The Bible supports abortion rights.

[Fumesucker]

I found this post by "vasumerti" over on a thread at Salon.com, I felt it so compelling that I decided to repost it here.

If the mods have a problem with my reposting the entire thing I'll be happy to cut it down and just include a link.

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/view/?show=all

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

Apparently, the New Testament is even more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and the "Christians" I encounter misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' teachings and all of Paul's other moral instructions altogether. They ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on a single verse from one of Paul's epistles to justify their hedonism.

Can you imagine pro-choice Christians telling pro-lifers, "We don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' We don't have to 'work' for our salvation." ?

Or how about a pro-choice Christian minister telling his flock, "You don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' You don't have to 'work' for your salvation. Paul says Jesus told him three times, 'my grace is sufficient for thee.' Abortion, abortion, abortion. You don't have to protect unborn children..." ?

We really live in a secular society. Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

Again, the pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominately Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

-- vasumurti

[TheWraith]

1. Not exactly. That passage is less clear than they make it out to be.

The original text is unclear whether it refers to a premature birth, or miscarriage. So there's two very different ways to read it.

[Fumesucker]

3. Which passage are you referring to? n/t

[TheWraith]

6. Exodus 21:22, clearly. nt

[JackintheGreen]

9. And even if that is exactly what it says

it hardly condones "abortion rights" as the OP suggests.

All it does it assert that a fetus is not a child. It's still a hole in the pro-life biblical argument, just one that's harder to maneuver with.

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. For those who look for moral guidance

from a culture that burned a widow alive because she got pregnant after her husband died. Yep - a real eye opener for that crowd.

[undeterred]

4. There are dozens of cultures and thousands of years

covered by the actual writers of the Bible- not that you'd get a fundamentalist to admit that. If you ever got them all in the same room together they would have difficulty reaching consensus on this.

None of them wrote in a time when abortion was medically safe and available, however, and we do.

[JVS]

5. The Didache, which is older than the Talmud disagrees.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_didache.htm

[noel711]

11. The Didache and the Talmud were not for the same 'audience.'

The Talmud wasn't so much written, as it was oral tradition,
until after the temple was destroyed. Its first written forms were
solidified around 200-500 CE. And to the ancient Hebrews,
women were vessels for children. If the fetus had little chance of
surviving (if the pregnant woman was slain), it was a non-person.
There was no fetus worship to the ancients; there was absolutely no
way to keep a premature baby alive.

The Didache was one of the first writings of the early church (first century)
written so the Christians could morally distinguish themselves from the
Roman culture.

It was the early church that adopted and fed street children, homeless widows,
and runaway slaves. In fact, much of the early church was comprised of these
fugitives, and sometimes was called 'the gathering of children.'

The Roman culture was, by many standards, morally corrupt.
People sold their own children into slavery for monetary gain.
People pimped their children out on the streets;
the early church tried to offer them another way of living
besides the Roman way.
for many in the Roman culture, children, particularly poor children,
were dispensable, and were used as a commodity.
Even families of means thought too many children were a nusiance.
If a baby was unwanted, it was left 'exposed' in the wilderness to die
either by exposure to the weather, or at the mercy of animals.
(This was common if the child was defective in any way - Remember
"Oedipus Rex." This is also the practice in many Asian countries even today).

Early Christians took in these 'throw aways.'
The Romans used many forms of birth control, but abortion,
at any time, was one of the favorites.
The early christian church forbade abortion because they considered
it facilitating death; But for many in the dark ages, once a child 'quickened'
it was a child, not a fetus. (I believe it was Thomas Aquinas made that church law..
the 'quickening' of the fetus was when it recieved its soul)/

[Terran]

7. I doubt you'll get a lot of mileage with RW Xtians

The Fundies are good at picking and choosing what they want from the Bible and ignoring the bits they don't like.

And besides, having a standard that the baby isn't human until it's head begins to emerge from the womb? That's a bit of a stretch. Although, a DU'er once told me that it was okay to abort a nine-month old fetus, one day before due date, even without any extenuating circumstances (rape, incest, life of mother, etc.), so I guess there will be some out there who agree with 3000 year old standards.

[mnhtnbb]

8. I'll add another section: Numbers 5:11-31 is a ritual given to Moses

for a man who suspects his wife of adultery. She is taken to the priest and made to drink
a potion. If she is guilt-free, nothing happens; if she is guilty, the potion will cause
an onset of her period, effectively ridding her body of any fetus that might have been conceived
with someone other than her husband!

The fundies do not like having this passage pointed out to them.

[nichomachus]

10. The Bible doesn't say anything

The Bible is not a book -- even though the contents are presented in book form. It is a collection of widely different texts written by different people in different times and places for different reasons and different audiences.

Only the fundies believe that the Bible is any kind of a coherent whole. To say that the Bible says something is like finding a short passage in a book in your local library and saying "The library says . . . "

This sort of flim-flam is how preachers fool the sheep in the pews, but it's really insignificant.

I can prove from the NT that Jesus was in favor of, and advocated, embezzlement and insider trading.

[femrap]

12. So the bible

says it's OK to burn pregnant women at the stake. Yippee. Doesn't it say any woman can be burned at the stake?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :puke:

[stopbush]

13. Not all of us give a rat's ass what the Bible says.