Is Abortion Sinful?

[Raphael]

Thanks for the link, Shane. No need of ancient literature professors anymore..

I notice that the vagueness asserted is upon the word 'depart' where it could mean depart prematurely (living and safe) or stillborn (born dead).

Quoted from the link http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700

"Two further objections need to be dealt with. First, if this is a premature birth and not a miscarriage, why the fine?

Babies born prematurely require special care. Because their prenatal development has been interrupted, they are especially prone to difficulty. Pre-term babies often can’t breast feed, and there can be respiratory problems leading to permanent brain damage. The fine represents reimbursement for the expense of an untimely birth, and punitive damages for the serious trauma..."

I suppose broadly knowledgeable medical experts could enlightened us upon the realities of prematurely born babies back in history.. not to mentioned the high mortality rate of mothers delivering infants during those ancient days.. which has become one of the highlights of modern medical advancements (its great delivery mortality rate reduction)..

Would then, the supposed required special care for premature births be a realistic idea or more of an imaginatively argumentative one..? ..rendering the notion of premature birth definitions to be unlikely and even far fetched.

Another quote form the same link:

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans.

Does this sound in alignment to the idea that 'even' born babies would get free rides due to their parent's victories? ..exempting babies from God's rightful 'respect', as He always does to intelligences.. Except, ofcourse, if all babies goes to heaven, that would be another matter.. Aren't all babies the same, in the absence of intelligence where, therefore if one goes then all goes as well..

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Now if the baby was born living, though prematurely, it would appear obvious that there is no harm...

No harm? When a man hits a woman she doesn't have to give birth prematurely to be harmed. Just ask someone who works in a battered woman's shelter if a woman has to give birth to a stillborn to be considered harmed. Let's get honest with ourselves and stop trying to make the Bible say what we want to read in it. Furthermore, a child being born prematurely is in itself harm done as was quoted from the linked site.

That fact is that Exodus 21:22 can be read either way and those wanting to be intellectually honest with themselves will not try to use it as any kind of proof text in the abortion debate.

[Raphael]

You are right, there would be harm upon premature births, that is 99.99% or perhaps 100% certain death in 'those days'.. I wasn't denoting the harm to the mother, its at the end of the sentence with the word 'except' that's about the mother. (anyway I have deleted that part due to redundancy with the quote from your link.)

Sorry, if the sentences are not rather well founded. I was replying to FreeThinker's last post when you already posted a reply, making me change the contents.. Please refresh your page and you may find it different.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You are right, there would be harm upon premature births, that is 99.99% or perhaps 100% death in 'those days'..

Thank you for admitting I am right. But the 99.99% or perhaps 100% numbers are sadly wrong. Johannes Kepler was born in 1571 at 7 months gestation. Sir Isaac Newton was born prematurely in 1643. Winston Churchill was born in 1874 at 7 months gestation. Anna Pavlova was born in 1885 at 7 months gestation. Being born premature prior to modern medicine was not necessarily a death sentence.

[Raphael]

Sure it would not necessarily be a death sentence if seen from individual cases which would not reflect the reality of those days..

[Dr. Shane]

It wasn't necessarily a death sentence. No debate about it. We have several documented cases of premature births prior to modern medicine that did not result in death.

Exodus 21:22 simply is not clear and we cannot maintain intellectual honesty while claiming that it is.

[FreeThinker]

But why would you think you have to die to be harmed? Is it not possible to have under developed lungs, and thus suffer an early death due to that?

There are countless ways that premature birth harms people.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/21191_6306.asp

Some serious complications of premature birth are:

-Respiratory distress syndrome: A serious breathing problem that affects mainly babies born before 34 weeks of pregnancy.

-Bleeding in the brain: Most common in babies born before 32 weeks of pregnancy. Bleeding in the brain is called intraventricular hemmorhage (IVH). It can cause pressure in the brain and brain damage.

Patent ductus arteriosus: A heart problem that is common in premature babies. Untreated, it can lead to heart failure.

-Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC): A potentially dangerous intestinal problem.

-Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP): An eye problem that occurs mainly in babies born before 32 weeks of pregnancy. In severe cases, treatment is needed to help prevent vision loss.

Any harm done to the mother is an adverse affect on the fetus.

[Raphael]

Alright, lets say that indeed the Exodus verse is simply vague that may contribute to differing streams of thought which would mean that either manner of thought would have its rightfulness to claim, then? Meaning everyones right.. since it's indefinable.. think so?

Best,

Raphael

[FreeThinker]

No, I seriously doubt that anybody will accept that as reality. The two sides will never see "eye to eye", I don't think.

What is "intellectual honesty", versus any other kind of "honesty"?

[Raphael]

I am open minded and hope every else is.. seeking the truth (what ever it turns out to be) and not to establish one.

[Raphael]

Hi, Shane, FreeThinker and everyone else,

It's 4:45 Am here and I planned to loiter around during daylight.. will post replies again, say in 12 to 15 hours..

Goody nightie,

Raphael

[FreeThinker]

Rest well, Raphael.

[Dr. Shane]

No, I seriously doubt that anybody will accept that as reality. The two sides will never see "eye to eye", I don't think.

What is "intellectual honesty", versus any other kind of "honesty"?

The two sides will not agree regarding whether abortion is a sin or not. However they can agree that Exodus 21:22 is not clear enough to decide the question.

Intellectual honesty is fairly stating the opposition's view when giving an opinion about a controversial issue. So if someone is going to claim Exodus 21:22 supports abortion not being sinful they need to fairly point out opponents to that view believe the verse cannot be adequately translated to make that conclusion. That would be intellectually honest.

[Raphael]

It would be interesting to know whether the Jewish people who has had this around with them throughout their history, would conceived this particular verse of Exodus to be indefinable..

Quote from same link:

One text, however, is strong. Exodus 21:22-25 is usually used to argue that the Bible assigns a lower value to the unborn than to other humans. Rabbis and Jewish thinkers I’ve discussed this point with on the radio have been especially adamant--even irate. I think the evidence shows, though, that Moses taught just the opposite. If I’m right, we have a powerful argument for the value Scripture puts on the life of the unborn.

The link, you have provided, Shane, seems to skip or avoid traditional Jewish views and jump to intended conclusions..

Best,

Raphael

[Raphael]

A quote from http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:

The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.

Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.

Please bear in mind that though the above statements give that impression of pro abortions, the Jewish people are not at liberty to do them whenever pleases. I suppose that would be in align to the sin of hurting your own body, the temple and etc.. like vices of smoking, liquor and to the extreme drugs..

[Raphael]

Will loiter around now and be back 2 to 4 hours, I suppose..

Best,

Raphael

[Raphael]

Hi,

Is the Kool-Aid getting cooler.. seems no ones trying to stop it getting 'freshener'...

Best,

Raphael

[Raphael]

Just obtained TombRaider UnderGround, perhaps I will try out it first, who knows I may be more driven with inspirations..

Good times to you too,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

The fact the NASB changed their translation of the verse speaks volumes about how unclear it is. Jews believe the Bible teaches not to eat meat and dairy products in the same meal. We really cannot base our beliefs on Jewish traditions. I think Jesus made that pretty clear when He was here. We must base our beliefs on Sola Scriptura - which is what the Adventist church does.

Our belief that abortion in cases of birth control, convenience or to choose the sex of the child is sinful is a Biblical sound doctrine. In cases where the mother's health is in danger, prenatal birth defects are detected, rape, incest, etc are involved, the decision must be made by the believer after much prayer and the church has no right to administer any discipline.

[Raphael]

I would like to know our SDAs position whether our church considers an unborn child to have the same equivalent value of life in comparison to a living, breathing intelligent being? ..regardless of the 'stated' vagueness of the Kool-Aid verse in Exodus.

To the Jewish people, there is no vagueness about the meaning of 'depart', without trying to add the definition of premature births to it.. To them, its blindingly clear, in FreeThinkers words without the slightest uncertainty that we seem to all have.. stating very clearly that the loss of unborn child is not equivalent to murder..

Upon the question of abortion, this may perhaps become, rather a question of ethics and not an act of abhorring homicide..

It is interesting to remember how the truth once blindingly clear, became 'lost' through many centuries, that gave rise to the returning to the 'truths' through the Protestant movement though far for incomplete which became our SDAs hallmarks of adding the true Sabbath and others.. is it perchance that there is still something missing out that SDAs still carry around as legacies of the infamous Papal reign? Roman Catholics still look upon non SDA Protestants as their rightful followers due to their observance of the Sunday, which the Papal See openly claims to be their very authority of 'change'..

As to eating meat and its dairy products, I'd have to see what scripture are they based on.. as for our current subject, the Jewish clearly base it upon the 'seemingly' clear Kool-Aid Exodus verse with nothing unclear or vague upon it.

Does our SDA position consider unborn babies to have equivalent values of life to born ones..?

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

Here is a link to the official Adventist position: Guidelines on Abortion

Quote:

Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

To the Jewish people, there is no vagueness about the meaning of 'depart', without trying to add the definition of premature births to it..

That simply not true. Even it is was it means nothing since the Jewish people have as much authority as Catholic biships in expounding on the Scripture. Dr. Laura Schlessinger is just one of the conservative voices that has been published in the Jewish World Review taking a position against abortion. There is by no means a consensus within the Jewish community and stating there is such consensus is intellectually dishonest.

The Hebrew word depart simply means to come out. It does not indicate if the baby comes out alive or dead. If it was clear, why did the NASB change their reading of it in 1995? Obviously it isn't clear.

[Raphael]

Read you SDA abortion link and found not one of the quoted verses to clearly define life in the unborn..! Just general meaning verses of how to appreciate life (in general) and so on.. kind of unfortunate, isn't it..?

..ofcourse, I do agree with the idea (in the link) that abortions should not be taken lightly..

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think it is unfortunate at all. Arguing about whether or not the value of the unborn is worth more than the born is like arguing about which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead. Life is valuable regardless if it is unborn, newly born, adolescent, mature, elderly, male, female, American, Iraqi, disabled, retarded, Christian or pagan. All life is precious. We can let the scientists argue about DNA and when life begins. As a church, we don't need to get involved in that controversy.

[Raphael]

It's mighty different in spiritually issues of the matter of ethics or the killing of a 'supposed life'.

That shouldn't be taken lightly, our doctrine is supposed to be the all round, sound scheme where if you draw one out, everything dissolves.. this is a matter of faith.. how can one be convinced if you are on shaky 'vague' ground..

Best,

Raphael

[Dr. Shane]

I don't see shaky ground in the church's position on abortion. I think it is laid out quite clearly. The issue of when life begins is academic. God sees the beginning from the end. In God's eyes life begins long before He creates it and continues long after we consider it dead.