-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Exodus 21:22-25 distinguishes the life of the mother from the unborn. The blood law only goes in affect for the mother and not the unborn child. People twist the passage by saying it's talking about the unborn child and not the mother, but it doesn't. This is why it's important to look at the original Hebrew.
I'm against abortion. I have no idea when the spirit enters the body, I have no idea when the unborn child is a human life (I'm not convinced it's at conception), and so I side with caution personally.
Another note: There are numerous times in the bible when it mentions life starting and it's followed by a key phrase. God breathes the "breath of life", and they arise (Adam, Lazerus, etc...). It's unpopular to say life begins when they are able to breath on their own, but there is biblical evidence to support it.
Another note: There are numerous times in the bible when it mentions life starting and it's followed by a key phrase. God breathes the "breath of life", and they arise (Adam, Lazerus, etc...). It's unpopular to say life begins when they are able to breath on their own, but there is biblical evidence to support it.
Last edited:
Also, ectopic pregnancies are 99.9% of the time not viable, so they have to terminate the pregnancy. Some argue this isn't an "abortion", whatever... call it whatever you want... you're still stopping the unborn child from progressing. There is technically a .0000001% chance it COULD be saved (there are a handful of documented cases where they miraculously salvaged an ectopic pregnancy to fruition). Nevertheless, I won't blame a woman or couple for terminating/aborting the unborn child to pre-emptively save the mother (she could die if not terminated).
What do you mean "even if I agree"... are you really arguing that God doesn't give man free will?
An unborn child, like in the bible, doesn't have the civil liberties that the mother does in the US. I posted the Exodus 21:22-25 passage which distinguishes the mother's life from the unborn child's life. The blood law (life for life) does not apply to the unborn child in the same way that it does for the mother. If the mother has a miscarriage, the guy that struck her is monetarily fined, but if the mother dies as a result of being struck, the person that hit her is to pay with his life.
It's a bit inconsistent when a person who murders/commits manslaughter can be tried for two crimes if the woman was pregnant. That's man's law for you though.
An unborn child, like in the bible, doesn't have the civil liberties that the mother does in the US. I posted the Exodus 21:22-25 passage which distinguishes the mother's life from the unborn child's life. The blood law (life for life) does not apply to the unborn child in the same way that it does for the mother. If the mother has a miscarriage, the guy that struck her is monetarily fined, but if the mother dies as a result of being struck, the person that hit her is to pay with his life.
It's a bit inconsistent when a person who murders/commits manslaughter can be tried for two crimes if the woman was pregnant. That's man's law for you though.
I'm saying the bible distinguishes the life of the mother and the unborn child. The unborn child is not covered like the mother is in the Exodus passage I posted.
I'm not sure how I'd make the law if I could. As I said before, ectopic pregnancies, while almost always not viable, CAN theoretically be viable, but I'm still in favor of women having their unborn child aborted/terminated to avoid complications that could be life-threatening to the mother.
Do you still not think God gives us free will? Did you read the Exodus passage I posted? If the unborn child is no different than the mother in your eyes, why is the law completely different for them (the man that struck the pregnant only dies if the mother dies, not if her unborn child dies)?"
I'm not sure how I'd make the law if I could. As I said before, ectopic pregnancies, while almost always not viable, CAN theoretically be viable, but I'm still in favor of women having their unborn child aborted/terminated to avoid complications that could be life-threatening to the mother.
Do you still not think God gives us free will? Did you read the Exodus passage I posted? If the unborn child is no different than the mother in your eyes, why is the law completely different for them (the man that struck the pregnant only dies if the mother dies, not if her unborn child dies)?"
P
The verses you're referring to could be interpreted that a man hit a woman and accidentally caused her baby to die ... Therefore he is fined according to the judges ... The verse is possibly describing an accidental killing of the child ... As we all know abortion is the intentional killing of a child ... It is not clear the verse is referring to an accidental killing an intentional killing or both ... Also, this is a law of the Old Testament, which is in doubt whether that is to apply at all after the arrival of Jesus ...
The Bible also instructs for us to use a discerning mind and common sense ... In my mind, God is telling me that abortion is not what He wants to happen and therefore should be illegal ... That is what God relays unto me ...
The Bible also instructs for us to use a discerning mind and common sense ... In my mind, God is telling me that abortion is not what He wants to happen and therefore should be illegal ... That is what God relays unto me ...
I am totally against abortion, including when the woman has been raped. Yes, it’s terrible having to carry a child to term that is the product of rape. But you can’t kill the baby because the father was an idiot. And adoption is a perfect solution, especially because the demand for infants is so high.
I do think in some cases, abortion, to save the life of the mother, should happen. An ectopic pregnancy will result in the death of the mother and the child. I always thought this was very rare. My DIL is an on-gyn in a city with a million people. I asked her how many ectopic pregnancies there are in her city. I was shocked to learn at least one a week!
While there have always been ectopic pregnancies, the rate is much higher not, because of scarred Fallopian tubes from various sexually transmitted diseases. And STDs come from promiscuity. That is one of the sad, and little talked about fruits of the sexual revolution. More and more women contracting sexually transmitted diseases, damaging their reproductive organs.
But, no matter how high the number of ectopic pregnancies and other issues during pregnancy which will kill both the mother and child, it does not compare to the horrific numbers of unborn babies that are being murder for no other reason than convenience. It is a holocaust in the womb!
I do think in some cases, abortion, to save the life of the mother, should happen. An ectopic pregnancy will result in the death of the mother and the child. I always thought this was very rare. My DIL is an on-gyn in a city with a million people. I asked her how many ectopic pregnancies there are in her city. I was shocked to learn at least one a week!
While there have always been ectopic pregnancies, the rate is much higher not, because of scarred Fallopian tubes from various sexually transmitted diseases. And STDs come from promiscuity. That is one of the sad, and little talked about fruits of the sexual revolution. More and more women contracting sexually transmitted diseases, damaging their reproductive organs.
But, no matter how high the number of ectopic pregnancies and other issues during pregnancy which will kill both the mother and child, it does not compare to the horrific numbers of unborn babies that are being murder for no other reason than convenience. It is a holocaust in the womb!
Demi, all those numbers about women being killed by back street abortions were faked, mostly by abortionists who were pushing for lax laws so they could legally carry out abortions. Dr. Bernard Nathanson founded an abortion group to repeal abortion laws and made up the statistics. He multiplied the number of deaths due to abortion by 10 times. Here is an article to read. He was an atheistic Jew, who converted to Catholicism in the end. He also became a champion of the pro-life Movement.
Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by Truth | Public Discourse
Here is another link to the lies the pro-abortion people have said.
Abortion Lies And Other Shadings Of The Truth - tribunedigital-chicagotribune
Bernard Nathanson: A Life Transformed by Truth | Public Discourse
Here is another link to the lies the pro-abortion people have said.
Abortion Lies And Other Shadings Of The Truth - tribunedigital-chicagotribune
This is not accurate - in medical abortions, if the mother dies there is no chance for the baby....
If the baby is of viable gestation then it is a premature delivery - not an abortion!
I would emphasise that the scenarios that I see would NOT allow a women to carry a pregnancy for weeks to months to allow the pregnancy to reach viability.
In the life-threatening situations I deal with there may only be a few hours to act.
I would suggest that the situations that allow plenty of time (weeks to months) to make decisions as to what to do are not what I was referring to at all since in these situations the likelihood of the pregnancy reaching potential viability is a real possibility and so needs to be approached very differently.
If the baby is of viable gestation then it is a premature delivery - not an abortion!
I would emphasise that the scenarios that I see would NOT allow a women to carry a pregnancy for weeks to months to allow the pregnancy to reach viability.
In the life-threatening situations I deal with there may only be a few hours to act.
I would suggest that the situations that allow plenty of time (weeks to months) to make decisions as to what to do are not what I was referring to at all since in these situations the likelihood of the pregnancy reaching potential viability is a real possibility and so needs to be approached very differently.
1.) The old covenant law is all about the letter of the law, the new covenant is about the spirit of the law. If someone "accidentally" killed another (manslaughter), the penalty was still paying with your life. Intentions don't play any part of it. If the unborn child was regarded as a living, breathing human-being, then the woman having a miscarriage alone ought to condemn the person who struck her to death, whether by accident or on purpose.
2.) If the old covenant law distinguishes the unborn from the born, it doesn't change one bit just because we are in the new covenant. The law is different, but if an unborn child is not regarded in the same reverence as the mother carrying it then, it wouldn't magically change just because we are in a new covenant. An unborn child's life in comparison to the mother is not a law that Christ fulfilled and is now obsolete today... That's like saying "apples are not apples anymore since the new covenant... sure they were called apples before Christ came, but that doesn't matter anymore since the arrival of Jesus!"
3.) I agree with you about what God tells me. Personally, I'm convicted that I shouldn't ever do it, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not in favor of things being legal that I am also personally against. Here is a list of things that I'm personally against but I wouldn't want a law passed criminalizing it: pre-marital sex, adultery, alcohol, recreational drugs, country music (sort of kidding on the last one). It's easy to say I wouldn't ever consider having an abortion when I'm unmarried and I don't have a wife with an ectopic pregnancy though. I would of course pray about it with my future wife before making a decision.
2.) If the old covenant law distinguishes the unborn from the born, it doesn't change one bit just because we are in the new covenant. The law is different, but if an unborn child is not regarded in the same reverence as the mother carrying it then, it wouldn't magically change just because we are in a new covenant. An unborn child's life in comparison to the mother is not a law that Christ fulfilled and is now obsolete today... That's like saying "apples are not apples anymore since the new covenant... sure they were called apples before Christ came, but that doesn't matter anymore since the arrival of Jesus!"
3.) I agree with you about what God tells me. Personally, I'm convicted that I shouldn't ever do it, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not in favor of things being legal that I am also personally against. Here is a list of things that I'm personally against but I wouldn't want a law passed criminalizing it: pre-marital sex, adultery, alcohol, recreational drugs, country music (sort of kidding on the last one). It's easy to say I wouldn't ever consider having an abortion when I'm unmarried and I don't have a wife with an ectopic pregnancy though. I would of course pray about it with my future wife before making a decision.
Last edited:
But how can you know for sure? We aren't God. When all seems lost, He has shown time and time again that if we believe in Him, he can do the impossible. We call those miracles, however rare they might me. As I said earlier, there are a handful of documented cases where an ectopic pregnancies were carried to fruition. While the odds are incredibly stacked against the mother, it's theoretically possible. I wouldn't tell a mother she "murdered" her unborn child for terminating it because she had an ectopic pregnancy and she didn't want to die though.
@ Pontiac
One more thing I forgot to mention. You're making a case that it could be possible the Exodus passage is talking about an "accidental" killing of the unborn child and that's why he doesn't pay with his life. Then why does the same passage say the person that struck her is to pay with his life if the mother dies? It was still an accident right... so why isn't he monetarily fined like in the unborn child case? Just wanted to further reinforce my point that it doesn't matter if it was accidental or not.
One more thing I forgot to mention. You're making a case that it could be possible the Exodus passage is talking about an "accidental" killing of the unborn child and that's why he doesn't pay with his life. Then why does the same passage say the person that struck her is to pay with his life if the mother dies? It was still an accident right... so why isn't he monetarily fined like in the unborn child case? Just wanted to further reinforce my point that it doesn't matter if it was accidental or not.
D
We don't forget what happened in the course of nine months. We don't forget what happened ever. And it does take more than a year to deal with it emotionally. If a woman is raped and wants an abortion, I wouldn't force her away from the abortion. BUT what we've done is pretty much taught women to have abortion in the case of rape, incest, or something is wrong with the child. Abortion is assumed, when it should be a choice. And a choice only in those rare cases.
It reminds me of a deadly version of what doctors teach us about repeated gallstone colic. The patient's gallbladder should be removed. Right? That's the only choice given. But did you know there is another choice? An MRCP can remove the gallstones from the gallbladder. The gallbladder still works, it merely got full of stones over the years. Remove the stones, and the gallbladder keeps working.
What would be the real choice is patients were given real choices, instead of a litany of what to do in this case.
A pregnancy after being raped truly is a horrible thing, but because of the rape. The rape is a horrible thing. The child is not. And I really did have to worry about if I would take it out on the child, because the father was a rapist. That's why I was leaning toward adoption. At least I had real choices. If someone isn't told she can carry the child to term, is she really given any choice? To me, that's robbing the woman of choice twice -- rape and her baby. One violation is too much. Give her real choice.
It reminds me of a deadly version of what doctors teach us about repeated gallstone colic. The patient's gallbladder should be removed. Right? That's the only choice given. But did you know there is another choice? An MRCP can remove the gallstones from the gallbladder. The gallbladder still works, it merely got full of stones over the years. Remove the stones, and the gallbladder keeps working.
What would be the real choice is patients were given real choices, instead of a litany of what to do in this case.
A pregnancy after being raped truly is a horrible thing, but because of the rape. The rape is a horrible thing. The child is not. And I really did have to worry about if I would take it out on the child, because the father was a rapist. That's why I was leaning toward adoption. At least I had real choices. If someone isn't told she can carry the child to term, is she really given any choice? To me, that's robbing the woman of choice twice -- rape and her baby. One violation is too much. Give her real choice.