Abortion And The Bible

[Gary Sisco]

Where in the Bible is abortion prohibited?

Where in the Bible is the rights of the unborn?

[Root Doctor]

There is none.

[Brian Olewnick]

I assume the argument would be that it's implicitly contained in the 5th Commandment.

Not that it stops Judeo-Christians from breaking it in sundry other situations.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, actually, no, Brian, though it's logical response.

Roots is correct. There is no prohibition of abortion in the Book, nor are there any rights for the unborn.

[Brian Olewnick]

Does anyone know whether, as a historical fact, abortions were legally performed in Israel in biblical times? Of when (if) they became outlawed under Christianity?

[Gary Sisco]

Brian -- Christianity is a different question, as there are all kinds of aspects of Christianity that aren't found in Bible scripture.

[Uli]

Jeremiah 1:4-5 The Lord said to me, ‘I chose you before I gave you life, and before you were born I selected you to be a prophet to the nations.”

[Scott Dolan]

Um, no.

[Gary Sisco]

Now you're talking predestination. A different question.

Also, your answer requires both interpretation and a desire to see an answer to the specific question, there.

[Brian Olewnick]

There's a long wiki article on the history of abortion which suggests that abortion's "illegality" wasn't codified until around 1200.

Gary, you specified the Bible, so we're talking Judeo-Christian. I'm unaware of Judaism's traditional position on the subject, though from what I can tell it seems that it was fairly common practice in Greece and Roman, pre-Christ.

[Scott Dolan]

Relying on Wiki?

You really have no shame...

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Does anyone know whether, as a historical fact, abortions were legally performed in Israel in biblical times? Of when (if) they became outlawed under Christianity?

If I remember correctly, Judaism wasn't keen on abortion back in the day, and is the likely source of some people's ambivalence towards the practice. Christianity, broadly defined, has bounced back and forth on the issue, but the current religious objection to abortion probably has its roots in a 15th century papal bull.

[Brian Olewnick]

I'm a pro-wiki guy.

Discussing this with my Orthodox Jewish co-worker, he points out that there are oral Talmudic traditions which, for Jews, have equal if not more weight than what's written in the Torah. Among these, the proscription against abortion is apparently very clear. He also mentioned a Biblical story involving two fighting men who jostle a pregnant woman, killing the fetus (which I'd rather spell "foetus", btw) and being charged, appropriately by Jewish law, with murder.

[Gary Sisco]

"Abortion as such is not discussed in the Bible, so any explanation of why it is not legislated or commented on is speculative. One possibility is that the cultural preoccupation with procreation evident in the Hebrew Bible ruled out consideration of terminating pregnancy. Archaeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent. It is also possible that, given the diet and living conditions at the time, female fertility was low. Male control of reproduction and a belief that numerous descendants are a sign of divine blessing are also found in the Bible. These factors support the view that abortion would not have been common.

"Alternatively, it can be argued that abortion was practiced without censure. Many women died in childbirth, a strong incentive to avoid carrying a pregnancy to term. Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27.3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.

"A key text for examining [Israelite] attitudes is Exodus 21:22-25: "When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Several observations can be made about this passage. The Hebrew text at v. 22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury. The monetary judgment given to the woman's husband indicates that the woman's experience of the miscarriage is not of significance, adn that the damage is considered one to property rather than to human life. This latter observation is further supported by the contrast with the penalties for harm to the woman herself.

"Several texts have been influential in late discussions of abortion. Both Jewish and Christian traditions have regarded the divine command "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1.28) as demanding a high rate of procreation incompatible with abortion in a non-life-threatening situation. Like Leviticus 27, later rabbinic teachings differentiated between life under and over the age of one month, while relying on biblical injunctions to respect and choose life in determining that abortions could be performed to preserve the life of the mother. Christians opposed to abortion have referred to Luke 1.41-44 as evidence that a child is cognizant in the uterus."

-- The Oxford Companion to The Bible, 1993

[Gary Sisco]

But he's wrong about the murder charge, Brian.

And he's right about Talmud.

But Talmud is not The Bible and is not an aspect of the Christian inheritance.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

But he's wrong about the murder charge, Brian.

And he's right about Talmud.

But Talmud is not The Bible and is not an aspect of the Christian inheritance.

He may be wrong--not sure if everyone would agree with the Oxford Companion's interpretation.

In any case, since you said "Bible" in the first post, I assumed we weren't limiting discussion to Christianity. Christians reject OT teachings willy-nilly but one presumes they were more or less still in effect during the period the NT was being written so would have held sway at the time.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

But Talmud is not The Bible and is not an aspect of the Christian inheritance.

Not sure what you mean here, Gary. Christianity has a similarly strong exegetical tradition as Judaism.

[Gary Sisco]

It's not hard to confirm what Oxford has to say, Brian. One looks up the scripture and reads it.

The person who injured the pregant woman is not charged with murder.

Roots -- But they are different traditions. That's all.

The question remains, Where is abortion prohibited in The Bible and where are the rights of the unborn?

Because Luke acknowledges "cognizance" to a fetus (as do I, depending on term length and one's definition of "cognizance" -- it's known that fetuses can recognize voices, for example, not surprisingly, water being one of the best sound conductors) but a child less than a month old would also have "congnizance." Nor is recognizing cognizance a recognition of rights in any way. It's a recognition of cognizance. In our society, today, we recognize children's "cognizance" but we don't grant them the rights of adults, cognizant or not.

The most telling thing to me is that no value is attached to a fetus less than one month old, ie, one that has clearly been born.

[walto]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I'm a pro-wiki guy.

Discussing this with my Orthodox Jewish co-worker, he points out that there are oral Talmudic traditions which, for Jews, have equal if not more weight than what's written in the Torah. Among these, the proscription against abortion is apparently very clear. He also mentioned a Biblical story involving two fighting men who jostle a pregnant woman, killing the fetus (which I'd rather spell "foetus", btw) and being charged, appropriately by Jewish law, with murder.

I would have thought jostling females would have been proscribed somewhere in the Talmud--foetus or no foetus. God knows I'd proscribe it!

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It's not hard to confirm what Oxford has to say, Brian. One looks up the scripture and reads it.

Isn't this the root of what makes religion (or the Constitution, for that matter) so vexing? People bring different experiences and knowledge to texts and end up with varying interpretations.

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Because Luke acknowledges "cognizance" to a fetus (as do I, depending on term length and one's definition of "cognizance" -- it's known that fetuses can recognize voices, for example, not surprisingly, water being one of the best sound conductors) but a child less than a month old would also have "congnizance." Nor is recognizing cognizance a recognition of rights in any way. It's a recognition of cognizance.

The most telling thing to me is that no value is attached to a fetus less than one month old, ie, one that has clearly been born.

Augustine, by way of Aristotle, believed that the soul couldn't live in an unformed body.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

In our society, today, we recognize children's "cognizance" but we don't grant them the rights of adults, cognizant or not.

But certainly some adult rights are granted to children, generally viewed as the most fundamental ones - rights against torture and murder. Given that, it's clear there is no logical rights division concerning those rights against an individual just before birth and just after, given the individual characteristics are exactly the same.

[Gary Sisco]

Roots -- If I believed in a soul (as opposed to soul, of course), I'd agree with Augustine's position.

Vince -- Some rights, yes. Not the rights of adults, however, which is what I said.

The point here, as Roots gets at, is that one interprets scripture, even when one is asserting its literalness.

There is nothing in The Bible, New or Old Testament, that answers the question posed, without speculation and without interpretation. The Bible has nothing to say about abortion. If one insists that The Bible is literal then it literally has nothing to say about abortion but does have something to say about the unborn and even the born, short of a month. It's not what a lot of people would want it to say, but it says what it says.

One can, of course, as Uli did, and I'm not mocking him, look for meanings in this or that text that aren't plainly there.

But one can do the same with the I Ching, or Tarot, or astrology, or anything else.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

It's not hard to confirm what Oxford has to say, Brian. One looks up the scripture and reads it.

[Again, per my office source] That's one page of written scripture versus thousands of pages of exegetical writing on the matter. The latter carries more weight.

He also explained the distinction between the non-value of a one month old baby (30 days, actually) and a fetus: Whereas it's true that someone accidentally killing a 28-day old baby would not be judged guilty of murder, that act put an end to its existence at that point. The potential life expectancy of a fetus is unknown . ie, it's not "less than a month old" in Jewish law--age doesn't apply here and it's considered as a living creature the same as a > 1-month old baby (not sure whether the same rules apply if the fetus is male or female).

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The point here, as Roots gets at, is that one interprets scripture, even when one is asserting its literalness.

There is nothing in The Bible, New or Old Testament, that answers the question posed, without speculation and without interpretation. The Bible has nothing to say about abortion. If one insists that The Bible is literal then it literally has nothing to say about abortion but does have something to say about the unborn and even the born, short of a month. It's not what a lot of people would want it to say, but it says what it says.

Sure and, numerically speaking, at least here in the US (probably elsewhere), most adherents think in that concrete-bound manner. Just wanted to point out that there are "serious" thinkers around who go into matters a good deal more deeply even if, ultimately, they're basing their beliefs on imaginary factual premises.

[Gary Sisco]

Again, Brian, I asked where in The Bible. It is the Bible that is invoked in the political arguments. But the Bible, um, literally hasn't anything to say about abortion or the "rights" of the unborn.

If it is the word of God, God is silent on the matter.

If it is the work of humans and subject to human interpretation(s), well, then, clearly it says whatever it says to the interpreter(s). That's all. Who could disagree?

Politically speaking, there's nothing there when people try to lend their political notions Biblical weight. Rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree, the Bible is silent on abortion.

[Gary Sisco]

There was a large Christian faction -- perhaps majority -- that had to be suppressed with force -- in early euro-medieval times,* that is called Arian Christianity, which accepted the faith's tenets but not the divinity of Christ or what follows from it. It was a very serious contender against what became the RC in time.

*There wasn't yet a concept of Europe at the time. That came later.

[Surfer]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Relying on Wiki?

You really have no shame...

[Gentle Giant]

"Thou shalt not kill."

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Surfer

Surf, I know you're a wiki naysayer, but you may enjoy this article by Nicholson Baker that appeared recently in the New York Review of Books.

[Surfer]

I'm not a Wiki naysayer, though I've been painted as one in the press.

It does annoy me however, when people express opinions (things that cannot by definition be demostrated as facts) and then find Wiki entries that "back up" their opinions, and then stand back in triumphant glee and gloat.