Biblical evdidence that supports abortion

[ahimsaman72]

“Thou shalt not murder.” comes to mind. Unless, of course, you do not believe that the life is a child.

Didn’t God say that he knew us when we were still in our mother’s womb? What did he know? A life or a blob?

BTW, since when is “sola scriptura” in the Bible? Wouldn’t that actually be against the teachings of the bible? After all, did they not have tradition in the bible? Oral tradition that was not written down? Did they not say in the bible that if all that Jesus had said or done was written down that it would fill too many books. (Help me out, folks. I know that there is scripture pertaining to that and I can’t get to my Bible right now and research.)

oatsoda, do you see my point? everyone who has seen this thread thinks you are trying to prove exactly what you first posted. they all think you are a heretic because you SEEM to blatantly argue that abortion is okay.

that’s why honesty is ALWAYS the best policy.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

ahimsaman72,

if you started from the top, you would have understood that this was the whole reason for this thread- to show the inconsistancies of sola scriptura, not to prove the bible teaches that abortion is ok (i don’t think it does, just not in the sence that evangelicals must hold to).

I started from the top. There was only one post besides yours here when I started to write my first post. from your one post alone I deduced (as did every other poster since) that you were pro-abortion arguing against the Bible.

 

[SusanL]

ahimsaman72:

oatsoda, do you see my point? everyone who has seen this thread thinks you are trying to prove exactly what you first posted. they all think you are a heretic because you SEEM to blatantly argue that abortion is okay.

that’s why honesty is ALWAYS the best policy.

I agree. After reading all of the posts I’m a bit disgusted. Your credibility is shot, oatsoda. Anything you write from here on is suspect to me.

I’d much rather get into an intelligent conversation with people who mean what they say and say what they mean.

 

[oat_soda]

Your credibility is shot, oatsoda. Anything you write from here on is suspect to me.

trust me, i’m not going to lose any sleep. if you don’t like the idea that abortion is not mentioned clearly as being wrong in the bible that’s your problem. i’m trying to defend the catholic church and show people where to find ambiguous biblical passages on abortion. where did i say that i support abortion?

the challenge is still open, if someone can find a clear teaching that abortion is wrong, please show it to us.

 

[javelin]

OK, let’s step back from characterizing other posters’ intent and see if there is any merit here.

Although the mere idea that the Bible OKs abortion makes my skin crawl, there is something of an interesting discussion point if anyone cares to do so.

What evidence is there, aside from Sacred Tradition, that a person receives their immortal soul at the time of conception?

While the Church’s stance is clear on this, and her word should be sufficient for Catholics, I can definitely see where non-Catholic Christians *could *take the position that the soul is not resident until some point later in the pregnancy, and thus abortion prior to that time would not be murder (no soul = not a human life = no murder).

Just curious if the case can be made,

Peace,
javelin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

oat soda,

using the bible alone for my source of deciding what is considered innocent life and murder i can’t find a clear teaching on abortion

Using your false criteria, cloning humans is not wrong either. In fact, advances in genetic manipulation, in vitro fertilization, and cloning techniques make laboratory human-animal combinations possible. By your criteria, a chimera consisting of the production of human-monkey hybrid beings is ethically permissable (and it is technically possible, despite the initial “yuck” factor). What, in your epistemological principle prevents such actions from being considered ethical?

Perhaps you need to re-consider your epistemological principle and its value toward determining ethical norms.

 

[SavedByHim]

i’m thoroughly confused by this thread… sola scriptura has no merit in the Catholic faith.

am i in the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum?

 

[oat_soda]

While the Church’s stance is clear on this, and her word should be sufficient for Catholics, I can definitely see where non-Catholic Christians *could *take the position that the soul is not resident until some point later in the pregnancy, and thus abortion prior to that time would not be murder (no soul = not a human life = no murder).

i’m happy someone figured out the point of the website have posted here. i agree that you can see where a non-catholic christian could take the position that abortion at an early enough time wouldn’t be murder of an innocent life because the bible doesn’t define when life starts.

 

[oat_soda]

Using your false criteria, cloning humans is not wrong either. In fact, advances in genetic manipulation, in vitro fertilization, and cloning techniques make laboratory human-animal combinations possible

I’m not using a false criteria. clearly they didn’t have cloning or stem-cell research in during the time of the bible. but, they did have abortions then. if bible-believing christians think abortion is wrong, why doesn’t the bible clearly teach us this?

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

No…you just stepped into that part of the bible that speaks of things of the world making mens ears itch…ie…false assumptions, new and various ways of privately interpreting the Bible… instead of them remaining within scripture and she who who is the sole authority to teach and define it as chosen by the Holy Spirt itself…The Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Javelin,

javelin:

I can definitely see where non-Catholic Christians *could *take the position that the soul is not resident until some point later in the pregnancy, and thus abortion prior to that time would not be murder (no soul = not a human life = no murder).

Just curious if the case can be made,

I don’t believe such a case can be made.

What would be their proof that the soul in not resident until some point later in pregnancy? The Talmud? So much for sola scriptura, huh?

The best a sola scripturist can do is to state that we do not know when the rational soul is infused into the human body. Scripture is silent about it. Yet, we do have passages which indicate the “human-ness” of fetus’ prior to birth, however. For example, Elizabeth called Mary’s fetus “my Lord” just days after Mary’s conception. Appearantly Mary’s fetus was considered more than just a “potential” human by the Spirit-inspired claim of Elizabeth right? Otherwise, Elizabeth should have testified that he was merely “my potential Lord”

Given that we do not know when the rational soul is infused into the human body by God, we apply the sound ethical principle that one cannot act in doubt if that act can result in the death of an innocent human being. For example, let’ say there may be a person inside a cardboard box. I don’t know if a human is in the box or not, but there’s evidence that suggests there MAY be a human in the box. Can I drive my bulldozer over the box? Is that ethically permissible? I don’t think any ethicist would agree. The excuse that you believe the being in the box to perhaps be human wouldn’t go over too well in a court of law, ya think?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

they did have abortions then

Can you give me the chapter and verse, please.

Or are you now relying upon extra-biblical information to prove your bible alone methodology???

 

[itsjustdave1988]

oat soda,

You said:

i can’t find a clear teaching on abortion

This should give you an indication as to the value of your epistemological principle. You can’t find a clear teaching on abortion. Neither can you find a clear teaching on many ethical dilemmas. How did God expect us to know his will, then? It seems God didn’t have the apostles write down everything we ever needed to know to live a moral life, did he? If it’s not in the Bible, what criteria does a “Bible only” Christian use?

Perhaps your sola scriptura approach is useless in this matter, since, as you state you “can’t find a clear teaching on abortion” in Scripture.

You are aware, I presume, that all embryoligists state as a matter of scientific fact that conception is the beginning of human life? Why do you rely upon a cite that quotes from the Talmud? Is that how a Sola Scripturist interprets Scripture? By using extra-biblical sources (non-Christian, no less) such as the Talmud to tell them what Scripture means? Is that extra-biblical source more authoritative than our current and unanimous understanding of embryology? Is 2nd century Jewish scholarship more trustworthy than Christian scholarship of the same time period?

If it is true, as every embryologist insists, that human life begins at conception, by what authority do you submit that innocent human life can be killed? If you reject the testimony of all embryologists, what evidence supports your hypothesis?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

By the way, **Exodus 21:22 **does teach that killing a fetus is a contrary to the moral law. Just because it is a lesser penalty does not show that the fetus is not human. 2nd degree murder has a lesser penalty than 1st degree murder, but that doesn’t mean it was not indeed a murder of a human being.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I read many of those passages. Total nonense. This is reading into Scripture what you want it to mean.

“Thou shalt not kill.”

 

[Exporter]

OAT SODA wrote:“second, i challenge you or any evangelical using the bible alone to show clearly that abortion is wrong. the point is they are not basing their beliefs soley on the bible but on tradition as well which helps interpret the bible.”

Sola Scriptura. The typical Protestant ploy is to say," Now you just show me the Bible verses that say that what you say is Biblical".

---

Those Protestants are Bible Only, exclusively! You can read to them Matt16:18 and they will say Jesus WAS NOT talking to Peter. When you show them proof they will deny it! So it is futile to argue with intellectually dishonest people. I wonder if Oat Soda came here looking for a fight. Such tripe should be ignored.

---

The Bible didn’t talk about helicopters did it? Do we have helicopters. The Bible didn’t use the word TRINITY either! But do you believe in the Trinity? 'Nuff said.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Oh, and if that web page you cite is going to consider what the Talmud teaches, it ought also consider the following from the Talmud:

According to one source vbm-torah.org/halakha/abortion.htm, abortion would fall under a category similar to “improper emission of seed,” an act which is viewed by the Talmud (Nidda 13a) as** tantamount to “the shedding of blood” **and one about which Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 21:18) writes, “Not only is it a grave prohibition, but he who acts in this manner should sit in a state of excommunication; of him Scripture says: ‘Your hands are full of blood’ and it is as if he had killed a human being.”

The Talmud taught that “spilling one’s seed” was equivalent to killing a human being. Why? Because ancient Judaism believed human life to be within the sperm or seed.

The Hebrew word for sperm (seed) is “Zera`” which is translated “seed” but is also translated “child.” Observe,

Gen 7:3 “… to keep seed (Heb “zera”) alive upon the face of all the earth”

Gen 9:9 “I establish my covenant with you, and with your **seed **after you” (see also 1 Sam 1:11; Psalm 105:6)

This is why in the Letter to the Hebrews, it states:

“One might even say that **Levi **himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for **he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” **(Heb 7:9-10)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yet, here’s some early Church evidence regarding abortion, which I find abundantly more authoritative than the Talmud…

“You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born” (Letter of Barnabas, ca. AD 125)

*“We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God.” *(**Athenagoras, **Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, ca. AD 150 )

*"…we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth." (***Tertullian, ***Apology *9:7-8, ca. AD 155 - 225)

*“Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant” *(Minutius Felix, Octavious 30, 2, ca. AD 180 - 225)

 

[ahimsaman72]

Just to keep things in perspective here - oat soda is a catholic who is against abortion. He is also against sola scriptura (of course). As a matter of fact, he posted this thread as a platform to jump all over sola scriptura. If you read some of the early posts you can see this. He is arguing that since (in his mind) abortion is not clearly taught against in the Bible that evangelicals have a false argument in defending their pro-life views because they can’t point also to the church tradition. He muddied the waters to start with and I hope you will see where he is coming from. I do not agree with him.

 

[jegow]

oat soda:

the point of posting this site is not to support the argument for abortion but to show the bible doesn’t explicitly teach abortion is a sin unlike what evangelicals believe and you can make a reasonable interpretation otherwise.

Well allow me to try and give you a reasonable interpretation oat soda.

Do you believe that abortion is killing a innocent child?

If so (which I hope you do) there is something in the Bible about that. For more info. see the 10 commandments, Exodus 20. In there you will find a line that says thou shalt not kill. I am not going to give 100 Bible quotes like an Evangelical, I don’t have that time to give.

There are many things that the Bible does not explicitly teach (like driving the speed limit or cheating on your taxes for example) but they can be applied to the Law that we live by as being members of Christ’s Mystical Body. For He fulfilled the law, not abolished it. He also guaranteed that not an iota of it would pass away.

So let me wrap this up.

If killing is a sin
And abortion is killing
Then abortion too, is a sin.

This doesn’t have to be complicated!

jegow