Why Democrats Can�t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[Christianbookworm]

Well, I don't see any moral difference between a human embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, child, or adult. Other than some vague age when the person becomes morally responsible for their actions. Heaven is full of embryos, fetuses, babies, and small children. Probably plenty of older children too, but there is a higher mortality rate before five years of age.

[oxmixmudd]

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

So Sparko, I found this link to an article written by a medical professional that is anti-abortion and that I think deals far more completely with the use of the specific Hebrew words and concludes that this passage is most likely talking about a miscarriage (the word is in fact in an odd form and is in fact used elsewhere in the OT to refer to a miscarriage). But he also makes the case that the scriptures do NOT treat the unborn as inhuman or in a way that would justify abortion, but rather discusses why there might have been a fine imposed in this case and not 'life for a life etc'.

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...rtion-bsac.htm

Since this fellow does in fact deal with the fact there are uses of the word that imply miscarriage (avoided in piper's article), I personally think it represents a more sholarly and more accurate assessment of what the verse is saying and how it should be used as it relates to the abortion debate (e.g. it refers to miscarriage but can't be used to justify abortion).



Jim

[carpedm9587]

So Sparko, I found this link to an article written by a medical professional that is anti-abortion and that I think deals far more completely with the use of the specific Hebrew words and concludes that this passage is most likely talking about a miscarriage (the word is in fact in an odd form and is in fact used elsewhere in the OT to refer to a miscarriage). But he also makes the case that the scriptures do NOT treat the unborn as inhuman or in a way that would justify abortion, but rather discusses why there might have been a fine imposed in this case and not 'life for a life etc'.

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...rtion-bsac.htm

Since this fellow does in fact deal with the fact there are uses of the word that imply miscarriage (avoided in piper's article), I personally think it represents a more sholarly and more accurate assessment of what the verse is saying and how it should be used as it relates to the abortion debate (e.g. it refers to miscarriage but can't be used to justify abortion).

Jim

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

[Sparko]

pix, the entire context is that one of the fighting men hit the pregnant women is accidentally. The men are fighting, the woman is struck accidentally and it forces a premature birth. Yet life for a life applies to the mother, but not the baby.

Now Sparko has a point in that if the Hebrew used there for 'gives birth' is well known NOT to have included still birth, then we could perhaps assume that the only reason for the exception is that the baby survived. But then one still has that nagging matter of why a payment of arbitrary amount is required if the baby was not lost. The general tendency in this culture was to consider wives and children essentially property. But slaves had a certain value, and this is an amount, any amount, as determined by the father, implying something of great value has been lost. And since the women was not lost, that would imply the child was.

Jim

If you read that article by John Piper I linked to, it made that argument that there is another word for miscarriage. And the reason that the man had to pay was it was a fine for him hitting his wife and causing her to give birth. I am sure there are costs involved in delivering a baby. Midwives, doctors, etc to help the premature baby live. And his wife was potentially hurt by the smack. It was a legal fine.

The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?

In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:

1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used nearby in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'). "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse') red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)

So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Ecclesiastes 6:3). But these words are not used here.

4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. "Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form" (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).

5. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB, 1972 edition; corrected in the 1995 update). The word "further" is not in the original text.

The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...oice-advocates

[Christianbookworm]

There wasn't much they could do back then for a premature baby....

[oxmixmudd]

If you read that article by John Piper I linked to, it made that argument that there is another word for miscarriage. And the reason that the man had to pay was it was a fine for him hitting his wife and causing her to give birth. I am sure there are costs involved in delivering a baby. Midwives, doctors, etc to help the premature baby live. And his wife was potentially hurt by the smack. It was a legal fine.

The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct?

In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments:

1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used nearby in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'). "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse') red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)

So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Ecclesiastes 6:3). But these words are not used here.

4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. "Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form" (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).

5. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB, 1972 edition; corrected in the 1995 update). The word "further" is not in the original text.

The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...oice-advocates

Hey sparko, did you read the article I linked to?

Where piper says: So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

he's actually not correct there. The article I linked to goes into why.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

There wasn't much they could do back then for a premature baby....

Exactly.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

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

[Sparko]

Hey sparko, did you read the article I linked to?

Where piper says: So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

he's actually not correct there. The article I linked to goes into why.

Jim

well reading that article to say he is incorrect is incorrect. Your author came to a different conclusion about that one phrase. It doesn't mean Piper was wrong. And that was just one point in Piper's argument. He had several more, including the fact that there was a word for miscarriage and it wasn't used when it would have made things clearer.

I am thinking Piper being a theologian is a bit more familiar with ancient hebrew than a medical doctor, so I am sticking with his explanation. I have read the same by others too. And it fits with my plain reading of the text. And it fits with how I would think God feels about all of his creations. He doesn't dismiss someone when they are in the womb. He has plans for people before they were even born. Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus, all were referred to while in the womb as being alive. It even shows that John was aware of Jesus and kicked in the womb when Mary went to visit. Why would someone be less valuable while in the womb to God? He sees our entire lives and everything we will do in them.

[lilpixieofterror]

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

[oxmixmudd]

Pix - I'd like to be able to have reasoned conversations with you. Same with MM. You are both intelligent people. And you both are the ones holding the keys that would make that possible. Very little I can do at this point.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Pix - I'd like to be able to have reasoned conversations with you. Same with MM. You are both intelligent people. And you both are the ones holding the keys that would make that possible. Very little I can do at this point.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

well reading that article to say he is incorrect is incorrect. Your author came to a different conclusion about that one phrase. It doesn't mean Piper was wrong. And that was just one point in Piper's argument. He had several more, including the fact that there was a word for miscarriage and it wasn't used when it would have made things clearer.

I am thinking Piper being a theologian is a bit more familiar with ancient hebrew than a medical doctor, so I am sticking with his explanation. I have read the same by others too. And it fits with my plain reading of the text. And it fits with how I would think God feels about all of his creations. He doesn't dismiss someone when they are in the womb. He has plans for people before they were even born. Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus, all were referred to while in the womb as being alive. It even shows that John was aware of Jesus and kicked in the womb when Mary went to visit. Why would someone be less valuable while in the womb to God? He sees our entire lives and everything we will do in them.

The point is that the word used for birth does not always mean live birth as Piper claims. Because of that, and the fact it is in the plural which implies multiple parts come forth as in a premature birth where the fetus is still very small, he concludes it means miscarriage. All of that is missed by Piper. This fellow is fully against abortion, so please don't try to imply that interpretation in some way opens the door to devaluing the humanity of the fetus, or that it contradicts in any way the remainder of your reasons for valuing human life from conception.

You seem to be reacting to my raising this issue as if somehow I am trying to claim abortion is ok. That is the 'black/white' thinking person's response. I raised the issue because there is a difference in the scripture made between the death of the unborn baby and the mother in this passage when I was discussing with CP my thoughts on when the fetus becomes fully human. That difference must be taken into account in any discussion of abortion. Glossing over it or ignoring it leads to ignorance. It's like every other issue where Christians feel threatened by the facts. We can't be that way. God is not afraid of the truth. And if we are not afraid of the truth, then when we make mistakes, we can get set right and put on the right path. That is much better than holding onto some belief that ultimately is wrong. Case in point - through our discussion I have learned things about this passage I did not know. Isn't that a good thing? Does a difference of opinion always have to be about crushing the guy the dares think something different than you do?


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I am never surprised when I get that sort of reaction from you Pix. In fact, I don't know if there is a single post in Civics where you have not addressed me in a similar fashion.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I am thinking Piper being a theologian is a bit more familiar with ancient hebrew than a medical doctor, so I am sticking with his explanation.

That was my first question. Is he qualified to make that assessment of the text? I see that the author also prefers the translation "yet there is no further injury" which is not consistent with the original Hebrew, so I consider the addition of the word "further" to be a translation error (the author never addresses this point), and this effectively upends the rest of the argument.