Abortion : should we admit exceptions ?

[Johnv]

This scripture is not the Christian's license to unconditional self-defense!

You're right, it's not, and no one is advocating "unconditional self-defense". The scripture permits (but does not require) self-defense when a person is imminently threatened. Having an abortion when the pregnancy imminently threatens the mother is therefore scripturally permissible.

 

[annsni]

Self-defense does not, in any way, apply to a mother deciding to abort an unborn child. There is no Biblical basis for this idea. This cannot be considered an act of self-defense.

It does because the child is doomed. Period. It is the same as taking organs from a person who is brain dead. The brain dead person is doomed to die as is the unborn child. To leave the unborn child in the fallopian tube, the woman is doomed to die. Period.

It is, rather, a decision to saves self at the expense of another who has not the capacity to make any decision and is in no way accountable for the situation.

Let me ask you this: a mentally disturbed person is going to kill your child. There is no way that they understand what they are doing but the only way to stop them is to kill them. What do you do? Is the the will of the person who is going to kill another person the issue here? No it's not.

 

[Dragoon68]

Now the chasm has widened to include murdering a "brain dead" person to extract their organs.

An unborn child is a person. An abortion murders a person. It is wrong. It really is that simple.

 

[HankD]

Exodus 22:2-4 - "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double."

This scripture is not the Christian's license to unconditional self-defense! It acknowledges a persons right to defend their property with limited and measured force. The specific example illustrates the case where a robber is found in the night, resisted by a defender, and in the process unintentionally killed; and the contrary case where a robber is found in the day - clearly seen for what he is - and killed in overly aggressive response to his crime. This very principle is applied in civil law today. The law tends to give the benefit of the doubt to you in such cases. That's the way it should be! If you kill a robber because he has broken into your home, surprised you, presents a clear threat to you, and you respond by shooting him to protect yourself or your family, then you will be found justified by most any jury. But, if you chase the robber outside, down the street, and shoot him there, or if you shoot him if he surrenders or prevents no threat beyond just taken some property, or if you hunt him down and kill him a week later, then you will mostly likely find yourself convicted murder.

The unborn child is seen in the day and we have no right to murder it.

No it is not that simple.
The crime presented here in the Scripture is robbery.
The Scripture allows lethal force for something less that the requirements of the lexis talionis.

The Law of Moses allowed/allows lethal force at night against potential robbery because the threat of death is potentially present because the threat of death cannot be discerned in the darkness.

In fact, this Scripture supports the justified abortion of a tubular pregnancy because it is a certain death threat to the mother whether day or night.

HankD

 

[HankD]

You're right, it's not, and no one is advocating "unconditional self-defense". The scripture permits (but does not require) self-defense when a person is imminently threatened. Having an abortion when the pregnancy imminently threatens the mother is therefore scripturally permissible.

FWIW to anyone, this is exactly the scriptural interpretation of the ancients against "the pursuer of life" or Hebrew RODEF:

Based upon Numbers 35, the unborn child threatening the life of the mother is "the unintentional pursuer of life" or "rodef".

"The classic example of a 'pursuer without intention' is a fetus in the mother's womb who endangers the mother's life. If it is not possible to save both of them, we save the mother and kill the fetus since it has the status of a 'rodef'".
(Rambam, Hilchot Rotzeach U-Shemirat Ha-Nefesh 1:9).

HankD

 

[Dragoon68]

Numbers 35 in no way condones abortion! An unborn child can not possibly be considered a offender in the context of this scripture. Attempting to rationalize such a murderous act in this way is a distortion of scripture. Christians need to accept, support, and defend the facts that life begins at conception, that God is the creator of all life even than conceived in tragedy, and He does not create such life so that we may take it simply to ease our pain or limit our own risk of death.

 

[Dragoon68]

Lex talionis is the duty of civil government whom He has ordained for the purpose. It is not the right of the individual. Lex et ordo will fail if we stray from this principle.

 

[Salty]

When it comes to people saying they believe abortion should be allowed, I now (sometimes) say,
"I agree, and a woman should be allowed to have an abortion up to thirty days after after the day of delivery!"
I sure get some unusual looks and reactions!

Even GM* is allowing you to abort your sale for up to 30 days after "delivery"

Salty


* Govt Motors or General Motors (based on your political persuasion)

 

[HankD]

Numbers 35 in no way condones abortion! An unborn child can not possibly be considered a offender in the context of this scripture. Attempting to rationalize such a murderous act in this way is a distortion of scripture. Christians need to accept, support, and defend the facts that life begins at conception, that God is the creator of all life even than conceived in tragedy, and He does not create such life so that we may take it simply to ease our pain or limit our own risk of death.

No it is not a distortion of Scripture. You don't understand the concept Dragoon or you are bearing false witness against me.
I never said it condones abortion in and of itself. I used the words "threatening the life of the mother".

I agree that it does not condone abortion for convenience sake but allows abortion in order to preserve the life of the mother.

Numbers 35 is a scriptural concept in which a life which God created who unintentionally kills or is a potential killer of another may be slain by the family of the dead or slain by the use of lethal force by the individual being threatened.

Numbers 35 allows the death of an unintentional killer outside one of the cities of refuge.

e.g. If a man fells a tree, having taken all the necessary precautions, yet if the tree falls and kills another person, the man who fells the tree becomes a "rodef", subject to death.

He himself is innocent of murder, but the family of the dead person is allowed to take his life (which God created) if he is found outside one of the cities of refuge and yet they are innocent of murder as well.

The thief coming in the darkness is a potential "rodef" (though he may not actually have murder as a motive) he is a potential threat to the life of the household and his life may also be taken.

The concept is that the child is the unintentional killer (rodef) of the mother.

The child of a tubular pregnancy presents a certain threat of death (howbeit innocent and unintentional) to the mother day or night.

That is why I specified the Lex Talionis as this is an OT allowance as well as the authority to kill those nations which threaten us.

Yes God created all life, but the point is that there are certain conditions (self defense,war) under which God allows us to take life (even innocent life) which He created in defense of one's own life.

Again, that may offend your piety, but there it is in the Scripture.
No amount of rationlization on your part will remove it.


HankD

 

[Dragoon68]

Nothing in Numbers 35, or anywhere else in the Bible, permits or condones abortion - killing an unborn child - under any circumstances. All attempts to force something else out of God's word are most surely an offense to Him. There are certainly recognized reasons for carrying out justice among men that permits killing another but abortion isn't one of them.

 

[HankD]

Nothing in Numbers 35, or anywhere else in the Bible, permits or condones abortion - killing an unborn child - under any circumstances. All attempts to force something else out of God's word are most surely an offense to Him. There are certainly recognized reasons for carrying out justice among men that permits killing another but abortion isn't one of them.

Obviously, I disagree.

The life of the mother is the one exception.
In fact, I would not call it an abortion but an act of self defense.

Fortunately I have not had to face the situation with my wife.

Perhaps I would have changed my mind when it came right down to it but even in that case I would probably have left the decision to my wife alone as it is her life and her conscience before God.

HankD