Scriptures Re: Abortion

[smac97]

I came across an interesting article today which discusses biblical passages that may refer to scriptural exhortations against abortion: No, New York Times, Christianity's Opposition to Abortion Is Anything But New

Some excerpts:

Quote

Over the weekend, The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof penned an ode to a Christian abortionist, Dr. Willie Parker. In explaining how a Christian could favor abortion, Kristof {} argued that the Christian opposition to abortion is "relatively new in historical terms." He could not be more wrong.

"[L]et's remember that conservative Christianity's ferocious opposition to abortion is relatively new in historical terms," Kristoff argued. He cited various events in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions to legalize abortion, and Republicans were more likely than Democrats to say abortion was a private matter.

More insidiously, Kristof argued that the Bible does not explicitly discuss abortion, "and there's no evidence that Christians traditionally believed that life begins at conception." He also cited St. Thomas Aquinas, who considered abortion murder only after God imbues a fetus with a soul, and mentioned the common view that life begins at quickening, when a mother can feel the baby's kicks.

...

{T}he Bible arguably does condemn abortion — and not just abortion, but chemically induced abortion, which was the central issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. "Medications" to induce abortion, commonly referred to as "abortifacients," either in the form of pills or various herbs or potions, have been with humanity for thousands of years — and are arguably condemned in the Bible.

In his letter to the Galatians (penned in approximately 55 A.D.), St. Paul issued a catalogue of sins (Galatians 5:20).  Among other sins, he condemned pharmakeia {"witchcraft" in the KJV} the making and administering of potions. In Revelation 21:8 {"but the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone"), St. John the Evangelist condemned "sexual immorality," and then he immediately went on to condemn pharmakois {"sorcerers" in the KJV) the plural form of the same word Paul used in Galatians 5:20.

While the word is often translated "sorcery" or "witchcraft," Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book How Christianity Changed the World, noted that "it is quite likely that when Paul used the word pharmakeia in Galatians, he meant the practice of abortion, because administering medicinal potions was a common way of inducing abortions among the Greco-Romans."

In D&C 59:6, we are commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I have always understood the "like unto it" to be a rather unequivocal (though not necessarily exclusive) reference to abortion.  There is also rather clear guidance from prophets and apostles.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Judd]

Well if we did concede, for argument's sake, that the premise is true, I believe Christianity's opposition to abolitionism is also "relatively new in historical terms."

Edited May 13, 2017 by Judd

[clarkgoble]

While not scripture I tend to see the Didiche as one of the earlier Christian works reflecting the views of 1st century Christianity. It talks about and condemns abortion. The early Epistle of Barnabas says the same thing.

But in terms of major opposition I think it took advances in medical technology to make it such a compelling issue. So that doesn't really arise until the early 19th century. I think 1803 is the earliest law banning it in the English speaking world. It was considered a capital crime as I recall.

Edited May 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

From the article you posted, it reads  more like someone with an agenda trying desperately to find scriptural support for something that is not there.  

It is fine to be against abortion.  I certainly don't support abortion.  But I don't need to twist and turn scripture to justify my personal belief.  Like many issues, it is not enough for someone to have a personal opinion and live their lives accordingly.  They have to find some way to make it appear that God also shares that same opinion.  Once they can make that link, they can use it to condemn and shame others.  And that is the real goal. Just another reason why people are leaving organized religion.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

From the article you posted, it reads  more like someone with an agenda trying desperately to find scriptural support for something that is not there.  

It is fine to be against abortion.  I certainly don't support abortion.  But I don't need to twist and turn scripture to justify my personal belief.  Like many issues, it is not enough for someone to have a personal opinion and live their lives accordingly.  They have to find some way to make it appear that God also shares that same opinion.  Once they can make that link, they can use it to condemn and shame others.  And that is the real goal. Just another reason why people are leaving organized religion.

I guess it could be said that murder, theft and adultery fall into the same category. Fortunately, we have the sterling examples of those enlightened 20th century societies that were able to cast aside those unwarranted and unproductive emotions of condemnation and shame that for far too long were attached to the infantile notion that human life is sacred. By successfully putting aside such backward, tradition-bound ways of thinking the citizens of those forward-thinking societies were able to enthusiastically embark on the wholesale elimination of the sub-human counterrevolutionaries in their midst who stupidly stood in the way of the achievement of progressive Utopian paradises on earth. Hopefully, the progressive masses of our day will be able to shamelessly follow in the footsteps of the 20th century's anti-organized religion progressive movements, but this time with ultimate triumph and permanent success in the creation of a glorious worldwide paradise where no one will ever have to feel shame, guilt and remorse of conscience again. We can start by eliminating the knuckle dragging Neanderthals of the religious right.

[Gray]

The scriptures do not explicitly condemn abortion. However, it is good practice to take broad principles from the scriptures to inform your own moral discernment on issues such as these.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I guess it could be said that murder, theft and adultery fall into the same category.

But those are in the scriptures (and I'm not sure it could be stated more clearly):

In Exodus 20:

13 Thou shat not murder.

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

15  Thou shalt not steal.

Edited May 13, 2017 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I guess it could be said that murder, theft and adultery fall into the same category. Fortunately, we have the sterling examples of those enlightened 20th century societies that were able to cast aside those unwarranted and unproductive emotions of condemnation and shame that for far too long were attached to the infantile notion that human life is sacred. By successfully putting aside such backward, tradition-bound ways of thinking the citizens of those forward-thinking societies were able to enthusiastically embark on the wholesale elimination of the sub-human counterrevolutionaries in their midst who stupidly stood in the way of the achievement of progressive Utopian paradises on earth. Hopefully, the progressive masses of our day will be able to shamelessly follow in the footsteps of the 20th century's anti-organized religion progressive movements, but this time with ultimate triumph and permanent success in the creation of a glorious worldwide paradise where no one will ever have to feel shame, guilt and remorse of conscience again. We can start by eliminating the knuckle dragging Neanderthals of the religious right.

Nope.  You can't group murder, theft and adultery in the same category.  There are clearly some commandments that have been given to man by God.  There are multiple scriptures that lays out exactly what those commandments are.  What I am talking about is "hobby commandment".  The kind that if you change the definition of a word.  Or you have to do any guessing as to what a scripture means.  Or taking unconnected scriptures and piecing them together to come out with some kind of dogma that was never clearly stated in the scriptures.  Any time someone has to say "trust me, I know the correct interpretation of this scripture" then make the claim that their opinion comes from God himself and if anyone disagrees with their interpretation then they are going against the will of God. And shame on anyone who now breaks my new commandment that I have put together.  Because God is on my side.  

Perhaps scripture was never met to be as black and white as you want it to be.  Perhaps God expects each one of us to study out in our own minds these issues that are not clearly defined by scripture.  Perhaps by doing so, we become closer to God. Perhaps we should rely on the Spirit rather than the arm of the flesh, to direct our lives in these areas that are clearly not defined.  Perhaps in some of these issues, there is more than one path that is right.  

If someone comes up with a different answer for their life, who am I to tell them that no, my answer is for everyone, not just me.  And anyone who doesn't live their life the same way as me should be condemned and shamed.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

I think they address them indirectly, especially the Book of Mormon with its emphasis on the Restored Gospel and all the helps that entails in guiding people on personal and public decisions in the volatile latter-day environment leading up to the Lord's Second Coming.

Nephi had a moral dilemma, and even debated with the Spirit. The scriptures were a valuable reference point for him, but obviously could not provide the final word for all his circumstances. I don't think the Lord intends them to limit or otherwise get in the way of His communion with His children.

I think a person's decision to abort is like Nephi's decision to kill, and the Church offers guidance and instruction that ultimately hinge on priesthood counsel and personal revelation (following Nephi's approach). On a public health and safety level, and a civil rights level, which entails a more communal and temporally/physically-orientated morality, I think the same prayerful process holds in how we assert our interests politically among the larger group.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

 

Hi MiserereNobis,

Really, can't say. I presume they prayed about the issue. I have been basically pro-life since my days at Jesuit HS. However, when it comes to balancing life for life I have come to believe a mother can prayerfully consider abortion. Perhaps circumstances make her a single parent with other dependent children. I don't believe it is murder to decide to terminate a pregnancy which has a good chance of killing the mother and/or the child. This is really the only "scriptural" issue which can be raised in my mind. In the case of incest/rape the pregnancy can be a very traumatic thing, and the mother may be really too young or psychologically traumatized to be capable of handling it. This is why I feel the Church allows such a mother to prayerfully consider abortion. However, as a matter of convenience or a form of birth control I have always been against abortion, and I believe the Church is too. 

There are so many parents clammering to adopt children in the US. It is a shame that they are usually forced to go overseas in order to do so. At one time I actually considered adoption myself. However, I continue to hope that our society will learn responsibility and restraint when it comes to their sex lives, and won't engage in things they are not committed to accept responsibility for.

Edited May 13, 2017 by RevTestament

[USU78]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why does the Mormon church allow abortion in cases of rape and incest?  I understand carrying the child would be a very difficult 9 months for the mother, but is not the child innocent and deserving of life?

 

Simple: when the joy of conception is compelled, it is slavery, and the slave may lawfully break her chains. The higher moral position, however, is to endure the chains for the innocent's sake. Moreover, one may not compel the innocent in chains to endure those chains, lest one be as guilty as the rapist.

Edited May 13, 2017 by USU78

[thesometimesaint]

The Bible recommends Abortion.

SEE https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A11-31

The Bible commands Genocide.

SEE http://adath-shalom.ca/commandment_genocide.htm

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

From the article you posted, it reads  more like someone with an agenda trying desperately to find scriptural support for something that is not there.  

I am not sure I stand on this exegesis.  There are several sources that discuss this (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here).  I think this one is perhaps the most apt, characterizing Galatians 5:20 as an "allusion" to abortion (excerpted from Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World):

Quote

“Although the New Testament makes no specific reference to abortion, the association of the use of drugs (pharmakeia) with abortion in pagan and later Christian writings suggests that there may be an implicit reference to abortion in such texts as Galatians 5:20 and Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8 and 22:15, where words of the same group are used. This suggestion is by no means far-fetched. The word pharmakeia (and its cognates) can be a neutral, generic term for the use of drugs, but more often it has the negative connotation of drugs and potions supplied by a sorcerer or magician. It is also used to refer to poisons and mind-disturbing drugs. In Sorano’s Gynecology, it refers specifically to the use of one type of evil drug, the abortifacient. The word pharmakeia itself, then, can mean the used of drugs, evil or magical drugs themselves, or a specific evil drug such as a poison or an abortifacient. . . . Moreover, noncanonical condemnation of abortion before A.D. 125 is found in connection with the same related sins of fornication and murder which appear in the texts of Galatians and Revelation where pharmakeia is used. Thus, while a conclusive affirmation of explicit New Testament condemnation of abortion is impossible, the word pharmakeia and the contexts in which it is found suggest that Galatians and Revelation implicitly reject at least one major means of abortion in their rejection of magic, drugs, and poisons.”

So the allusion overall seems rather plausible (I don't agree that it is merely a figment in the imagination of "someone with an agenda").

The next questions, then, are:

Why is there only an occasional "allusion" to abortion in the Bible?  (My answer: I am not sure there is a feasible answer here.  The Bible does not constitute a complete compendium of ancient scripture, so there could have been prophetic/revelatory writings in antiquity that specifically addressed abortion/infanticide, but which were not preserved to our day.)

How prevalent were abortion and infanticide in the cultures surrounding the Primitive Church?  (Answer: I need to research this more.)

Are the biblical allusions to abortion, and to the broader concepts pertaining to the value of children, the sanctity of life, the Golden Rule, etc. sufficient to establish Bible-based moral code that prohibits or strongly discourages abortion?  (My answer: It would seem so, since Christian Churches seem to be overwhelmingly opposed to abortion.)

3 hours ago, california boy said:

It is fine to be against abortion.  I certainly don't support abortion.  But I don't need to twist and turn scripture to justify my personal belief.  

So you think the exegesis of pharmakeia is totally out of bounds?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Like many issues, it is not enough for someone to have a personal opinion and live their lives accordingly.  They have to find some way to make it appear that God also shares that same opinion.  

I'm not sure I would put it that way.  I think most people have an innate moral code.  The Latter-day Saints call it the "Light of Christ."  Others call it our "conscience."  There are probably other descriptors for it as well.  But there are times when we confront something that may seem to speak directly to that "moral code," but also has some measure of ambiguity about it.  The morality of abortion, for many people, falls into this description.  There are many otherwise good and decent people in this world who work hard, who are generally honest, who are kind to others, and yet fundamentally disagree with you and me about the morality of electively killing fetuses.  It would therefore make a lot of sense for a person, facing such a contradictory set of moral codes (one which condemns abortion in all or virtually all circumstances, and one which allows/encourages/celebrates it), would seek guidance from a "higher" source of morality.  That would be . . . God.

I have previously taught courses on the law at a local university, including a course on legal research which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I asked the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students.  I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

In my view, elective abortion falls squarely into the malum in se category.  Other people, including otherwise good and decent people, disagree with me strongly on that point.  Hence the importance of seeking out a "higher" moral authority (which, for Christians generally, is The Bible).  Hence the surprise at the apparent lack of specific guidance in The Bible on this, one of the great moral questions of our day.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Once they can make that link, they can use it to condemn and shame others.  

Are you open to the possibility that people who oppose elective abortion are acting with a sincere conviction that abortion is morally abhorrent?  That they are motivated by concern for the welfare of both the aborted child and the mother?  That they are acting on what they see as correct moral principles, not because they want to "condemn and shame others?"

Consider, for example, the abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries.  William Wilberforce was excoriated for decades because of his ongoing efforts to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire.  Do you think he spent his life and fortune in that effort because he wanted to "condemn and shame others" who felt differently than he did?  Or is it possible that he found slavery to be morally abhorrent, and so sought to change society to rid itself of it?  

3 hours ago, california boy said:

And that is the real goal.

How can you possibly know that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Simple: when the joy of conception is compelled, it is slavery, and the slave may lawfully break her chains. The higher moral position, however, is to endure the chains for the innocent's sake. Moreover, one may not compel the innocent in chains to endure those chains, lest one be as guilty as the rapist.

This is a stunningly simple explanation.  Thank you for it.

-Smac

[Glenn101]

I do not really care if there are no scriptures found in the Bible which explicitly or implicitly proscribe abortion. It is enough for me to know that modern day prophets have given us that information via revelation.

Glenn

[Bob Crockett]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I came across an interesting article today which discusses biblical passages that may refer to scriptural exhortations against abortion: No, New York Times, Christianity's Opposition to Abortion Is Anything But New

Some excerpts:

In D&C 59:6, we are commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I have always understood the "like unto it" to be a rather unequivocal (though not necessarily exclusive) reference to abortion.  There is also rather clear guidance from prophets and apostles.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

Thanks,

-Smac

Negligent homicide was punishable by death.   Negligent foeticide was punishable by money damages to the husband.   

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Simple: when the joy of conception is compelled, it is slavery, and the slave may lawfully break her chains.

This hyperbolic explanation completely disregards the life of the child.  9 months of pregnancy is not slavery.  While those 9 months would certainly be difficult, very difficult, I do not see how they justify the death of a child.

Quote

The higher moral position, however, is to endure the chains for the innocent's sake.

Yes, I agree, and I believe that this is not just a "higher" moral position, but is "the" moral position.

Quote

Moreover, one may not compel the innocent in chains to endure those chains, lest one be as guilty as the rapist.

I seriously find it odd to have to defend pro-life positions to Mormons.  Do you really believe that saving the life of an innocent child by requiring a mother to be pregnant for 9 months and then giving the baby up for adoption is equivalent to raping her?

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hi MiserereNobis,Really, can't say. I presume they prayed about the issue. I have been basically pro-life since my days at Jesuit HS. However, when it comes to balancing life for life I have come to believe a mother can prayerfully consider abortion. Perhaps circumstances make her a single parent with other dependent children.

Is this the official position of the LDS church?  This is a very pro-choice position, that the circumstances of the mother justify the death of the child.

Quote

I don't believe it is murder to decide to terminate a pregnancy which has a good chance of killing the mother and/or the child.

I know that this is a more nuanced situation, yet the Catholic Church has held that intentionally killing a child is wrong in any situation.  There are interesting arguments about "self-defense" though I think they ultimately fall flat because the child is not attacking the mother, so the mother doesn't need to "defend" herself.  But let's focus on the rape/incest exception, because I think it is less nuanced.

Quote

In the case of incest/rape the pregnancy can be a very traumatic thing, and the mother may be really too young or psychologically traumatized to be capable of handling it. This is why I feel the Church allows such a mother to prayerfully consider abortion.

I don't think I can even imagine how difficult it would be for a rape victim to carry the child and all I can really say is that the grace of God would be needed in abundance.

Yet I still can't get past the fact that we're talking about the ending the life of a child.

 

 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the official position of the LDS church?  This is a very pro-choice position, that the circumstances of the mother justify the death of the child.

I know that this is a more nuanced situation, yet the Catholic Church has held that intentionally killing a child is wrong in any situation.  There are interesting arguments about "self-defense" though I think they ultimately fall flat because the child is not attacking the mother, so the mother doesn't need to "defend" herself.  But let's focus on the rape/incest exception, because I think it is less nuanced.

I don't think I can even imagine how difficult it would be for a rape victim to carry the child and all I can really say is that the grace of God would be needed in abundance.

Yet I still can't get past the fact that we're talking about the ending the life of a child.

It makes the rapist a murderer, doesn't it? This is how I arrive at my position on capital punishment for rape.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This hyperbolic explanation completely disregards the life of the child.  9 months of pregnancy is not slavery.  While those 9 months would certainly be difficult, very difficult, I do not see how they justify the death of a child.

Yes, I agree, and I believe that this is not just a "higher" moral position, but is "the" moral position.

I seriously find it odd to have to defend pro-life positions to Mormons.  Do you really believe that saving the life of an innocent child by requiring a mother to be pregnant for 9 months and then giving the baby up for adoption is equivalent to raping her?

The issue is compulsion and personal integrity and freedom of choice of women. She is innocent of the child's death if her unborn child is the product of her rape. If, on the other hand, her conception is the product of her willing act, she chooses to conceive and therefore oughtn't to be permitted to take the child's life. She is a murderer if she does.

[rpn]

The reason that the church does not take action against the membership of those who participate in abortions when the mother was raped, or will die isn't that the church approves of abortion, but that it cannot say by scriptures or revelation, when life begins and  more precisely, when a spirit enters a body to stay permanently.   There are the separate factual incidents, one of John the Baptist recognizing Jesus while in the womb, and one of Jesus talking to Samuel the night before He was born into the world that make it impossible to know those facts (which may also be different for different spirits).   So it doesn't feel it has authority to make the judgment by taking membership.

The church doesn't want anyone to abort.

[The Nehor]

On 5/12/2017 at 8:35 PM, smac97 said:

I came across an interesting article today which discusses biblical passages that may refer to scriptural exhortations against abortion: No, New York Times, Christianity's Opposition to Abortion Is Anything But New

Some excerpts:

In D&C 59:6, we are commanded: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."  I have always understood the "like unto it" to be a rather unequivocal (though not necessarily exclusive) reference to abortion.  There is also rather clear guidance from prophets and apostles.

Anyway, what are your thoughts about scriptural references to abortion?  I ask this because it appears to be one of the great moral debates of the day.  Another heated moral topic, same-sex attraction, also seems to have fairly limited analysis in scripture.  Do you think that the scriptures do not sufficiently address these issues?

Thanks,

-Smac

The commandment to abstain from potion making could be used to decry medicine as well. The church accepts that abortion is a sin except in rare circumstances but does not treat is as murder. Until we get more revelation on the topic we will have to leave it there as either the best understanding of the apostles or as revelation

I agree that the uniform opposition to abortion is new. The cause got politicized. Roe vs. Wade happened way too early in the debate and was decided on shoddy legal grounds (lawyers from both sides agree on this). The early decision divided the issue into strict camps facing off against each other. For an equivalent imagine if the gay marriage Supreme Court ruling came back in the 80s and how it likely would have fallen out.

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

The issue is compulsion and personal integrity and freedom of choice of women. She is innocent of the child's death if her unborn child is the product of her rape. If, on the other hand, her conception is the product of her willing act, she chooses to conceive and therefore oughtn't to be permitted to take the child's life. She is a murderer if she does.

No, she isn't. We treat murder differently from how we treat someone who has or consents to an abortion.

7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Negligent homicide was punishable by death.   Negligent foeticide was punishable by money damages to the husband.   

The Bible treats causing a woman to abort as a crime against the parents and is more in line with a civil judgement for property damage. Hardly a ringing denouncement of abortion as equivalent to murder. If that were the case the Bible would have required the perpetrator to die.

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

Simple: when the joy of conception is compelled, it is slavery, and the slave may lawfully break her chains. The higher moral position, however, is to endure the chains for the innocent's sake. Moreover, one may not compel the innocent in chains to endure those chains, lest one be as guilty as the rapist.

A very libertarian position but not doctrinally compelling.

 

[strappinglad]

" Thou shalt not kill ( murder ) " . Is abortion murder? There is an argument that the fetus is just a part of the woman and removing it is about the same as removing an appendix. Others say that the fetus is a complete and separate individual and that given time would emerge and continue that individual existence. Killing that individual at 4 months gestation is no different that doing so after 4 months of life outside the womb. Society today seems almost to accept the line between abortion and murder to be a matter of seconds before and after live birth. We are revolted by anyone who would kill a new born and yet societies in the distant past thought nothing of sacrificing babies to their god ( Baal ? or whomever ) Armies during all of history have been really good at eliminating the young of the enemy. It used to be done with the sword, now it comes from the sky . The Catholic Church has been really firm about abortion. Has it been as firm as , say, the Quakers when it comes to other death dealing? Apparently not from what I have read. Nuanced Death... quite the philosophical conundrum .

[california boy]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure I stand on this exegesis.  There are several sources that discuss this (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here).  I think this one is perhaps the most apt, characterizing Galatians 5:20 as an "allusion" to abortion (excerpted from Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World):

Surely you are not suggesting that because more than one person shares an opinion, then that gives something credibility to being the truth.  If that were true, then Zeus surely is a god that should be worshiped.

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the allusion overall seems rather plausible (I don't agree that it is merely a figment in the imagination of "someone with an agenda").

The real question is, why do these people feel the need to twist and extrapolate a torchered interpretation of scripture to believe abortion is wrong.  The answer is, of course, they want their opinion to be the opinion of God.  If they can claim that their opinion is the same as God's then anyone who has a different opinion is going against God.  

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

The next questions, then, are:

Why is there only an occasional "allusion" to abortion in the Bible?  (My answer: I am not sure there is a feasible answer here.  The Bible does not constitute a complete compendium of ancient scripture, so there could have been prophetic/revelatory writings in antiquity that specifically addressed abortion/infanticide, but which were not preserved to our day.)

How prevalent were abortion and infanticide in the cultures surrounding the Primitive Church?  (Answer: I need to research this more.)

Are the biblical allusions to abortion, and to the broader concepts pertaining to the value of children, the sanctity of life, the Golden Rule, etc. sufficient to establish Bible-based moral code that prohibits or strongly discourages abortion?  (My answer: It would seem so, since Christian Churches seem to be overwhelmingly opposed to abortion.)

So you think the exegesis of pharmakeia is totally out of bounds?

I didn't say biblical allusions to abortion was out of bounds.   Everyone can have any opinion they want on abortion or any other dogma.  Just claiming that their opinion is the same as Gods is out of bounds, especially when it takes blaming translators, changing definitions, pulling unrelated scripture together etc in order to fabricate some edict from God.  There are a whole slew of "hobby commandments" where people and groups interrupt scripture the way they want to fit their agenda and then claim it is God's will.  

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I would put it that way.  I think most people have an innate moral code.  The Latter-day Saints call it the "Light of Christ."  Others call it our "conscience."  There are probably other descriptors for it as well.  But there are times when we confront something that may seem to speak directly to that "moral code," but also has some measure of ambiguity about it.  The morality of abortion, for many people, falls into this description.  There are many otherwise good and decent people in this world who work hard, who are generally honest, who are kind to others, and yet fundamentally disagree with you and me about the morality of electively killing fetuses.  It would therefore make a lot of sense for a person, facing such a contradictory set of moral codes (one which condemns abortion in all or virtually all circumstances, and one which allows/encourages/celebrates it), would seek guidance from a "higher" source of morality.  That would be . . . God.

I have previously taught courses on the law at a local university, including a course on legal research which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."

Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I asked the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students.  I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are."

Of course I agree with you.  I pretty much stated that when I said that a person should rely on the Spirit rather than some pronouncement of fallible men to decide what is truth.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

In my view, elective abortion falls squarely into the malum in se category.  Other people, including otherwise good and decent people, disagree with me strongly on that point.  Hence the importance of seeking out a "higher" moral authority (which, for Christians generally, is The Bible).  Hence the surprise at the apparent lack of specific guidance in The Bible on this, one of the great moral questions of our day.

Are you open to the possibility that people who oppose elective abortion are acting with a sincere conviction that abortion is morally abhorrent?  That they are motivated by concern for the welfare of both the aborted child and the mother?  That they are acting on what they see as correct moral principles, not because they want to "condemn and shame others?"

Of course I am open to the possibility that people who oppose elective abortion are acting with a sincere conviction that abortion is morally abhorrent.  As I stated in this very post you are quoting, I believe elective abortion is morally abhorrent.  But what I am not claiming is that everyone else should have the same opinion as me because I speak for God as the people in the op you posted are claiming.

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Consider, for example, the abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries.  William Wilberforce was excoriated for decades because of his ongoing efforts to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire.  Do you think he spent his life and fortune in that effort because he wanted to "condemn and shame others" who felt differently than he did?  Or is it possible that he found slavery to be morally abhorrent, and so sought to change society to rid itself of it?  

How can you possibly know that?

Thanks,

-Smac

William Wilberforce was standing up and taking action for what he believed in.  You don't need to twist and contort scripture to do that.  It is pretty clear that he found slavery to be morally abhorrent.  I think most people in todays world would agree.  But when a person states that their morals are the morals of God and twist scripture as a need to prove those convictions are God's morals then yes, they are doing it to shame others for not having the same morals as God.  As you know, it is much easier to show that slavery is ok with God according to both the Old and New Testament than it is to show that God is against slavery.  That still doesn't not make slavery morally correct.  

Most of what you wrote I agree with because I completely believe that following the Spirit in discerning truth is the plan of God.  Your slavery example shows that even the scriptures may state morals that are not always correct.  All men are fallible, even those that lived 4000 years ago.  Trust God.  Put your faith in Him.  Seek His guidance.  I learned long ago to not trust someone just because they claim to speak for God.