The legalization of murder by abortion

[OzSpen]

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)

kiwimac,

I think you should go to medical science to determine when human life begins. Here are some .....
Medical Aspects

In 1970, in the midst of the United States’ abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed “the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death” (in Davis 1985, p. 137).

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, in 1981, held hearings on when life begins. The following are samples of evidence submitted by the medical profession (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 113-114):


Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris:

When does life begin? . . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception . . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.​

Dr Watson A. Bowes, Jr, of the University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception.”

Dr Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, after noting that standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception, added: "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being".

Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

The medical breakthrough came in the 1960s when Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the genetic code (DNA).

"The genotype — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established in the conception process and will remain in force for the entire life of that individual. No other event in biological life is so decisive as this one . . . The genotype that is conferred at conception does not merely start life, it defines life" (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 36-37).

Biologically, human life begins when the sperm merges with the ovum to form the zygote, containing the full set of 46 chromosomes necessary to create new human life. “The haploid sex cells (ova or spermatozoa) are parts of potential human life. The zygote is human life” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 40, emphasis in original). The First International Conference on Abortion in Washington D.C., 1967, declared: “We can find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of an infant at which point we can say that this in not a human life” (in Stott 1984, p. 286).

The above information is taken from my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective.

Oz

Works consulted:

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

Shettles, L. B. with D. Rorvik 1983 , Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Stott, J. 1984, Issues Facing Christians Today, Marshalls, Basingstoke, Hants.

 

[Sword]

While the Talmud does discuss the time of ensoulment

I dont really care what men made up in the tulmud.

Jer 1:5
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.

You are a soul before your even born.

 

[kiwimac]

I dont really care what men made up in the tulmud.

Jer 1:5
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.

You are a soul before your even born.

No, the verse quoted refers solely to Jeremiah. No one else.

 

[OzSpen]

No, the verse quoted refers solely to Jeremiah. No one else.

However, you were the one referring to the Talmud. Who composed the Talmud? Was it breathed out by God?

Oz

 

[kiwimac]

kiwimac,

I think you should go to medical science to determine when human life begins. Here are some .....
Medical Aspects

In 1970, in the midst of the United States’ abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed “the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death” (in Davis 1985, p. 137).

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, in 1981, held hearings on when life begins. The following are samples of evidence submitted by the medical profession (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 113-114):


Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris:

When does life begin? . . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception . . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.​

Dr Watson A. Bowes, Jr, of the University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception.”

Dr Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, after noting that standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception, added: "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being".

Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

The medical breakthrough came in the 1960s when Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the genetic code (DNA).

"The genotype — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established in the conception process and will remain in force for the entire life of that individual. No other event in biological life is so decisive as this one . . . The genotype that is conferred at conception does not merely start life, it defines life" (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 36-37).

Biologically, human life begins when the sperm merges with the ovum to form the zygote, containing the full set of 46 chromosomes necessary to create new human life. “The haploid sex cells (ova or spermatozoa) are parts of potential human life. The zygote is human life” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 40, emphasis in original). The First International Conference on Abortion in Washington D.C., 1967, declared: “We can find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of an infant at which point we can say that this in not a human life” (in Stott 1984, p. 286).

The above information is taken from my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective.

Oz

Works consulted:

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

Shettles, L. B. with D. Rorvik 1983 , Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Stott, J. 1984, Issues Facing Christians Today, Marshalls, Basingstoke, Hants.

I am not arguing that the foetus is not alive nor human simply that until it is born it does not have the same rights as the person carrying it and that their needs are more important.

 

[kiwimac]

However, you were the one referring to the Talmud. Who composed the Talmud? Was it breathed out by God?

Oz

You do recall WHO we got the OT from?

 

[Sword]

You do recall WHO we got the OT from?

Yes God

 

[OzSpen]

I am not arguing that the foetus is not alive nor human simply that until it is born it does not have the same rights as the person carrying it and that their needs are more important.

kiwimac,

That is not what you have argued in a previous post. At #17 you argued:

• 'A foetus is not a child';
• Abortion is not murder as it is not 'the unlawful taking of a human life';
• 'Abortion is not unlawful thus not murder';

I've provided you with medical evidence that a foetus is a living human being (a child) in the womb.

In your country and mine, who determines whether killing the unborn child is murder? Human governments do. Therefore, the killing of an unborn child that is now not a murderous offense, is a human invention.

Your argument that 'abortion is not unlawful thus not murder' rests on an untenable position, as untenable as saying that homosexual marriage is marriage.

From a Christian perspective, is the killing of the unborn foetus murder? The following information is taken from my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective.

In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal ('Women's Issues', 2004). The American Journal of Public Health had an article in 2013 that stated, 'According to the most recent research ... roughly 39% of the world’s population lives in countries with highly restrictive laws governing abortion' (Finer & Fine 2013). So, whether abortion is murder or not is being determined by governments around the world.

Foetus is fully human: Biblical arguments
1. Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).
2. The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13) just as God created Adam and Eve in his image (Genesis 1:27).
3. The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death (Ex. 21:22) as that of an adult (Gen. 9:6).
4. Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27).
5. The image of God includes “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.
6. Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (Ps. 51:5) and joy that are distinctive of human beings.
7. Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children (Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matt. 1:20-21) just as any other human being.
8. The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person (Ps. 139:15-16; Jer. 1:5).
9. The unborn are even called by God before birth (Gen. 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15).
10. Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9). Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9).

Dr Norman Geisler therefore concludes:

Taken as a whole, these Scripture texts leave no doubt that an unborn child is just as much a person in God’s image as a little child or an adult is. They are created in God’s image from the very moment of conception, and their prenatal life is precious in God’s eyes and protected by his prohibition against murder (Geisler 1989:148).

See the article, 'A physician tells why abortion is murder'.

I, therefore, find your view that 'abortion is not murder' to be unjustified as it is not supported by evidence.

Oz

Works consulted

Finer, L & Fine, J B 2013. Abortion law around the world: Progress and pushback. American Journal of Public Health (online), vol 103(4), 585-589. Available at: Abortion Law Around the World: Progress and Pushback (Accessed 20 May 2017).

Geisler, N. L. 1989. Christian ethics: Options and Issues. Leicester, England: Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press).

“Women’s Issues” 2004 (Online). Available at: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm (Accessed 21 September 2004). At 20 May 2017 this link was not available online.

 

[kiwimac]

Yes God

via the Jews.

 

[kiwimac]

I

kiwimac,

That is not what you have argued in a previous post. At #17 you argued:

• 'A foetus is not a child';
• Abortion is not murder as it is not 'the unlawful taking of a human life';
• 'Abortion is not unlawful thus not murder';

I've provided you with medical evidence that a foetus is a living human being (a child) in the womb.

In your country and mine, who determines whether killing the unborn child is murder? Human governments do. Therefore, the killing of an unborn child that is now not a murderous offense, is a human invention.

Your argument that 'abortion is not unlawful thus not murder' rests on an untenable position, as untenable as saying that homosexual marriage is marriage.

From a Christian perspective, is the killing of the unborn foetus murder? The following information is taken from my article, Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective.

In 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal ('Women's Issues', 2004). The American Journal of Public Health had an article in 2013 that stated, 'According to the most recent research ... roughly 39% of the world’s population lives in countries with highly restrictive laws governing abortion' (Finer & Fine 2013). So, whether abortion is murder or not is being determined by governments around the world.

Foetus is fully human: Biblical arguments
1. Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).
2. The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13) just as God created Adam and Eve in his image (Genesis 1:27).
3. The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death (Ex. 21:22) as that of an adult (Gen. 9:6).
4. Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27).
5. The image of God includes “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.
6. Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (Ps. 51:5) and joy that are distinctive of human beings.
7. Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children (Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matt. 1:20-21) just as any other human being.
8. The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person (Ps. 139:15-16; Jer. 1:5).
9. The unborn are even called by God before birth (Gen. 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15).
10. Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9). Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9).

Dr Norman Geisler therefore concludes:



See the article, 'A physician tells why abortion is murder'.

I, therefore, find your view that 'abortion is not murder' to be unjustified as it is not supported by evidence.

Oz

Works consulted

Finer, L & Fine, J B 2013. Abortion law around the world: Progress and pushback. American Journal of Public Health (online), vol 103(4), 585-589. Available at: Abortion Law Around the World: Progress and Pushback (Accessed 20 May 2017).

Geisler, N. L. 1989. Christian ethics: Options and Issues. Leicester, England: Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press).

“Women’s Issues” 2004 (Online). Available at: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm (Accessed 21 September 2004). At 20 May 2017 this link was not available online.

I disagree with Geisler and agree with the Jewish position on this matter.

 

[Sword]

via the Jews.

Nope through His word. Via the Holy Ghost.

 

[kiwimac]

Nope through His word. Via the Holy Ghost.

Did you miss the whole "Old Testament kept by the Jews, written by them?"

 

[Sword]

Did you miss the whole "Old Testament kept by the Jews, written by them?"

Nah did you miss the never Keep the law and Jesus had to come?

 

[OzSpen]

I

I disagree with Geisler and agree with the Jewish position on this matter.

Geisler agrees with the biblical view and so do I.

 

[kiwimac]

You appear to be suggesting that the Jewish view is not biblical and I would like you to support this.

 

[OzSpen]

You appear to be suggesting that the Jewish view is not biblical and I would like you to support this.

Where?

 

[kiwimac]

Where?

Me: I disagree with Geisler and agree with the Jewish position on this matter.
You: Geisler agrees with the biblical view and so do I.

Kiwimac

 

[OzSpen]

Kiwimac

kiwimac,

This is the Jewish view:

Exodus 21:22-25
The ESV renders these verses: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Some have used this passage to support a permissive view of abortion. One interpretation of the passage is that

if a man causes a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, but no further harm comes to the woman, then capital punishment is not required for the loss of the life of the unborn child, no matter how advanced the pregnancy. According to this interpretation, Old Testament law does not consider the unborn child a soul or human life, thus implying a clear distinction between the value of the life of the unborn child and that of the mother (Davis 1985:150-151).​

The “miscarriage” translation is rejected on linguistic grounds, since the verb yatza when used alone (as in this passage) refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (cf. Gen.25:25, 26; 38:28-30; Jer.1:5; 20:18). Therefore, the better translation is “premature live birth” rather than “miscarriage”. “The text actually treats the life of the mother and that of the unborn child as equally valuable” (Davis 1985:151; see Davis for a detailed explanation).

God clearly sees the unborn child as already a human being, made in His image. Killing of such a person (abortion) is MURDER.

In this abortion debate, Harold O.J. Brown argued persuasively that the burden of proof is on the advocates of a permissive position to show that the unborn child is not human.

If a hunter were to see a movement behind a bush and shoot at it, without being sure that the movement were not caused by a human being rather than by an animal, such an action would be morally irresponsible. Regarding abortion, any doubts concerning the humanity of the unborn child should be resolved in favor of developing human life (Brown 1977:119).​

(image courtesy Amazing animations)

The above information is taken from my article: Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

Oz

Works consulted

Brown, H. O. J. 1977, Death Before Birth, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

 

[OzSpen]

via the Jews.

That does not make the Talmud from God via the Jews. Yours is a leap into illogic.

 

[Abiding Grace]

kiwimac,

This is the Jewish view:

Exodus 21:22-25
The ESV renders these verses: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Some have used this passage to support a permissive view of abortion. One interpretation of the passage is that

if a man causes a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, but no further harm comes to the woman, then capital punishment is not required for the loss of the life of the unborn child, no matter how advanced the pregnancy. According to this interpretation, Old Testament law does not consider the unborn child a soul or human life, thus implying a clear distinction between the value of the life of the unborn child and that of the mother (Davis 1985:150-151).​

The “miscarriage” translation is rejected on linguistic grounds, since the verb yatza when used alone (as in this passage) refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (cf. Gen.25:25, 26; 38:28-30; Jer.1:5; 20:18). Therefore, the better translation is “premature live birth” rather than “miscarriage”. “The text actually treats the life of the mother and that of the unborn child as equally valuable” (Davis 1985:151; see Davis for a detailed explanation).

God clearly sees the unborn child as already a human being, made in His image. Killing of such a person (abortion) is MURDER.

In this abortion debate, Harold O.J. Brown argued persuasively that the burden of proof is on the advocates of a permissive position to show that the unborn child is not human.

If a hunter were to see a movement behind a bush and shoot at it, without being sure that the movement were not caused by a human being rather than by an animal, such an action would be morally irresponsible. Regarding abortion, any doubts concerning the humanity of the unborn child should be resolved in favor of developing human life (Brown 1977:119).​

(image courtesy Amazing animations)

The above information is taken from my article: Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

Oz

Works consulted

Brown, H. O. J. 1977, Death Before Birth, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

Great post.

Psalm 139:13-16

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

Here is a video of Summer White, the daughter of James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries. She is trying to get a straight answer out of these women.

My daughter and I support this particular church in their efforts to end abortion. It's called Apologia Church.

God Bless