This came up in my other recent thread.

Somebody said that Jesus does not condone abortions. He is against them.

I say there is no evidence for that. Jesus is against murdering living humans. There is not one mention in the Book about abortion. (I may be very well wrong in this. But I never seen quotes and sure as hell if there were, it would be plastered all over the pro-life landscape.)

I suggest that Jesus was solely referring to the taking of a life. It is our modern-day explanation that we say "no abortion", which is an inference, and could be wrong. It is an inference because we say the fetus is living and alive.

Those who allow abortions allow them because they think the fetus does not possess his or her own soul. Those against abortions insist that the fetus does.

Now. This debate can be easily decided by knowing history and by knowing the level of clarity to which the New Testament names things.

In the New Testament even the expression, in its rudest, crudest, form exists, which means "buuuuttttffffuuuckeeerrrs.". I ain't joking. Paul (Saul) uses it often in his letters, and the original word he used in the language he wrote in, first in Greek or first translated to greek, was "arsenokoitei", which very word caused the biggest headache for all translators of the bible who used the greek-language oldest version extant.

If Paul can say "arsenokoitei", then he could sure say "abortion".

But he did not say "abortion". Nobody said abortion in the New or the Old testament.

Which means, that IF there was no knowledge of aborting a fetus, then why would they say it. Much like the Bible (Old and New testaments) never said anything about TV viewing. The Bible also did not say anything about things that were known then, but were morally neutral or morally acceptable, things that are not sins, even if they are not recommended. For instance, the eating for beef, or making a new hat or footware when the old one gets worn out. There is nothing forbidden or encouraged about eating amphores, or how to stay awake all night and not go to the washroom even once in a 24-hour period, etc.

There was definitely knowledge of eating amphores or withholding waste to be eliminated. But they were not mentioned as sins. They were not recommended, but not sinful, either.

If abortions were known in Jesus' time, then they would be considered similarly: something known, but not mentioned, because they were not significant, not considered sinful, be they encouraged or not to practice. If abortions were known, and considered sinful, then it would be mentioned. If they were not sinful, and known, they are safe practice from the points of view of sin or morally allowable things to do.



If the Bible does not mention it, then:

If it did not exists in Biblical times, we make it law much later, such as turning on the kettle or using electric curling irons, or watching TV.

If it did exist in Biblical times, then if there is no mention of it in the Bible, then it is free to use. For instance, some circus acts would be outlawed in which men stand on their hands, or sit on a horse backwards. These things existed in Biblical times, and they were not forbidden, by way of not having been mentioned.

In our times, the Christian laws that we follow have been laid down in the Second testament. Or New Testament. We can freely do what it does not forbid, in our capacities as Christians. We must also adhere to what it commands us to do.

Therefore I say unto you that since the Bible does not mention abortion as a forbidden practice, then, if and only if, the practice of abortion was known and practiced in Biblical times, then we are free to perform abortions; it is not a sin at all.

--------


The Bible is not debatable. Some points that are inferred from its statements are the only debatables.

The Bible serves as moral and religious / spiritual guidance.

The Bible says "don't kill" and that is the basis for eschewing aborition. If the practice of abortion was known in Jesus' time, then it is not killing. The Bible is our spiritual guidance, and as such, it very well spells out things we must not do, and what me must do. For instance, we must respect our parents, to have long life in this world. We don't necessarily have to respect our grandparents. The parent-respect is there, carved in stone.

So if aborting was killing, which is not at all clear to all of us, then it wouldn't have been clear to people in Jesus' time, either, and they would have put in some words if it was a sin. Undoubtedly.

However, if abortion was an unknown practice, then we can still argue if we should allow it on a religious ground, much like we argue if we should allow ourselves to watch tv or not in a religious sense, or else allow ourselves to drive cars or not.\\

===

The questions are:


- was abortion known by Jesus' lifetime among the Jews?

- do we have the right to tell someone else how to interpret a passage of the bible in a way that only relates to parts of life that did not exist then?

AH but Wux it may not have existed in the men's minds back then but women on the other hand have been using herbs to abort pregnancies for as far back as women have been able to know of herbs.

I believe the Chinese have the oldest known mixture that was used.

This is not the whole article but enough to let you know what I am speaking of.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortion/a/ancientabortion.htm

Abortion in the Ancient and Premodern World
A History of Traditional Methods

From Pat Fox,
See More About:

abortion history
reproductive rights
ancient history


While modern technology is quite new in historical terms, the practice of abortion and menstrual "regulation" is ancient. Traditional methods have been handed down for hundreds of generations and herbal and other methods have roots in the distant past. It should be noted that many ancient and medieval methods and preparations are extremely risky and many are not at all effective, so experimentation is quite unwise.

We know abortion was practiced in biblical times from the passage in Numbers (note 1) where alleged infidelity is tested by giving an abortifacient potion to an accused pregnant woman. The "bitter water" used to "bring on the curse" may have been quinine or several of other herbal and natural concoctions that are considered emmagogues, or drugs that bring on menstruation.

Such herbs and other concoctions are in reality often implantation inhibitors or abortifacients. According to the biblical tale, if the woman had not been unfaithful, the drug would not work and the pregnancy was assumed to be the husband’s child. If she miscarried, she was considered guilty of adultery and no questionable parentage ensued.

Abortion was recorded in 1550 B.C.E. in Egypt, recorded in what is called the Ebers Papyrus (note 2) and in ancient China about 500 B.C.E. as well (note 3). In China, folklore dates the use of mercury to induce abortions to about 5,000 years ago (note 4). Of course, mercury is extremely toxic.

Hippocrates also offered abortion to his patients despite being opposed to pessaries and potions which he considered too dangerous. He is recorded as having instructed a prostitute to induce abortion by jumping up and down. This is certainly safer than some other methods, but rather ineffective. It is also believed that he used dilation and curettage to induce abortions as well (note 5). Abortion opponents often use the Hippocratic Oath of physicians as an argument against abortion per se, but the opposition had only to do with patient safety.

Herbal methods were likely more common and many of the traditional herbs and mixtures are in use even today. Pennyroyal dates at least to the 1200’s when manuscripts show herbalists preparing it (note 6), but the oil is extremely dangerous and modern herbalists avoid it. Deaths from its use were recorded in the US in the 1990's.

A medieval herbal reference called De Viribus Herbarum referred to herbs to induce abortions even earlier in the 11th century. Pennyroyal was among the herbs mentioned but so were catnip, rue. Sage, savory, cypress, and hellebore (note 6). Some of the drugs are listed as emmagogues rather that explicitly as abortifacents, but since the most common cause of a late menstrual period is pregnancy, there is little doubt why they were prescribed and used. Hildegard of Bingen mentions the use of tansy to bring on menstruation.

Some herbs have been mentioned for centuries. One is a plant called the worm fern whose root is used to cause an abortion. It is telling that it was also known as "prostitute’s root" historically. Also used in the same area of Europe were thyme, parsley, lavender, and savin juniper. Even concoctions of camel saliva and deer hair were used (note 7).

The right of women to seek abortions was not restricted in many places until fairly recently, with most restrictions being related to the time of "quickening" or fetal movement. Even Plato proclaimed the right of women to seek early terminations of pregnancies in "Theaetetus", but specifically he spoke of the right of midwives to offer the procedure. In early times, most pregnancies were not managed by doctors so it was logical that abortion be provided by midwives and herbalists.

Other measures to induce abortions have included iron sulfates and chlorides, hyssop, dittany, opium, madder in beer, watercress seeds and even crushed ants. Probably the herbs most commonly mentioned were tansy and pennyroyal. We know that tansy was used from at least the Middle Ages. One of the most brutal methods was practiced in the Orient in ancient times by violently kneading or beating the abdomen to cause abortion, a procedure with great peril to the woman who used it. Even in the 20th century, women were still trying Hippocrates’ jumping up and down method, likely with as little success as their ancient sisters (note 8).

Wise women have found and used herbs and other preparations to manage their fertility for generations. Some concoctions were contraceptive in nature and others were abortifacients or designated emmagogues. The latter are now believed to have worked to prevent implantation, a sort of ancient morning after pill. What we know for sure is that in the past as well as now women have found ways to manage unwanted pregnancies.

It should be noted that many ancient and medieval methods and preparations are extremely risky and many are not at all effective, so experimentation is quite unwise. There are modern practitioners who do know the folk remedies that are both effective and safe and should be relied upon before even considering such methods. Of course, modern women also have the more familiar medical procedures to choose instead of ancient remedies.
Previous

1
2

Next

I would say that men have been irresponsibly assigning women the responsibility of bringing children in the world or not for a long time.

So they did not even consider what they may be doing to stop that unwanted reminder of them from coming in to fruition

Did Jesus ever teach that it was wrong to have sex with children? Did Jesus ever teach that it was wrong to eat human flesh? Did Jesus ever teach that it was wrong to beat your wife?

Well...in a way he did.

He said for us to love each other as he has loved us.

I would take this as anything that is NOT loving..
he would not approve of.

In answer to your title of the thread, no he probably wasn't against abortion since it did exist in his day

That is absolutely true. Jesus also said "suffer the little children". I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that Jesus would have opposed the practice of abortion.

Humm seems like the commandment of "They Shall not Kill" would include abortion? A fetus is a living thing.

Agree with TXSGAL , Thou shalt not kill covers everything !!

He blesses the boys as they stand in line
The smell of gun grease and the bayonets they shine
He's there to help them all that he can
To make them feel wanted he's a good holy man

Sky pilot.....sky pilot
How high can you fly
You'll never, never, never reach the sky
He smiles at the young soldiers

Tells them its all right
He knows of their fear in the forthcoming fight
Soon there'll be blood and many will die
Mothers and fathers back home they will cry

Sky pilot.....sky pilot
How high can you fly
You'll never, never, never reach the sky
He mumbles a prayer and it ends with a smile

The order is given
They move down the line
But he's still behind and he'll meditate
But it won't stop the bleeding or ease the hate

As the young men move out into the battle zone
He feels good, with God you're never alone
He feels tired and he lays on his bed
Hopes the men will find courage in the words that he said

Sky pilot... sky Pilot
How high can you fly
You'll never, never, never reach the sky
You're soldiers of God you must understand

The fate of your country is in your young hands
May God give you strength
Do your job real well
If it all was worth it

Only time it will tell
In the morning they return
With tears in their eyes
The stench of death drifts up to the skies

A soldier so ill looks at the sky pilot
Remembers the words
"Thou shalt not kill"
Sky pilot.....sky pilot

How high can you fly
You never, never, never reach the sky

...and therein lies the contradiction

"Thou shall not kill" is more correctly translated into modern English as "Thou shall not murder". I feel that there is nothing wrong about killing someone who is an immediate threat to another person.

Would you consider killing in war as murder or self defense?

War is justified if it's in defense, but not necessarily self defense. War to protect the defenseless or in self-defense is justified in my opinion.

I don't really care what Jesus thinks about it. Killing a baby is wrong. And, an unborn baby IS still a baby.

yes, but thats not specific. That leaves up to interpretation and perception what 'loving' is

just like 'life' is not clearly defined but open to interpretaion in passages like this

exodus 21:22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm,[d] then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.



IF there is harm(no qualifier as to the mother or her 'children'), a LIFE for a LIFE,,,,

I agree with this, I see less of the 'moral' issue if the issue is no longer choosing to take a life, but choosing WHICH life to save when both cannot survive,,,

huh?



I realize there are MANY scriptures open to interpretation ms harmony...never in a million years would I have thought this
little nugget... "as i have loved you, love one another" could
ever be one of them.
Silly me...

So why are they not counted in the Census? Your Birth date is when you are born not when the sperm meets the egg. When you mother gives birth to you that is when you become a human being in my opinion.

Hey...

I said that. :O

I say it, not because there is 'proof' of it.

I say it, because I have common sense.
I say it, because it's Jesus H. Christ.

You said to take the question displayed as if, 'the Bible was 100% correct', or something along those lines. Therefore, if such WAS true, there is absolutely NO way Jesus would be all hoorah for Abortion.

He had dinner with the men who would betray him.
Not so much that, but the fact HE KNEW and still did nothing.
To alter his own fate.

God, he is a different story.
However, Jesus himself, I don't think he ever hurt a single person and/or living thing.

Now, knowing that.

It is stated that Jesus, God, and the Casper dude.
ALL share the same 'will'.

Therefore, if Jesus would take the pro-life stance, God and Casper would have to as well through default.

Thus, yeah, I stand behind my statement.

Jesus and the Trinity would ALL be pro-life.

I also believe God himself wouldn't actually run for office, Jesus would with Casper as his V.P. Pres Special Adviser would be God.

..but that's just me.