Talk:Abortion and the Bible

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Needs to be expanded

This article needs to be expanded. For example, there is no point in giving only two denominations' stances on abortion. Also, instead of just stating that there are numerous references in the Bible to an unborn child in the womb as a unique person, the article should quote those references, or at least link to a list. Thanks. DavidE 14:43, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Exodus 21

I'm not happy with the text about "accidental" and "intentional" killing; the Biblical verse doesn't seem to support any such distinction. Exodus 21:23-25 explicitly states that any harm to the mother but the miscarriage is to be punished just as if it had been inflicted intentionally. Rather, we must conclude that inducing a miscarriage carries less of a punishment than causing other types of bodily harm. One might even read Exodus 21:22 as not criminalizing abortion if the husband consents: It is he who may demand compensation, and if he doesn't do so, there is no alternative punishment. If no one objects, I'll change that passage accordingly. Yoritomo 14:18, 30 November 2009 (EST)

No, you won't. You are not free to make such subjective judgments without discussing (as opposed to merely posting your intent, as you did, then instantly making the changes.) the changes first, on something so major. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 11:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I waited about a day; when no one objected, I went ahead. How long should I wait in the future for discussion to start?
Concerning the subject, I still see no indication that the Bible makes any difference between harm caused accidentally or deliberately. I wasn't aware of the King James translation, but when indeed further harm to the child except a premature birth is to be punished "an eye for an eye", that would undermine such a distinction even more. By the King James version of that verse, what would be punished differently based on whether it's accidental or not? Yoritomo 12:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Your edits are informative, but I think there is an implicit distinction between accidental and intentional harm. Sin is by its nature intentional rather than accidental.--Andy Schlafly 20:54, 1 December 2009 (EST)
I completely agree with your theological point (though the Catholic theory of venial sin seems to disagree), but from a judicial point of view, the punishments for additional harm described in Exodus 21:23-25 are exactly the same as those for deliberately caused harm, aren't they? Anyway, given that said harm is caused while "men struggle with each other", I wouldn't quite call it an accident anyway - harming someone was the intent, they just hit the wrong target. That makes the men no less sinful, or does it? Yoritomo 21:37, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Venial sins are intentional, but of a less serious nature. Unintentional sin is an oxymoron.
The main point of the Exodus passage, it seems to me, is to describe the punishment for an undeniably unintentional harm. Indeed, it's hard to imagine another scenario where the harm is so clearly unintentional.--Andy Schlafly 22:14, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Ok, I probably misunderstood the doctrine of venial sins. I believed it stated that a serious sin could be venial if it was "committed without deliberate consent"; I read that as "by accident", but I was probably wrong. Thanks. Yoritomo 14:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Text of passage

Well, Andy, the text of the passage you quote definitely seems to justify your edits. However, the liberals I've seen argue on the basis of translating that verse to say, "miscarriage." At least my copy of the NASB (latest copyright date 1973; I have it right in front of me now) uses "miscarriage." I think this is a difference between editions; I've seen others. --EvanW 22:56, 1 December 2009 (EST)

I just checked an online version of the NASB here, and it says "gives birth prematurely". So apparently "miscarriage" was corrected in subsequent editions. That site also gives translations which have "miscarriage", namely The Message and the Amplified Bible. I just noted that at the Amplified article we mention Exodus 21:22 and its use by liberals. Should we simply do the same here? Currently we're a little inconsistent because while we give the NASB version of "premature birth", in the paragraph's last sentence we talk about miscarriage, which by now lacks context. Yoritomo 14:19, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Dead links, mistakes in links

Many of the links on this page are dead, and the link "A comprehensive list of denominational stances on abortion" redirects to the Presbyterian Church page also used as Reference 5. -danq 10:36, 12 March 2011 (EST)