unborn babies that will never have to be aborted isn't incentive enough, think about the cost savings, think of all those abortion clinics that will be out of business. Fewer abortions = fewer abortion clinics.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Jeremiah had a reputation for being 'the weeping prophet'. Why was he weeping?

Take a read of, 'What can we learn from the life of Jeremiah?'

Oz
I'm familiar with the book of Jeremiah, I just didn't know to what specific reference you were making. Regardless, you're making my point for me. Jeremiah was impotent to change the hearts of Israel. While a prophet is obliged to speak God's will to men, this isn't an invitation to fail in changing their hearts. In just the last forty or so years since abortion was legalized, 40 million were never given a chance at life. We live in a country that has easily surpassed Hitler, and is rushing towards numbers to surpass Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. The blood is up to the bridles of horses.

Why should we be the only one's who must squirm at this abomination? Why shouldn't more people be shocked at the reality of their own corrupt and degenerate depravity? Do we want to wait until they appear before their Maker before repentance seems an option? No doubt, the gospel must be preached; that goes without saying. The point is that the gospel doesn't change laws. The gospel changes hearts and minds, and must be preached in the midst of this confusion. Changing the laws isn't enough, but they must be changed nonetheless. Crying won't change anything...
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
shnarkle said:
I'm familiar with the book of Jeremiah, I just didn't know to what specific reference you were making. Regardless, you're making my point for me. Jeremiah was impotent to change the hearts of Israel. While a prophet is obliged to speak God's will to men, this isn't an invitation to fail in changing their hearts. In just the last forty or so years since abortion was legalized, 40 million were never given a chance at life. We live in a country that has easily surpassed Hitler, and is rushing towards numbers to surpass Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. The blood is up to the bridles of horses.

Why should we be the only one's who must squirm at this abomination? Why shouldn't more people be shocked at the reality of their own corrupt and degenerate depravity? Do we want to wait until they appear before their Maker before repentance seems an option? No doubt, the gospel must be preached; that goes without saying. The point is that the gospel doesn't change laws. The gospel changes hearts and minds, and must be preached in the midst of this confusion. Changing the laws isn't enough, but they must be changed nonetheless. Crying won't change anything...
shnarkle,

Changed hearts lead to changed lives which influence the changing of laws of the land.

We saw this with the Methodist revival in Britain with the conversion of William Wilberforce who led the fight against slavery. Oberlin College (where renowned evangelist, Charles Finney, was a professor) was one centre of Christian opposition to slavery in the USA.

See: History Shows Us Why Being Evangelical Matters.

Oz
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
shnarkle,

Changed hearts lead to changed lives which influence the changing of laws of the land.

We saw this with the Methodist revival in Britain with the conversion of William Wilberforce who led the fight against slavery. Oberlin College (where renowned evangelist, Charles Finney, was a professor) was one centre of Christian opposition to slavery in the USA.

See: History Shows Us Why Being Evangelical Matters.

Oz
I'm not denying that being evangelical matters. I'm pointing out that people aren't being evangelical in the first place. They're speaking a completely different language that the damned cannot understand. We need to meet them on their level. We need to meet them where they live. Jesus talks to fishermen and tells them to be "fishers of men". He speaks to the authorities on the law and uses the law to preach the gospel. Paul speaks to pagans and quotes their own pagan poets. He points to their statue of the god they don't know and uses it as a spring board for the gospel. In all cases it is the Holy Spirit that is convicting people in their hearts.

Somewhere deep inside the most desperately wicked heart is a very sore raw nerve that needs to be poked, prodded, and tugged at till it snaps. We're supposed to be the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to do that. Showing them when life begins isn't enough. Showing them that this life within them is human isn't enough. Putting them through the ordeal of an abortion isn't enough. Some of these people go through multiple abortions, and keep coming back for more. It's as if they're going to the dermatologist to get a mole removed. They aren't identifying with that mole. They aren't even really human anymore. We see it as "senseless violence". Perhaps we need to view it as meaningful violence.
 

Just a Mirror

New Member
Jan 29, 2017
6
1
0
49
Earth
It's part of the ancient religions, Moloch to be exact, sacrifice of children to Moloch. You see the introduction of abortion can be dedicated to Moloch, then all subsequent abortions are sacrifices for Moloch.
Ishtar is worshipped by all the elites still today.
How many abortions are there?
How many fetuses "disappear"?
You would be surprised at the vile practices of the elites.
 

shnarkle

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2013
1,689
569
113
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United States
Just a Mirror said:
It's part of the ancient religions, Moloch to be exact, sacrifice of children to Moloch. You see the introduction of abortion can be dedicated to Moloch, then all subsequent abortions are sacrifices for Moloch.
Ishtar is worshipped by all the elites still today.
How many abortions are there?
How many fetuses "disappear"?
You would be surprised at the vile practices of the elites.
Yes, exactly! None of the worshippers of Moloch are going to sit back and let anyone interfere with their righteous and justifiable service to their god. Those who think that the law can be changed are in for a sad surprise because the law is what justifies their behavior. Some may claim ignorance, but just because it's legal doesn't make it right. The law is not the answer as it can never change anyone's heart.

I used to live in California. I lived and worked in and around the Russian river for decades; it is no secret to the locals what's going on, and in most cases, no one really finds any of it surprising or even disturbing. California might as well be another world.
 

PGS11

New Member
Jun 7, 2011
10
0
1
Winnipeg
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
1.5 billion since 1980 - genicide of the inocent - if it keeps going Gods wrath will stike the earth - how much more will he put up with on this selfish world - we now treat pregnacy like the common cold - I can only imagine God the Fathers anger
 

Sword

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2016
1,324
225
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. the State has determined that it has no vested interest in the foetus.
But of coarse they do they use them in skin products.

There are two abortions per second world wide.

You know what the up side is. 2 people going into see God having NEVER sinned.
satan always overplays his hand.
 

kiwimac

Member
Dec 19, 2009
117
13
18
63
Deepest, Darkest NZ
www.westcotthort.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
A foetus is not a child and so far as the Jews were concerned not a nephesh or living soul until birth. As for "Abortion is murder" it is demonstrably not as murder is the 'Unlawful taking of a human life' ; abortion is not unlawful thus not murder. As for Moloch, please... what a bunch of hooey . . . only BORN children were sacrificed to Moloch because, like the Jews, the Assyrians did not consider a foetus a living soul.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
A foetus is not a child and so far as the Jews were concerned not a nephesh or living soul until birth. As for "Abortion is murder" it is demonstrably not as murder is the 'Unlawful taking of a human life' ; abortion is not unlawful thus not murder. As for Moloch, please... what a bunch of hooey . . . only BORN children were sacrificed to Moloch because, like the Jews, the Assyrians did not consider a foetus a living soul.

kiwimac,

Please provide evidence to support your assertions.

Oz
 

kiwimac

Member
Dec 19, 2009
117
13
18
63
Deepest, Darkest NZ
www.westcotthort.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Let's begin with the foetus as not being a nephesh.

Let's begin here:
“While the Talmud does discuss the time of ensoulment - is it when the child is conceived, or at the first trimester, at birth, or, as one opinion has it, when the child first answers ‘Amen’? - it dismisses the question as both unanswerable and irrelevant to the abortion question.
Abortion then is neither murder nor worse than murder, nor an option when the alternative is death to the mother. Since the mother is not allowed to choose suicide, abortion in that extreme case becomes necessary. This is the sense of the fundamental Talmudic passage on the subject.”

- David Feldman, “Jewish Views on Abortion” in Steven Bayme, Gladys Rosen (eds.), The Jewish Family and Jewish Community, (1994), p. 239

Further: Feldman continues:

To begin to make his case, Feldman points out that there is no Commandment reading "Thou shalt not kill": rather, the Commandment reads "Thou shalt not murder." In Judaism (and elsewhere, of course) killing in self-defense is allowed. There are a number of categories of allowable killing in self-defense - including the category "of rodef, the aggressor, who may be killed if that is the only way to stop his pursuit or aggression of a third party." The Talmud considers treating the fetus as a rodef - specifically, "an aggressor against its mother, and making that the reason why abortion to save the mother's life is permitted."

But the Talmud proceeds to reject that reasoning on the obvious grounds that the fetus is not yet of responsible age to deliberately forfeit its protection against being murdered [i.e., by consciously choosing to act as an aggressor, and thereby loosing its protection against killing]. The only valid grounds for permitting even therapeutic abortion is that murder is not involved because the fetus is not yet a human person [ftn. 1: Sanhedrin 72b: David Feldman Birth Control in Jewish Law (New York: New York University Press, 1968), chaps. 14 and 15.] Killing is admittedly involved, but not murder. Killing is the taking of life of, say, an animal or a chicken, or of a human who forfeits his protection by an act of aggression. (81)

This brings us to the central point: the crucial distinction between killing and murder further depends on the definition of the status of the life taken - a definition which Feldman observes is metaphysical and religious, rather than scientific: <snip>

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)