Is Abortion Ever Allowable?

[Guitarhero]

I know that it does in the interpretation of it in tradition. It was required to attempt to preserve your life.

 

[Poohbear]

The abortion in this case is being thought of as a medical procedure (for the mother, of course more than that for the child) that is in the best interest of her life. I have never heard of a procedure, medical or not, that would guarentee a perfect outcome. But as will anything that pertains to health, you have to try and make the best decision you can based on your current knowledge. If you current knowledge is that pregnancy is fatal or extremely life threatening, then you have to go off of that information.

In terms of the 10 year old, I agree that its hard to imagine her having an abortion. But I think most people weigh more heavily the impact of pregnancy becuase of its long duration, subsequent prodcution of a child that will have to be raised etc.. As someone said in the other thread abortions can be done under anesthsia with little pain...dont know much about that just going off of what was said

But how come current knowledge isn't abortion is fatal and extremely life threatening too!?

Why is abortion always seen as the "best interest" decision rather than giving birth?

Are you suggesting that abortion is more successful than pregnancy overall?

If so, give me the statistics?

The 10 year old has survived 4 months of the pregnancy so far with no problem. Why are people always looking for reasons like the age of the mother to end the pregnancy?

 

[Poohbear]

It's all over the international news.

So. Just because it's all over international news doesn't mean every single person in the world is watching international news or even knows about this 10-year-old girl getting raped. I surely didn't know. Geez.

 

[Guitarhero]

Revenons aux moutons....permissible in the case of saving the life of the mother!!! Pooh, I'm about to come and give you one of dese:gunner7: Don't go too far off tangent. I need to know this for a reason, c'mon nah.

Has anyone known personally of those in this situation? Sidenote: it would have been very interesting to know what the Duggars thought of this situation because her pregnancy turned dangerous and would have killed her if they had not delivered. He was so upset and luckily, they were far enough along for a caesarean but I wonder what they would have concluded if not? I do know of a case that was ectopic and they feared the mother would die but she wouldn't get surgery. Luckily, she and the baby made it. She definitely thought aborting in that case was sin. I've also known of others who got the okay from their ministers to abort to preserve the mothers' lives.

 

[JustKiya]

I know that it does in the interpretation of it in tradition. It was required to attempt to preserve your life.

Interesting. So, self-preservation is a valid reason to kill, according to the interpetations? :scratchch Hrm. VERY gray area.

Pooh - the reason her age matters is largely because of her physical size. I'm assuming she is your standard sized non-American, poverty-raised 10 y/o - which means that she's very petite, and her bones are most likely still forming. At 4 months, she most likely LOOKS like she's about 8 months, because the additional size of her uterus plus the baby has no place to go but out.
Add to that the fact that pregnancy can put a severe physical and nutritional strain on a woman's body - yes, this pregnancy CAN be life-threatening simply because of the size of her body and her age. I pray that they are planning on an very early C-section (32 weeks, or so).

 

[Poohbear]

Quadruple sigh and please stop trying to hijack this thread. It's a serious issue. Granted, you weren't aware of this blowup story on international news that's being talked about. I give you that. However, can we get back to the point of it? I'm not talking about people who abort out of inconvenience, I'm talking about self-defense medical prevention. It's not concerning any supposed sin of how one conceived, simply whether ABORTION ITSELF is allowable under the umbrella of christian theology in those circumstances. You understand the question, we all understand the question. Can you please allow me the courtesy of discussing this topic in the manner presented? Please. But feel free to start another thread concerning those other issues that are related, just not the topic in this thread. I hope you understand. I'm not mad at you.

Now, concerning this and quite a few other issues, the bible is surprisingly silent about them and I believe that God allowed this for interpretation for all the generations. We come to conclusions and further down the road, change our perceptions and beliefs of what the scriptures are saying. This particular issue is not presented in scripture cut and dry. I can think of a few others as well. So, what are you saying? Abortion is allowable in THIS circumstance or not?

It's funny how someone with a different view is considered a thread hijacker. I am in no way trying to steal, rob, or seize your thread...

And I'm not talking about people who abort out of convenience either. I'm talking about this topic at hand.

So now you're saying abortion is a self-defense medical prevention procedure?

Oh wow! What else will people, especially Christians, come up with to validate their actions?

But anyway, you're right about the issue of abortion is not cut and dry in the Bible. I believe that's why there are so many different stances on it.

 

[Guitarhero]

Interesting. So, self-preservation is a valid reason to kill, according to the interpetations? :scratchch Hrm. VERY gray area.

Pooh - the reason her age matters is largely because of her physical size. I'm assuming she is your standard sized non-American, poverty-raised 10 y/o - which means that she's very petite, and her bones are most likely still forming. At 4 months, she most likely LOOKS like she's about 8 months, because the additional size of her uterus plus the baby has no place to go but out.
Add to that the fact that pregnancy can put a severe physical and nutritional strain on a woman's body - yes, this pregnancy CAN be life-threatening simply because of the size of her body and her age. I pray that they are planning on an very early C-section (32 weeks, or so).

Yes, it is. http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/3768 Now, I realize that somebody here is going to go, Sanhedrin? But it's the mother faith of christianity. I'm thinking this, though, methodists, lutherans, catholics, orthodox, baptists, pentecostals etc., will mostly likely view this issue differently. I'm most thinking that evangelicals and pentecostals will definitely be against it.

 

[Poohbear]

Interesting. So, self-preservation is a valid reason to kill, according to the interpetations? :scratchch Hrm. VERY gray area.

Pooh - the reason her age matters is largely because of her physical size. I'm assuming she is your standard sized non-American, poverty-raised 10 y/o - which means that she's very petite, and her bones are most likely still forming. At 4 months, she most likely LOOKS like she's about 8 months, because the additional size of her uterus plus the baby has no place to go but out.
Add to that the fact that pregnancy can put a severe physical and nutritional strain on a woman's body - yes, this pregnancy CAN be life-threatening simply because of the size of her body and her age. I pray that they are planning on an very early C-section (32 weeks, or so).

I realize this. I guess most people are suggesting that abortion will do less harm to the girl's body than giving birth?

 

[Guitarhero]

It's funny how someone with a different view is considered a thread hijacker. I am in no way trying to steal, rob, or seize your thread...

And I'm not talking about people who abort out of convenience either. I'm talking about this topic at hand.

So now you're saying abortion is a self-defense medical prevention procedure?

Oh wow! What else will people, especially Christians, come up with to validate their actions?

But anyway, you're right about the issue of abortion is not cut and dry in the Bible. I believe that's why there are so many different stances on it.

NOOOOOO!!! I just am asking you address the subject itself. You are going off on a tangent mami!!! Love you tho

Well, I think it could be, self-defense. What do you think??? Under no circumstances? Then I'm wondering about self-defense itself, is it wrong then???

 

[Renovating]

I don't believe killing is not a sin under certain circumstances. I've never seen such interpretations and I'm interested in learning more about them.

CreoleNat, are there any scriptures that you can share with us that support that belief? I am not challenging you, but I want to know because it would possibly change my a sin is a sin mentality.

 

[JustKiya]

Yes, it is. http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/3768 Now, I realize that somebody here is going to go, Sanhedrin? But it's the mother faith of christianity. I'm thinking this, though, methodists, lutherans, catholics, orthodox, baptists, pentecostals etc., will mostly likely view this issue differently. I'm most thinking that evangelicals and pentecostals will definitely be against it.

Interesting. I always find it - interesting - that Christians go back to the OT so often.... but I suspect me understanding that would be another thread.

But that 'preemptive strike' line would be a perfect match for the idea of abortion to save the life of the mother.

Hrm. The more 'fundamental' (for lack of a better word) Christians would most likely stick to the 'It's in God's Hands whether the mother and child lived or died' and the less 'orthodox' Christians might consider stepping in.

Very interesting.

 

[Guitarhero]

I don't believe killing is not a sin under certain circumstances. I've never seen such interpretations and I'm interested in learning more about them.

CreoleNat, are there any scriptures that you can share with us that support that belief? I am not challenging you, but I want to know because it would possibly change my a sin is a sin mentality.

No, but that's what I'm trying to do next because I was just going to suggest we get some up in here lol. If anybody knows of some, please post them.

EDIT:

 

[Poohbear]

Revenons aux moutons....permissible in the case of saving the life of the mother!!! Pooh, I'm about to come and give you one of dese:gunner7: Don't go too far off tangent. I need to know this for a reason, c'mon nah.

Has anyone known personally of those in this situation? Sidenote: it would have been very interesting to know what the Duggars thought of this situation because her pregnancy turned dangerous and would have killed her if they had not delivered. He was so upset and luckily, they were far enough along for a caesarean but I wonder what they would have concluded if not? I do know of a case that was ectopic and they feared the mother would die but she wouldn't get surgery. Luckily, she and the baby made it. She definitely thought aborting in that case was sin. I've also known of others who got the okay from their ministers to abort to preserve the mothers' lives.

Trust me, I'm not trying to go far off tangent.

About the bolded in your above quote.... permissible by who?

You ask "Is abortion ever allowable?" Allowable by who?

Since I saw you posted in the Christian thread, I assumed you were talking about God. Are you talking about being permissible by mothers? Christians? Pro-lifers? Family members? Nature? Who?

 

[JustKiya]

I realize this. I guess most people are suggesting that abortion will do less harm to the girl's body than giving birth?

See, the issue is largely about the size of a full term uterus and child, and the stress placed on the body by it. One example is the stress placed on the liver - full grown women have to deal with pre-eclampsia and toxemia because their livers can't handle the additional work of pregnancy - her liver is significantly smaller, which makes her risk even higher. If they took the baby early - whether it could survive outside of the womb or not - all of that stress would be removed from her body.

At this stage, I suspect it wouldn't even be a 'vaginal' abortion - they might have to more or less give her a section, as the baby might be too big to fit through her pelvis already.

Surgery is usually less stressful to a childs body than pregnancy is.

*sigh*

 

[Renovating]

Does the Bible touch on self-defense, at all? Outside of the context of war, that is, which the Bible seems to have no reservations about.
Hrm. Could you present it in a manner that it is a bodily war between two individuals?

Because killing isn't always a sin, is it? I know in the Quran, it sure as heck isn't, and unless the Crusades were totally based in politics and not in Faith, it seems the Bible might hold some of the same feelings.

So, if killing isn't a sin - under certain circumstances - would aborting for the sake of the mothers life fall into one of those buckets?

I know that it does in the interpretation of it in tradition. It was required to attempt to preserve your life.

I couldn't find and that supported the interpretation you mentioned.



Gensis 9:5
5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

Romans 13:9
9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Exodus 20:13 13(A) "You shall not murder

No, but that's what I'm trying to do next because I was just going to suggest we get some up in here lol. If anybody knows of some, please post them.

 

[JustKiya]

I couldn't find and that supported the interpretation you mentioned.



Gensis 9:5
5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

Romans 13:9
9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Exodus 20:13 13(A) "You shall not murder

Hrm. I remember reading someplace - and y'all know how varied my reading is, so I don't know if this is an 'accepted' interpretation - that 'murder' did not equal killing in the original Hebrew. Murder was basically = killing a man of your tribe. Men of other tribes were not protected, nor were women and children. Killing a woman or a child was on the same level as killing a cow or a sheep or stealing dates - a crime against property of another man in your tribe, not a crime against another 'person'.

Is this an accepted Christian interpretation/have any of you heard something like this?

 

[Poohbear]

I couldn't find and that supported the interpretation you mentioned.



Gensis 9:5
5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

Romans 13:9
9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Exodus 20:13 13(A) "You shall not murder

I couldn't find any either supporting killing is not a sin under certain circumstances...

Alot of people see self-defense as "it's okay that I killed him because he tried to kill me!" The Bible actually speaks against this:

Matthew 5:39 (New International Version)
39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Romans 12:17 (New International Version)
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

 

[Renovating]

Hrm. I remember reading someplace - and y'all know how varied my reading is, so I don't know if this is an 'accepted' interpretation - that 'murder' did not equal killing in the original Hebrew. Murder was basically = killing a man of your tribe. Men of other tribes were not protected, nor were women and children. Killing a woman or a child was on the same level as killing a cow or a sheep - a crime against property of another man in your tribe, not a crime against another 'person'.

Is this an accepted Christian interpretation/have any of you heard something like this?

It sounds like a very interesting concept. So would the modern day equivalent to that be not murdering anyone outside of your family?

I hope not. We would all be fair game.

I'm just kidding.

Seriously, wouldn't the baby be considered to be a part of the same tribe as the mother, because I noticed you said murder= killing someone in your own tribe?

 

[Poohbear]

No, but that's what I'm trying to do next because I was just going to suggest we get some up in here lol. If anybody knows of some, please post them.

Oh, wait a min! I think I found a passage supporting your notion:

Exodus 22:2-3 (New International Version)

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.


So as long as you kill the person before sunrise, then it's okay. Sorry, couldn't help it...

 

[Renovating]

Oh, wait a min! I think I found a passage supporting your notion:

Exodus 22:2-3 (New International Version)

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.


So as long as you kill the person before sunrise, then it's okay. Sorry, couldn't help it...

 

[Poohbear]

Hrm. I remember reading someplace - and y'all know how varied my reading is, so I don't know if this is an 'accepted' interpretation - that 'murder' did not equal killing in the original Hebrew. Murder was basically = killing a man of your tribe. Men of other tribes were not protected, nor were women and children. Killing a woman or a child was on the same level as killing a cow or a sheep or stealing dates - a crime against property of another man in your tribe, not a crime against another 'person'.

Is this an accepted Christian interpretation/have any of you heard something like this?

I found this passage from gotquestions.org. It somewhat explains the difference between murder and killing...


Question: "Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life. However, the commandment itself has a couple of interesting elements that bear mentioning. First and foremost, different Bible translations give the appearance of different meanings and there is potential for misunderstanding the actual meaning of the verse. Second, man was never created for the act of murdering another and as such there needs to be an explanation for such a violent and final act towards another human being. Third, because of the translational challenge, we need to understand the difference between “murder” and “killing.” And last but not least, how does God view murder? To God, murder is not just physical in nature but also the condition of one’s heart towards another.

There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder / killing”. One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word “murder.” Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing the killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever popular King James Version renders the verse as “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of “Thou shalt not kill” was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by nation of Israel as a violation of God’s own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so clearly the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life.

Why does man murder? We know that we were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and as such we were made to live in harmony with God and with our fellow man. This harmony became impossible once sin entered into the picture (Genesis 3). With sin came the propensity of acting violently against one another. Anger, jealousy, pride and hatred can fuel man’s evil bent towards life-ending aggression. The first recorded act of murder was when Cain killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). From that moment on, taking the life of another has been commonplace and in some circles of society, acceptable. However, to God every life is important, and since God knew that man was sinful and evil and had become “lawless,” He enacted guidelines that would seek to modify man’s behavior (1 John 3:4).

So, is there a difference between murder and killing? First, it is important to note that not all killing is wrong. For instance, the apostle Paul talks about the right of the state to take the lives of evildoers (Romans 13:1-7). This relates to what is commonly referred to as capital punishment. If one breaks a law and commits murder, in most countries there are consequences for that action. In some cases this requires the life of the perpetrator and a suitable means of putting one to death is chosen and administered (Matthew 5:21; Exodus 21:14). Another instance of acceptable “killing” is that which is done during times of war and at the command of superiors. There were quite a few instances in Scripture where God endorsed and allowed the taking of other lives (1 Samuel 11; Judges 6–7). And finally, although far from acceptable, manslaughter is yet another form of killing someone. This unintentional act apparently happened so often in biblical times that cities of refuge were designated for the manslayer to seek refuge in (Exodus 21:13; Joshua 20). Again, it was never God’s intent to have to use such a drastic measure as taking one’s life to rectify a situation. So, God does make exceptions for the taking of another’s life as long as it lines up with His will. However, premeditated murder of an individual is never God’s will.

What is murder in God’s eyes? From the human perspective, murder is the physical act of taking another’s life. However, we also must consider that God defines murder as any thought or feeling of deep seated hatred or malice against another person. In other words it is more than just a physical act that constitutes murder to God who tells us that “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15 ESV). When we harbor hatred in our hearts for another, we have committed the sin of murder in God’s eyes. The disdain towards another person never has to be demonstrated outwardly because God looks upon the heart for the truth (1 Samuel 16:7; Matthew 15:19). As Christians and as human beings we know that unjustified killing is wrong. God’s Word is very clear on this point: “You shall not murder.” And what God says we must obey or we face the consequences on judgment day.

 

[JustKiya]

It sounds like a very interesting concept. So would the modern day equivalent to that be not murdering anyone outside of your family?

I hope not. We would all be fair game.

I'm just kidding.

Seriously, wouldn't the baby be considered to be a part of the same tribe as the mother, because I noticed you said murder= killing someone in your own tribe?

Technically, it would be to not kill any male of your family. erplexed Women and children are the property of the man, and if he decided to sacrifice his child (Abraham, anyone?) for the benefit of his family unit, he could.

If you think about it, this concept (killing a woman/child for the sake of the family) ties directly into the concept of modern day 'honor killings' which is a descendant of the cultures who wrote the Bible.

 

[Renovating]

Technically, it would be to not kill any male of your family. erplexed Women and children are the property of the man, and if he decided to sacrifice his child (Abraham, anyone?) for the benefit of his family unit, he could.

If you think about it, this concept (killing a woman/child for the sake of the family) ties directly into the concept of modern day 'honor killings' which is a descendant of the cultures who wrote the Bible.

That's true and a good example, but at that time Jesus had not made the ultimate sacrifice, so there's no excuse for these so called honor killings.
I SMH every time I hear about one.

 

[Guitarhero]

Interesting. I always find it - interesting - that Christians go back to the OT so often.... but I suspect me understanding that would be another thread.

But that 'preemptive strike' line would be a perfect match for the idea of abortion to save the life of the mother.

Hrm. The more 'fundamental' (for lack of a better word) Christians would most likely stick to the 'It's in God's Hands whether the mother and child lived or died' and the less 'orthodox' Christians might consider stepping in.

Very interesting.

I know of people who don't comprehend that their faith was first a Jewish sect. erplexed Jesus said He didn't come to change any punctuation, zilch, nada of the Law revealed at Sinai. In my opinion, it's not old.

 

[JustKiya]

That's true and a good example, but at that time Jesus had not made the ultimate sacrifice, so there's no excuse for these so called honor killings.
I SMH every time I hear about one.

Okay - this brings that question back up - so I'm gonna ask it, and I'd love to hear responses in PM's to not take the thread off track, if anyone is willing to explain it to me/talk me through it.

As I understand it, Jesus came and fulfilled the Law, right? So, the sacrifices, and other things that were required of the Jews are not required of the Christians, right? Because they (the Christians) aren't 'under' that law anymore, right?
So, why do Christians pull 'law' from the Old Testament? Isn't the rules in there more or less null and void because Jesus fulfilled the obligations that made God create those rules?

ETA:

I know of people who don't comprehend that their faith was first a Jewish sect. erplexed Jesus said He didn't come to change any punctuation, zilch, nada of the Law revealed at Sinai. In my opinion, it's not old.

Ahhhhhhhh. I understood it completely different - that his coming 'closed' the book on those Laws, so to speak. Hrm.

Thank you.

 

[Guitarhero]

I got so many responses before I was ready to post and it might be missed in the previous one if I edit it so here it is (and I have to leave for awhile, bummer, but I'll be back!!!!)

I understand the stance represented below to mean that they are protecting and promoting God's kingdom - that there are instances where one would have to defend physically, possibly resulting in death of another.

Matthew 5:39 Resist not evil. Jesus does not forbid the judicial application of the law, but personal revenge, such as was common among the Jews. Instead of turning upon those who injure us, and becoming a party to personal broils, it is the duty of Christians to suffer meekly.

Turn to him the other. This must be the Christian spirit, the great law of love, which endureth all things (1Co 13:7). This is not a code to be slavishly observed in the letter, but its spirit must always be preserved. For the application, see Joh 18:22 Ac 23:3. http://bible.cc/matthew/5-39.htm

Gen. 14:13-16

13 One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew. Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother [a] of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram. 14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15 During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. 16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people.

17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King's Valley).

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator [c] of heaven and earth.

20 And blessed be [d] God Most High,
who delivered your enemies into your hand."
Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

21 The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself."

22 But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' 24 I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share."


Ex. 17:8-13

8 The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua, "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands."

10 So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses' hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13 So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.

Romans 12:18

If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. (that there are times when you have to take up arms in defense?)

Jeremiah 6:14 14

They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.
'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace. ( I understood this one to mean that you have to make situations right)

 

[Guitarhero]

Trust me, I'm not trying to go far off tangent.

About the bolded in your above quote.... permissible by who?

You ask "Is abortion ever allowable?" Allowable by who?

Since I saw you posted in the Christian thread, I assumed you were talking about God. Are you talking about being permissible by mothers? Christians? Pro-lifers? Family members? Nature? Who?

Yes, ultimately by God But if you didn't get a dispensation, would you be considered excommunicated, non-christian, a very bad example or non-observant??? That kind of thing. Thanks for bringing that up because I realize my own faith differs from the majority of those here. I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[Guitarhero]

I couldn't find and that supported the interpretation you mentioned.



Gensis 9:5
5And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

Romans 13:9
9For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word. "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Exodus 20:13 13(A) "You shall not murder

Sorry, it was Jewish law. Since I quote so many "OT" scriptures, I wanted to include the Talmud and it's elaboration of topics/laws etc.

 

[Guitarhero]

I'm running to the doctor and have garlic hummus spilled on my sweater erplexed but I'll come lback in a few and look all this up. Where did you get it? Can you provide the url for my collection? This is what I meant and I've always wondered about war and whether one committed mortal sin or not or whether the stain of murder remains (but another topic, I know).

I found this passage from gotquestions.org. It somewhat explains the difference between murder and killing...


Question: "Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life. However, the commandment itself has a couple of interesting elements that bear mentioning. First and foremost, different Bible translations give the appearance of different meanings and there is potential for misunderstanding the actual meaning of the verse. Second, man was never created for the act of murdering another and as such there needs to be an explanation for such a violent and final act towards another human being. Third, because of the translational challenge, we need to understand the difference between “murder” and “killing.” And last but not least, how does God view murder? To God, murder is not just physical in nature but also the condition of one’s heart towards another.

There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder / killing”. One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word “murder.” Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing the killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever popular King James Version renders the verse as “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of “Thou shalt not kill” was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by nation of Israel as a violation of God’s own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so clearly the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life.

 

[Guitarhero]

What happened to the "thanks?"