Biblical evdidence that supports abortion

[jegow]

Also it is a little too unclear what your “challenge” is here oat soda.

You say that abortion is not the Bible. You have also told a couple people that their epistemological principle is off. That seems to be rather unclear. It is clear that you are picking on Sola Scriptura.

My question would be, if you obviously are not Sola Scriptura, why are you challenging people to give an answer that is?

Epistemologically, it is hard to see what principle you are coming from as well, even if your intention here is good - it is very misleading.

You might want to reclarify where you are coming from on this.

jegow

 

[Toni]

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.

Did you read Mose’s list of the ten commandments. Do not Kill is a commandment and is in the bible. I don’t think that needs interpretation!

 

[Inkman]

Oat Soda,

I often chat with a Pentecostal in the Fl. area who does not condemn abortion because… you guessed it, not explicit in SS

 

[newby]

Right on Scott!!!, "]Amazing how common sense can get rationalized away.

Murder is the killing of an innocent human being.
A human fetus is just that, a human being.
Abortion kills the fetal human being.
The human was innocent.
Therefore, abortion is murder.

Do I need to cite the Bible verses that support that murder is wrong, or can you take my word for it that it is there? Which part of the murder definition is objectionable? Killing? Innocent? Human?

Don’t know what else we need to say except in the commandments…THOU SHALL NOT KILL!!! Covers abortion, and any other issue regarding the taking of a human life. The Pro Abortion crowd made this a mantra, that the “fetus” since it can’t live outside the womb is not a person! What hogwash…and so is the rest of this line.

Bless you anyway

Newby

 

[oat_soda]

the challege was show me in the bible where it clearly states that abortion is wrong. over 60 replies and no one can find any. the best you can do is **Exodus 21:22 **which doesn’t state that the punishment for killing an unborn child is for breaking the 6th comandment or for causing the death of a potential child and Numbers 5:17-31 which talks about drinking a liquid which may cause an abortion. The rest of the biblical evidence is implicit. you can’t use the 6th commandment because it isn’t biblically clear if a baby in the womb counts as innocent life and according to the references in the website, may say contrary.

initially this thread was to give some biblical text that may be interpreted contrary to what the church teaches about abortion. this weakens the argument for people who practice sola scriptura as mark shea noted in “on what authority”. i thought the website does a good job of showing scripture which pertains to the practice of abortion.

 

[jegow]

oat soda:

i thought the website does a good job of showing scripture which pertains to the practice of abortion.

website suggested by oat soda:

Matthew 26:24: “…but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” This verse states that it would have been better for any person who betrayed Jesus if he had never been born. The verse might be interpreted as meaning that a terminated pregnancy might be better than a completed pregnancy, if the child’s life would be miserable.

All of 26:24-25 “The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who betrayed him, said,“Is it I, Master?” He said to him,“You have said so.”

This verse states that it would have been better for any person who betrayed Jesus if he had never been born.

Jesus is saying that it would be better if that man would not have been born, if we read on in Scripture we find out why, Judas betrayed our Lord. This does not mean any person but that one person who betrays him. Also this is not said in front of a large crowd like most of Jesus’ teaching was done. This was at dinner, the night he was betrayed, to twelve men.

The verse might be interpreted as meaning that a terminated pregnancy might be better than a completed pregnancy, if the child’s life would be miserable.

The verse isn’t even close to suggesting that a terminated pregnancy might be better than a complete one. He is saying that, like in Judas’ case, he would have been better not born, because he has done something very terrible, he had betrayed our Lord which we know he was led to his death on the cross.

And come on now. A child will always be more miserable if they get killed inside of the womb. I think we could all testify to that.

This website has a poor Biblical understanding for what they think backs abortion. And what Greek text are they pulling this out of anyway? Do they reference it all? This is just from one silly point they try to make but no offense they are all this way.

I do not see how you could say that this website does a good job. I hope others see this as well.

jegow

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

the challege was show me in the bible where it clearly states that abortion is wrong. over 60 replies and no one can find any. the best you can do is **Exodus 21:22 **which doesn’t state that the punishment for killing an unborn child is for breaking the 6th comandment or for causing the death of a potential child and Numbers 5:17-31 which talks about drinking a liquid which may cause an abortion. The rest of the biblical evidence is implicit. you can’t use the 6th commandment because it isn’t biblically clear if a baby in the womb counts as innocent life and according to the references in the website, may say contrary.

initially this thread was to give some biblical text that may be interpreted contrary to what the church teaches about abortion. this weakens the argument for people who practice sola scriptura as mark shea noted in “on what authority”. i thought the website does a good job of showing scripture which pertains to the practice of abortion.

you pose an argument that is unclear and unwinnable as you state it above. why? - because you admit there is implicit evidence in the Bible, but not explicit. At what point can it become explicit for you? explicit and implicit is relative.

the real question is - is abortion considered to be wrong in the Bible? the answer (without printing a list for you) is: yes, it is.
the most basic and thorough (though you would say it is ambiguous) is the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”. As one poster has shown - it doesn’t have to say “not kill retarded folks, elderly, babies, your momma, your daddy.” It doesn’t have to.

God’s nature is revealed all through the Bible - from Genesis thru Revelation. His nature is that He loves life. He loves people. The Lord Jesus welcomed children and said, “Let the children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God”. Jesus loved Children, as does God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Therefore - Jesus loves children. Therefore, I should love them. To kill a child intentionally is to hate them, not love them. Therefore abortion is wrong.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

the challege was show me in the bible where it clearly states that abortion is wrong. over 60 replies and no one can find any. the best you can do is **Exodus 21:22 **which doesn’t state that the punishment for killing an unborn child is for breaking the 6th comandment or for causing the death of a potential child and Numbers 5:17-31 which talks about drinking a liquid which may cause an abortion. The rest of the biblical evidence is implicit. you can’t use the 6th commandment because it isn’t biblically clear if a baby in the womb counts as innocent life and according to the references in the website, may say contrary.

initially this thread was to give some biblical text that may be interpreted contrary to what the church teaches about abortion. this weakens the argument for people who practice sola scriptura as mark shea noted in “on what authority”. i thought the website does a good job of showing scripture which pertains to the practice of abortion.

i think you are leaning so far into “traditionism” (as I call it) that you discredit what the Bible does teach or doesn’t teach. Just as it is dangerous to go with Scripture alone it can be equally dangerous to go with Tradition alone.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Inkman:

Oat Soda,

I often chat with a Pentecostal in the Fl. area who does not condemn abortion because… you guessed it, not explicit in SS

any follower of Christ, whether catholic or protestant who does not condemn abortion is morally bankrupt. this “pentecostal” is a fake.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

i guess you didn’t take the time to look at the site. so i’ll post it.

Exodus 21:22* If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine*.

This would imply that the fetus died immediately as a direct result of the accident. Assuming no further harm happens (e.g. that the woman does not die), the man responsible would have to pay at a fine. The amount would be set by her husband and approved by the judges. This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.

This link here will help explain this obviously contentious passage of Scripture which some erroneously believe justifies abortion.

Here it is: str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm

 

[mercygate]

I refer anyone interested in the relationship between Scripture and abortion to a discussion by the Protestant theologian, R. C. Sproul. It is available through his web site: www.ligonier.org. Sproul is a Sola Scriptura Protestant who argues against abortion from the platform of reason. The point here is that a high-powered Sola Scriptura believer finds abortion contrary to a Sola Scriptura faith. Like many issues, this is not reducible to the limitations of this kind of forum.

 

[oat_soda]

i think you are leaning so far into “traditionism” (as I call it) that you discredit what the Bible does teach or doesn’t teach. Just as it is dangerous to go with Scripture alone it can be equally dangerous to go with Tradition alone

who’s saying that we should go with tradition alone? the church stands on three things: scripture; tradition; magesterum. i am not saying that the bible isn’t material sufficent, i believe it is, but not formally sufficent as bible-christians believe. you must use the eyes of tradition to interpret scripture to understand that life starts at conception. the fact that nobody can find one clear passage in the entire bible that supports the idea that life begins at conception is proof sola scriptura is faulty. i think this site does do a good job of showing how someone can give a reasonable defense that the bible doesn’t show when life begins and in some cases, the life of the unborn seems unimportant. and i think one could legitimately come to that conclusion using the bible alone.

any follower of Christ, whether catholic or protestant who does not condemn abortion is morally bankrupt. this “pentecostal” is a fake

i agree but not according to the tenants of sola scriptura. if you can’t clearly show that abortion is wrong, one is not obligated to believe it. what you’re proposing is authority, which can’t be extra-biblical.

i find it interesting that people are really upset at this website. i like it because it shows the clear flaws with sola scriptura. i think my point is very clear if you read this thread and see how sola scriptura is insufficent for determining the truth.

 

[oat_soda]

you pose an argument that is unclear and unwinnable as you state it above. why? - because you admit there is implicit evidence in the Bible, but not explicit. At what point can it become explicit for you? explicit and implicit is relative

Excatly!!! this is the point. it is a matter of interpretation. who are protestants to say that mary isn’t immaculately conceived or ever-virgin? who are protestants to say that the eucharist isn’t substantially the body and blood of christ? who are the protestants to say that the mass isn’t a sacrifice? who are you to say that website’s interpretation is wrong but yours it right. IT IS ENTIRELY ARBITRARY. You need tradition and a magisterium to discern the truth absolutely.

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

Excatly!!! this is the point. it is a matter of interpretation. who are protestants to say that mary isn’t immaculately conceived or ever-virgin? who are protestants to say that the eucharist isn’t substantially the body and blood of christ? who are the protestants to say that the mass isn’t a sacrifice? who are you to say that website’s interpretation is wrong but yours it right. IT IS ENTIRELY ARBITRARY. You need tradition and a magisterium to discern the truth absolutely.

No, it is not a matter of interpretation only. You dismissed what I said. I said that is implicit (which you accept) even if it wasn’t explicit (which it is). I can’t prove to you something you wish not to accept. As I said, someone who says that abortion is okay, whether or not they use Scripture to back it up is spirtually and morally bankrupt. When that bankrupt person goes to Scripture and says, “It’s not in there, it must be okay” goes to Scripture falsely. The natural man understands not the things of God (Paul). Not all who say to me, Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven (Jesus).

To compare Scriptures about killing innocent children to Mary’s immaculate conception and assumption is fruitless and has no merit whatsoever. I suggest you stick to the thread topic you started. You have totally strayed from Biblical evidence into “Bible alone” debate.

While I see moderators jump in sometimes and get things back on course - it is obvious they are not here or they agree with your antics in allowing it to continue.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I dont even know why someone would wanna defend themselves to foolish Bible thumpers, who demand an explanation of implicit this or explicit that in the bible when the MAJORITY of them have DIVORCE spelled out as plain as day in Jesus own words, but they totally IGNORE THAT.

Thank goodness for patient Catholic Apologizers…I cant suffer those type of thumpers any longer.

 

[oat_soda]

No, it is not a matter of interpretation only. You dismissed what I said. I said that is implicit (which you accept) even if it wasn’t explicit (which it is). I can’t prove to you something you wish not to accept. As I said, someone who says that abortion is okay, whether or not they use Scripture to back it up is spirtually and morally bankrupt.

in the same manner the catholic church can’t prove to you that it is the fullness of truth if you’re not willing to accept. now, if you list some scripture passages that clearly teach abortion is wrong, i will accept that it is explicitly stated in scriptures and sola scriptura may be valid. because you can’t do that, i must reject it for not being consistent with itself.

one more thing, the point of apologetic is to make a reasonable argument for one’s belief. i think you can show me why it is reasonable to believe based on the scriptures alone that abortion is wrong. likewise, i could show you that praying to the saints and other catholic doctrine is reasonable. but, i have showed you that sola scriptura isn’t reasonable because it contradicts the practice of the followers. i must reject it.

 

[Melchior]

Faithful 2 Rome:

I dont even know why someone would wanna defend themselves to foolish Bible thumpers, who demand an explanation of implicit this or explicit that in the bible when the MAJORITY of them have DIVORCE spelled out as plain as day in Jesus own words, but they totally IGNORE THAT.

Thank goodness for patient Catholic Apologizers…I cant suffer those type of thumpers any longer.

Oy vey! I don’t know any Conservative Evangelical Protestants who think divorce is ok. Over generalizations are never helpful. The problem is also that you need to be more specific. Are you talking about Lutherans? Baptists? Presbyterians? Nazarenes? You cannot simply lump people with very different beliefs together. It is no more accurate than those who assume that all Catholic priests are either homosexuals, child molesters or both. It is an unfair blanket that is not accurate.

I had an Assemblies of God Pastor when I was a teenager who had no tolerance for divorce no matter what the circumstances. Indeed he was more strict than the Catholic Church on the matter.

So please be more respectful and don’t impugn everyone who is not a Catholic with the worst possible beliefs. It makes you look ignorant which I am certain you are not judging by other, very thoughtful things you have wirtten.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[ahimsaman72]

oat soda:

but, i have showed you that sola scriptura isn’t reasonable because it contradicts the practice of the followers. i must reject it.

this is a generalization. I could say that “many catholics use birth control though the catholic church teaches it is a sin.” that’s also a generalization.

some of the things said on this thread about protestants and their pro-abortion views is unsettling. from my experience as a life-long baptist and with a family of protestants (not one of my family members or friends) not one of them believe abortion is okay or that divorce is okay and they are all by default (whether they know it or not) sola scriptura practitioners.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Faithful 2 Rome:

I dont even know why someone would wanna defend themselves to foolish Bible thumpers, who demand an explanation of implicit this or explicit that in the bible when the MAJORITY of them have DIVORCE spelled out as plain as day in Jesus own words, but they totally IGNORE THAT.

Thank goodness for patient Catholic Apologizers…I cant suffer those type of thumpers any longer.

your unkind expressions only fuel the fire with “Bible thumpers”. they see catholics like you as pompous, ungenerous, unloving and typical of catholic thinking and structure and proving the point that the pope and bishops are without merit in the world. if you want to see them won over I would suggest a different attitude.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Faithful 2 Rome:

I dont even know why someone would wanna defend themselves to foolish Bible thumpers, who demand an explanation of implicit this or explicit that in the bible when the MAJORITY of them have DIVORCE spelled out as plain as day in Jesus own words, but they totally IGNORE THAT.

Thank goodness for patient Catholic Apologizers…I cant suffer those type of thumpers any longer.

by the way, faithful 2 rome, I also suggest being faithful to Jesus Christ who said to love our enemies and do good to them who say all manner of evil against you falsely for His name sake.