Why Democrats Can�t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Roy]

There is no such thing as "spontaneous abortion". If you are referring to a miscarriage, that's in no way an abortion.

As CB noted, it's a common term. Feel free to substitute miscarriage/stillbirth/non-implantation/failed_pregnancy or any other synonym. Using different terminology won't change the point.

[Christianbookworm]

Other than "spontaneous abortion" getting confused with abortion and some innocent mother thinking she somehow caused her miscarriage?

[carpedm9587]

I accept that. And I don't disagree with it. But as you say, it is a progression and there is no hard line that says at day X this is now a human being. I would think that we need to regard it from zygote as alive and personally I would never abort any pregnancy unless we were almost completely certain my wife would die with the birth. But there is this technicality around the word 'murder' that we've already discussed, and the Bible is saying this unborn child can't invoke life for a life if killed accidentally during this fight, but the mother can. And I don't think that is trivial, or without meaning in this debate, if we are basing our thought and beliefs on what the Bible teaches.

Jim

On the latter part, I cannot comment. I do not make moral decisions on the basis of what is and is not in the Christian bible. I recognize that you (and others here) do, so I'll let ya'll hammer it out.

I have come to the conclusion that the debate out "when life starts" will never be resolved. It is as much philosophy (what constitutes a "person") as science (at what point is a life individuated/independent?). The philosophy will change depending on the worldview of those debating the issue. Because the science will continue to change, the latter part will likewise change as well. That is why I think the discussion/debate needs to get out of that arena and move to the "pre-pregnancy" arena. If we could find ways to make unwanted pregnancies rare (I doubt they can ever be non-existent), then we avoid the whole "when is it a life" debate.

[carpedm9587]

At the risk of interjecting a little levity to a serious subject, I still go back to the wise old Jewish Rabbi who explained, "Life begins when the kids move away and the dog dies".

Great. I am officially non-life...

[oxmixmudd]

Sparko has already dealt with the Hebrew, but your claim about unborn having less value in the eyes of God seems to be well, at best an opinion. After all, the Bible also points out that God choose prophets and apostles before they were even born and that he forms us in the womb. Do you really want to play the Bible verse game? I can dig up plenty to prove my point if you so desire.

He did NOT deal with the Hebrew, he just stated his opinion. There is a rather large difference. Pix, that verse shows a different response to the death of the unborn child than to the death of the mother. I am not drawing any necessary application from that, but that is the text, that is not me. The original point was to say only that the Bible indicates in this verse a distinction between a baby born and a baby in the womb. The only possibility here is that something in the text implies the child did not die. but as I pointed out, the fact the father is allowed to set an unbounded fee for the loss is a fairly stark indicator the child died. These are just the facts, stop pretedning I have some agenda or I am only going on my own opinion.

[carpedm9587]

There is no such thing as "spontaneous abortion". If you are referring to a miscarriage, that's in no way an abortion.

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy due to removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus. An abortion that occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently an "induced miscarriage".

Source

Basically, an abortion is an ending of a pregnancy without the survival of the fetus. It can be spontaneous (also called a miscarriage) or induced (often just shortened to "abortion." Clinically, "spontaneous abortion" and "induced abortion" are widely used terms. They may not be used in that way more casually by medical lay people.

[carpedm9587]

He did NOT deal with the Hebrew, he just stated his opinion. There is a rather large difference. Pix, that verse shows a different response to the death of the unborn child than to the death of the mother. I am not drawing any necessary application from that, but that is the text, that is not me. The original point was to say only that the Bible indicates in this verse a distinction between a baby born and a baby in the womb. The only possibility here is that something in the text implies the child did not die. but as I pointed out, the fact the father is allowed to set an unbounded fee for the loss is a fairly stark indicator the child died. These are just the facts, stop pretedning I have some agenda or I am only going on my own opinion.

I think the Hebrew being referenced was in the article Sparko linked, if you're looking for it.

[Mountain Man]

...the fact the father is allowed to set an unbounded fee for the loss is a fairly stark indicator the child died.

Wrong, because the text clearly says "if there is no harm", and it's not "an unbounded fee" but one that is ultimately determined by a judge ("...he shall pay as the judges determine"). The fact that the text goes on to stipulate a different punishment in the event that there is harm ("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") suggests exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

[lilpixieofterror]

He did NOT deal with the Hebrew, he just stated his opinion. There is a rather large difference. Pix, that verse shows a different response to the death of the unborn child than to the death of the mother. I am not drawing any necessary application from that, but that is the text, that is not me. The original point was to say only that the Bible indicates in this verse a distinction between a baby born and a baby in the womb. The only possibility here is that something in the text implies the child did not die. but as I pointed out, the fact the father is allowed to set an unbounded fee for the loss is a fairly stark indicator the child died. These are just the facts, stop pretedning I have some agenda or I am only going on my own opinion.

[oxmixmudd]

Wrong, because the text clearly says "if there is no harm", and it's not "an unbounded fee" but one that is ultimately determined by a judge ("...he shall pay as the judges determine"). The fact that the text goes on to stipulate a different punishment in the event that there is harm ("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") suggests exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.

You are correct that the judges have the capacity to restrict what the father requests. Nevertheless, it clearly says the husband sets the fee and does not give a limit, but the judges determine how much of it gets collected, how much of the fee the offender must pay.

The 'other' harm is clearly the harm other than the premature birth. The fee is granted on account of the premature birth. And again, while it most certainly could include a live birth where the baby survives, there is nothing in the text that implies it ONLY applies to a live birth where the baby survives, which is what you are assuming. And this is the problem. Logically, the fee would be given to the father in compensation for a loss. The loss being most likely the loss of the child. Premature births in this time frame were not very likely to survive. They simply would not have the means to sustain the life of a premature baby unless it was fairly close to the babies actual delivery date. And even if the baby were full term, a strike heavy enough to induced premature labor would reduce the chances of survival of both the mother and the child. You are not looking at the most likely implications here by any stretch.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I quoted the verse pix. It says what it says. I don't have to back up my 'opinion' because I'm not giving an 'opinion', I'm simply reasoning about what the text itself says. This is nothing other than the classic 'I don't like what the Bible actually says so this must just be your opinion' push back. If you can show the text has some other meaning, you have a leg to stand on. Sparko offered a reasonable option, but I think the aspect of a somewhat arbitrary fee to the father makes that unlikely. Why else would a fee be assessed if something wasn't lost that needed compensation? The only thing that could possibly be lost here is the baby. Any other harm is dealt with through 'eye for an eye' etc.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I think the Hebrew being referenced was in the article Sparko linked, if you're looking for it.

Aha - thanks. Missed that.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

Aha - thanks. Missed that.

Jim

NP. Have at it. It's certainly not my thing. The article was interesting, though.

[oxmixmudd]

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.




Some people would argue it isn't a fully-developed human being until it reaches adulthood. But you were arguing that pro-choice and pro-life needed to compromise their rhetoric. I disagree. It is a fully-developed human being at a specific stage of his/her life. Just as a baby is a fully-developed human at the infant stage of life. And a teenager at the teenager stage of life. A zygote is an entire human being at the beginning of his/her life. Everyone of us discussing this was one at one time. It is not part of the mother, it is not a single cell that doesn't matter.

Even if you could argue that the bible verse being discussed didn't recognize a fetus as a full human being, they had no way of knowing back then.

FYI - an article on Ex 21:22-25 that discusses the Hebrew.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...oice-advocates

Ok - so thanks for the link. And he does make a pretty good case that the text is not talking about a miscarriage. The title is a bit misleading, in that I'm not using it as a 'pro-choice' advocate. I am not pro-choice.

But as can seen by the heightened hostility levels of MM and pix, subtleties with them are often lost to emotion and preconception, which is one reason I mostly avoid conversations with either of them.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

The 'other' harm is clearly the harm other than the premature birth.

It doesn't say "other harm". Here is the ESV translation which closely aligns with the Hebrew text: "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm..." No variation of the word "other" appears in the original language, and the word translated as "come out" only ever refers to a live birth. There is another word in Hebrew that means "miscarry" or "still birth" which does not appear in this passage. You might wonder why the perpetrator would be fined at all if there was no harm, but I think it's obvious that hitting a woman hard enough to cause her to go into early labor is certainly deserving of some restitution, wouldn't you agree?

You're right that the likelihood of a premature baby surviving in those days was low, which is why the law goes on to stipulate a different punishment in the event that there is "harm" (verses 23-25).

Did you even read the link that Sparko provided? There is no ambiguity in the original Hebrew.