I see- so according to the bible, abortion is murder.
So where does that leave those of us who don't believe in your bible? Do we have to abide by your religious 'Sharia Law' too?

How about the pill? Is using the pill murder too since it can prohibit a blastocyst from implanting in the uterus, is that murder?

How about IUDs?

Or birth control in general.

Where do you draw your line?

Do you believe that a victim of rape or incest should be able to obtain and abortion? If you do your whole argument falls apart.

Well icemilk, you can lead a horse to water.......

Good questions Ablonde, I personally do not draw the line anywhere as far as abortion, the issue is where does God draw the line? I put this post out there looking for some general comment.

While intercourse may involve the joining of a man and woman, it is conception that determines the beginning of the physical body as this is the technical completion of the union. I know some Christians who use birth control. My own opinion would tend to lean toward the notion that until the little scum guppy cracks the egg shell, physical life does not begin. (although, this could be considered an interference with God's plan too...I'm going to have to mull that one over) As to the rape and incest question, we have good in the world and we have bad in the world. If some bit of human trash were to have raped my mother when she was capable of reproduction, I would have wanted his contribution removed. However, although that would have been my personal desire, I would have to conclude that my mother's life lesson (and mine) would be to not have the abortion and just deal with the consequences as best as we would be able. God gives us no guarantee of an easy life, we must accept his trials and tribulations as best we can. (no matter how much they may suck)

I should have phrased the first part of my reply better. I believe abortion is murder of the physical body, but it's God's statement that matters not mine. Only through Jesus can we find salvation. Instead of saying I personally do not draw the line on abortion, I should have stated that it's God's opinion that counts, not mine. I just read the message, I don't write it. ( I apologize for my lack of clarity)

If abortion is murder because you are "interfering with god's plan," then do you agree that people should not use artificial insemination and other man-contrived means of having children? If a person is made by god, then if they can't have children this must be part of god's plan, correct? If artificially creating life is okay, why? God's biggest deal is that he can create life, right? So wouldn't our attempts to create life where there shouldn't be life more of an attempt at being godlike than killing something, with is a basic function of our existence as an omnivorous mammal? (I personally can not stand it when people "thank god" for helping them have kids artificially; apparently god didn't want you to have kids otherwise he wouldn't have made it impossible for you to have kids naturally).

It's a complex moral/ethical dilemma. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion; it is something I wish didn't exist but I understand that 1) there are a multitude of reasons why an abortion may be necessary and 2) my system of beliefs is different from others and I don't have a right to dictate what they do with their own bodies. Determining when "life" begins is complicated by when you consider "consciousness;" is a person really a person if they can't think, or feel? What does it mean to think (dolphins, great apes, and birds all exhibit things that if they looked like us would qualify them as thinking beings)? I can't propose a solid answer because pregnancy is unlike any other condition two people would be in together, and you can't compare it.

What about sperm? With the advent of cloning one can make another human being without fertilization. And with more sophisticated methods they will be able to use more commonplace tissues to clone another human. So if I clip my toenails or remove a piece of errant flesh wouldn't that be equivalent to killing potential human beings?

I've paid for plenty of abortions and I intend to pay for many more.

If you feel so strongly about it I suggest you only have sexual intercourse during the time period when pregnancy can occur. The back story of the non-choicers is the objectification of women as vessels of reproduction. If you are so worried about losing a spare fetus or two don't fuck unless you want a baby and only do it when you can get one.

All respect intended, but until a fertilized egg IMPLANTS into the uterus, there is no conception.

Abortion digusts me . . but I only speak for myself and can't tell another woman what to do with her body, nor would I judge those that have been in the horrible position of making said choice. It isn't my place.

I actually agree with the first half of your reply bodhistate. I'm glad we have technology and I'm especially glad we have medical technology. A century ago, one or two women per hundred died during childbirth. I think there are some areas where survival of the fittest must still apply. I can see adoption, but if a married couple cannot have children then they should not or they should adopt as there is obviously some issue as to why they cannot produce children on their own.

Americain.....the cloning issue is an interesting one. Look what happens to isolated groups of people who inbreed. The offspring get more screwed upwith each succeeding generation. Science has to overcome this issue with cloning. I think cloning will be much adoo about nothing. Interesting point though.

Ablonde....you should hear my wife complain about me not fulfilling my "duties". Your advice is correct. I'm getting older and tired.......as to your desire to have more abortions, hell.....eternity...pit of fire. Given that alternative, I'd chill out on the future abortions.

Your comments are always welcome LadyMiko.

I said I have paid for many abortions and will pay for many more. I did not say that I was the one having the abortions. Though if I were to get become pregnant and I did not wish to have a child I certainly would have one.

Heartily disagree and would not wish to debate on a topic so divisive.
But on the topic of cloning and robots read source articles from links to the latest issue of Science

http://open.salon.com/blog/traveller1/2009/04/03/adam_is_re-madeeve_to_follow_soon_can_we_re-create_eden/comment

OK Ablonde, my bad. (U still be goin' to hell though. REPENT and be saved!!!!!)

Traveller1...Abortion is a devisive topic, but feel free to comment as you wish. As you are clearly pro-choice, I will not be able to change your mind, but I'm not one of these forum members who deletes the posts of those who may disagree with me. (although it looks like we only have a few of those folks on here)

In a divisive debate/discussion over the net:

1) one cannot see the facial features of the person and stark words can seem to be quite cruel without that

2) you do not know who I am or what I am made of neither do I you and this topic has touched me personally too deeply. The pain is always around

3) if we were acquainted I would indeed invite you to a cup of tea and then comment

4) Without that personal touch of humanity, a divisive (with an "i" from the root word division I believe) debate can turn ugly very quickly and result in losing whatever tenuous connection one builds over the blogs.

I have seen that with one of my postings:
http://open.salon.com/blog/traveller1/2009/03/29/hope_in_the_world_trade_center_site

I tried to be as calm as possible yet it had a negative result. Id much rather just not debate but still wanted to bring your attention to the newest in Science. Plus I liked you post about the dwindling of world resources so I do want to keep reading your view points which is what should matter anyway correct?There's is just too much anger and fear around I believe.

Thus I demur.

Great read - You have lots of flies buzzing around this one.

I believe man was given a free will so he or she could make God's will manifested on this earth.

I believe all life has meaning - even that hamburger I had for lunch.

Your mention of the Bible - this great story can be twisted and turned in many directions except the basic fact that we are to love ourselves, our neighbors (that would be everyone without exception) and God.

I pray that I or anyone else is faced with this choice and wish it on no one but do understand that we all have a free will. As to right and wrong and who will be 'saved' - let he who is without sin cast the first stone' - and that we would not be me.

As what is the right road - that map is written in our hearts.

When does our soul become part of our body? It could be that our souls are always present even before conception.

Great read - You have lots of flies buzzing around this one.

I believe man was given a free will so he or she could make God's will manifested on this earth.

I believe all life has meaning - even that hamburger I had for lunch.

Your mention of the Bible - this great story can be twisted and turned in many directions except the basic fact that we are to love ourselves, our neighbors (that would be everyone without exception) and God.

I pray that I or anyone else is faced with this choice and wish it on no one but do understand that we all have a free will. As to right and wrong and who will be 'saved' - let he who is without sin cast the first stone' - and that we would not be me.

As what is the right road - that map is written in our hearts.

When does our soul become part of our body? It could be that our souls are always present even before conception.

Gramps, I also agree that a hamburger has meaning. It means the most to me when it's an 8-12 once patty cooked rare to medium rare and topped with BLT, mayo, ketchup and love. (on a sesame seed bun). I do get your other points too G.

Traveller1.....sorry you found the topic painful. You seem quite kindhearted. I shall keep eyeballing your posts as well.

yeah, you rw nutjobs are real big on trotting out the ol' "Thou shalt not kill." scripture when it suits you. yet you never see a war you didn't love and you're always in favor of capital punishment.

how do you get thou shall kill foreigners and murderers out of thou shalt not kill?

i don't give much weight to the ancient book of myths nor to those who selectively apply it in whatever hypocritical way they see fit. got any other arguments to support your point? 'cause this one doesn't fly.

Okeedokee Parrotdead, the "thou shalt not kill" applies to innocent victims not the buttholes that are due punishment.

guess i missed that, rw, where does it say that again?

Parrotdead, the Bible repeatedly speaks of punishment (Pharaoh, for example)and of the State being able to dish out punishment. (Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's).

You are correct that there is no shortage of hypocrites in Christianity. I'd estimate 95% of pastors are not Christians or are not properly teaching scripture. I go to an extremely conservative church and we certainly have our share there.

Nutjob, the Ten commandments do not make a distinction between capital punishment or premeditated homicide. That is an arbitrary interpretation. If an arbitrary distinction about guilt and punishment can be made, so can any other arbitrary distinction. In my view, abortion is not murder. Abortion is a procedure allowed by law. The notion that some "God" would place trials before humans to determine their worthiness is passive aggressive and small. It also defies the concept of omniscience. The whole mess is a convoluted, ancient story that makes no sense. Law determines whether a killing is justifiable homicide or murder. To say that a "god" interferes in the lives of humans, or would care to reduces the whole concept to a soap opera character.

You are correct, Bill, that the commandment is unequivocal, but the distinction is developed in the rest of scripture. As for the rest of your reply, I used to be of the school that there was no God until God appeared to me through a word of knowledge. Now, for me, it is not an issue of faith because I KNOW there is a God, however, I completely understand the position of those who feel otherwise and will further state that without divine intervention/revelation that I was not the type of person who would have developed faith. I get where you are coming from.

Well, I guess that you'll have convinced all the wavering conservative Christians on Open Salon that abortion is indeed murder.

I presume then that you think the usual punishment for murderers should be applied to women who've gotten abortions. There's not much wiggle room on that if you say, straight out, "Abortion is murder."

Rob, a conservative on OS isn't going to be convincing liberals of anything, but you raise an exceptionally interesting question. IMO abortion is murder, in the sense I previously described, and if it was up to me, I'd develop some method to prosecute those women, but I'm content to let them be dealt with on judgement day. (Let's face it, an abortion is no different than having the kid and drowning it in the bathtub.) Again, you asked an excellent question.

rwnutjob, I appreciate the general calmness you bring to this (except for telling people they're going to hell: is there anything worse a believer can accuse somebody of?).

I think you sidestepped icemilkcoffee's question, though. Are you suggesting that abortion is wrong only if you believe in your particular version of Jesus? If not, why are you more right in your faith and convictions than somebody who feels as passionately that you are wrong? Relativism, like gravity, is a bitch, but that doesn't make it something that can be ejected from the equation because it gives an answer we don't like.

In the end, I think moral absolutists like yourself actually increase the number of abortions, because you assume that your interpretation of morality is universal and then try to find solutions that meet a very narrow set of criteria. Those solutions fail, creating more unwanted conceptions and, correspondingly, more abortions. People who accept that in a situation like abortion—where the facts are unclear and the ethics extremely tricky and personal—are more effective in actually preventing abortions because they look for solutions that fit within the beliefs and lives of as many people as possible.

I sometimes wonder if it's easier for people who use the Bible to justify their morality in the way you do to mentally condemn people as damned than get into the messy uncertainty of the real world morality of their neighbors.

You speak of "interfering with God's plan," as if you know what God's plan is. You don't of course, hence you have no idea what reproductive technologies fit or do not fit that plan.

On the Bible and capital punishment, no position, in the sense of a coherent argument, is "developed" over the course of Scripture. To the contrary, Scripture is quite ambiguous, not to say contradictory on the issue. Your own use of Scripture is suspect to say the least. The Biblical passage render to Caesar could only count as a justification for capital punishment insofar as our earthly lives belonged to the state and were therefore subject to state disposition. But of course Christ never says exactly what is Caesar's beyond the coin with his likeness inscribed. The assumption that our earthly bodies belong to the state is a political one not grounded in Scripture at all. Even if there were an exception from the dictum do not kill for certain criminal offences, the rate of wrongful conviction indicates that capital punishment does involve the "shedding of innocent blood" all too frequently. And how could it be otherwise? Infallible judgment is an attribute reserved to the almighty and we shouldn't arrogate it by putting people to death for crimes of which we may believe bu cannot with certainty know them to be guilty.

You have presented a thoughtful reply Specular. God is God. I do not know why things are set up like they are. We have many different religions and many sects of Christianity. The Bible is what it is and it says what it says; it is not MY morality, but God's morality that is the issue. There is one version of Jesus and one version of Christianity......all of the others are wrong, having been misinterpreted by their leaders/followers. Any religion other than true Christianity is a false religion. That's just how it is.

As far as my condemning people as damned goes, I point out sins, but I lack the power to condemn. While I personally haven't committed every sin, I have racked up a pretty good score. Although my father was a man of faith, he was working all of the time to support the family. My mother went to church regularly but has never been a believer. I had to go through the school of hard knocks before God hit me over the head, so, although I will point out the sins of others, it is done knowing that I have a big log in my own eye. I personally cannot stand some haughty, holier than thou Bible thumper who rags on everyone else and then goes home and screws his daughter in the ass. I hope that is not how I'm coming across. I point out sins in an effort to make people consider that there may be life after death--there is--and hope that some might choose a future of eternal life instead of eternal torment.

I tried to frame my reply so that it answered directly or indirectly the questions you asked in your reply. I understand your point and life is, indeed, not always black and white, but one can and must limit the gray areas.

You too make some good points Libertarius. I do not, nor does anyone, know what God's plan is, but I do know that taking an innocent life interferes with that plan. In instances where there has been a wrongful conviction and execution, there most certainly is going to be punishment for those who made the error.

A good portion of the Bible deals with punishment for crimes and sins. The State has the ability to punish criminals, but there is also the obligation to make absolutely certain that only the guilty are punished. Our earthly bodies belong to God, but the State can render necessary punishment.

I think God provisions for technology in that, if you can prevent conception, that would probably not rate punishment, but once the tadpole breaks the egg shell then it's a done deal.

rwnutjob, when you write, "all of the others are wrong, having been misinterpreted by their leaders/followers," doesn't that make you wonder if YOU might be among those misinterpreting? This is one of the things I most struggle to understand in religious people of a certain type (I know a great many who acknowledge that they could be completely full of crap). If you believe that many people with religious beliefs are out-and-out wrong, then it would seem imperative to figure out why you might be different or accept that you're beliefs are beliefs, no more or less likely to be right than the next persons.

It seems the height of egotism to assume that you are in a small minority of truly enlightened. Not only are there literally billions of people who have great faith but do not share your views, but we've recently had ample evidence that people are immensely fallible in their beliefs. The economists who were convinced with religious zeal that they understood the economic system proved to be horribly wrong. In matters of faith, we have no evidentiary basis to make decisions, so our ability to know if we're wrong or not is even more likely to fall prey to our egos and emotional needs.

Thus, it's extremely difficult for me to understand how a thoughtful person like yourself doesn't at some point arrive at the "this is what works for me" position and accept that perhaps your answers are limited or even entirely wrong.

Specular, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I am a bit hurt at being lumped into the same category as economists.....admittedly a four year period of very heavy drinking did take its toll on gazillions of my conservative brain cells, but I'd still like to think I have more gray matter than they do.

"The scholar Terence Fretheim notes, "In view of certain passages (e.g., 1 Kings 21:19) it has been suggested that the verb means murder" (1991, p. 232). He goes on to note that this phrase can refer to unintentional killing (Deut. 4:41–42) or the execution of a convicted murderer (Num. 35:30). A growing number of scholars now agree that this term for killing in Hebrew that is used in the Ten Commandments is never used in Hebrew Scripture to refer to the type of killing that takes place in a war. "
http://www.deathreference.com/Sy-Vi/Thou-Shalt-Not-Kill.html

murder is not defined simply as the taking of someone else's life. the notion that it's not murder to kill a person in the context of a just war implies that this definition is not as firm as you seem to argue.

in fact, the bible itself further clarifies this point:

""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" (Exod. 21:22–25).

a miscarriage is not a murder, because clearly, no life was taken, according to the book of exodus.

what has changed?

LOL, rwnutjob, while your post doesn't contain a hint that you might be anything less than The authority on the matter, you certainly have wit and grace in your replies.

bstrangely, Good digging on the Exodus 21:22-25 quote, but there are some translational issues addressed in the following article:

Exodus 21:22-25: Translations & Mistranslations

By Gary Butner, Th.D.

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.

A majority of the pastors and mature Christians are familiar with these obscure verses in Exodus. It is unlikely they are aware of important translation updates which have been made to the passage above which will be discussed later in this article. They may or may not be aware these verses have a strong relationship to the cultural war currently dividing our country. It is also unlikely they are aware of the detrimental effect this passage has had on the spiritual condition of their congregation. Indeed, I have found a majority in the Pro-Life Movement is completely unaware these verses are the mantra for the Pro-Abortion Movement when combating those familiar with the Bible. Every fourth woman sitting in the pews has undergone an abortion and this passage was likely used to counter any spiritual objections they raised prior to their abortion. Sitting in our pews are many additional women who will fall victim to this vicious attack unless pastors provide their flocks with a proper exegesis for the passage. I realize fighting abortion is not a pleasant topic, but it can be handled delicately and decisively if the Christian warrior sets his mind to the task.

The pro-abortion sales technique for overcoming spiritual objections goes like this; God only punishes the guilty person(s) with a fine if the fetus is lost in an accidental miscarriage, but invokes equal punishment if the woman is injured or killed as a result of the accident. The implication being: 1) the unborn child only has a monetary value to God, 2) the unborn child is not a person, hence their use of the word "fetus," and 3), the woman has infinite value while the fetus has little if any value. At first glance the New American Standard and many other English translations would appear to validate their position. There are several errors in their position and points that follow:

These verses have nothing to do with abortion, which the pro-abortion side will admit if pushed. However, a correct exegesis can be used to destroy the pro-abortion position.

The Hebrew word translated child or fruit "yeled" is plural, hence children. The woman might be pregnant with twins. This is the same word used for babies and young children throughout the OT (Gen. 21:8; Ex. 2:3). The preborn is considered to be just as much a person as any young child.

The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth.

It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage "shakal" just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage.

The Hebrew doesn't indicate if the injuries in question are those sustained by the woman or the child(ren). A reading, just by glancing at the order of the words (not a strong argument for Hebrew) and by the force of the case of the pronouns (a stronger argument) would indicate that the possible injuries are relative to either. The great Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto, wrote, "But if any mischief happen, that is, if the woman dies or the children die, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, etc.: you, 0 judge (or you, 0 Israel, through the judge who represents you) shall adopt the principle of 'life for life,' etc." Clearly this point places an equal value on both woman and child in calling for punishment if either is injured or killed.

The use of the word "further" in the text is not in the Hebrew nor is it implied. A literal translation for the whole sentence really should read, "And when men struggle together and strike a pregnant woman [or wife] and her children come forth, but there is no injury, he shall certainly be fined, as the husband of the woman shall impose on him, and he shall give [or pay] in [the presence of] the judges; but if there shall be an injury, then you shall pay eye for eye, life for life."

The pro-choice rendering of these verses is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture or the teaching of the Early Church Fathers. Twice in the Didache, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," the Exodus 21:22-25 passage is referenced, "Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practice witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten." ABORTION IS CLEARLY LABELED MURDER IN BOTH SECTIONS.

As mentioned earlier, the pro-choice position implies the unborn child has little value or is not a person. Denying the person of Christ was in the womb from the moment of conception is a denial of the Incarnation. John 1:14 Deny the person of Christ in the flesh at any point, including in the womb, and one is anti-Christian...opposed to Christ. I John 4:1-4

Specular, my post does not contain a hint that I might be anything less than THE authority on the matter because I AM the authority on the matter.......at least in my own mind......what's left of it.

JLee, the Bible may not affect you now, but it will on judgement day.

If "God" is the only entity that can create or take away life, then why are all kinds of medicine, life-support procedures, surgeries, CPR, etc. not categorized as sinful and condemned? By stepping into prevent someone from death or to prolong a life people are interfering with or violating that god's plan in the same way they are when they make the decision to end a pregnancy. Unless you're a Christian Scientist, this logic doesn't hold up.

Here's the difficulty I have (I'm not at all an expert, but I do like consistency) with this passage: It's in a section of rules for how to be a proper slave-owner. Including rules about how to properly sell your daughter into slavery. Rules about putting to death people who strike or even curse their parents. Equivalences between slaves and money.

I think it's cherry picking to say, "Okay, here's what the Bible says about the status of a fetus in the womb," while ignoring some of the really barbaric things that it says just a few sentences earlier about the nature of human relationships. Why should we pay any attention at all? For example, would you support a law requiring the death penalty for anyone who says, "Go to hell, Dad"?

@rw
Actually, when I spoke of "reproductive technologies" and what some take to be "God's plan," I was in fact referring to reproduciton not contraception. Specifically, I was referring to such "unnatural" means of procreation as in vitro or turkey basters, which as you may know are outlawed in certain Christian sects (see Roman Catholicism) as an unwarranted interference with God's script for humanity. My point was we cannot possibly know that in vitro is not part of said script.

As for the many biblical passages dealing with state punishment, I see them as neither reconcilable with nor overridding of the simple commandment, "Thou Shall Not Kill." I accordingly renew my earlier claim, unrefuted anywhere in these comments, that no single, uncontradictory position on state sponsored homicide as a means of justice is advanced in Scripture. Certainly the passage, Vengeance is mine saith the Lord would tend to support the commandment upon which I rely in my objection to capital punishment.

There is no commandment, "Thou Shall not Lie," only Thou shalt no Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor,' a very specific and virulent form of untruth. The Decalogue, then, exhibits a willingness to be meticulously particular when indicated. If it had meant to prohibit only the taken of innocent life, it would have siad so (as in "Thou Shalt Not Spill Innocent Blood" or Thou Shalt Not Kill the Guiltless" etc.)

For me, the conservative christian support for capital punishment remains a rationalization intended to reconcile religious doctrine to political belief.

You know what? God is crazy about me. He digs me, abortion and all.

Oh, that letter was very funny, JLee, if I remember correctly.

Ok, it looks like the pro-abortion SWAT team has showed up. Instead of addressing each of your reasoned arguments, at this point I'll just say faith is faith. If you find fault with scripture then you find fault with scripture. If you believe abortion is OK, then fine. Remember though that we only have two choices....eternal life or eternal death. Given those choices, why would anyone not want salvation. Although our political and religious views differ, I have discovered that many on OS are extremely intelligent and talented professionals..........I'd just hate to see y'all make a terrible mistake.

It does seem odd that we could engage in activities within our relatively short lifespans that could cause us to suffer incredible pain for an eternity, but that apparently is the deal. I have much to answer for and hope that I will be shown Divine mercy...I wish that for all of you as well.

Aaron, the new covenant basically modifies the old covenant. We do not need to perform routine animal sacrifice as atonement for sins since Jesus paid one terrible price once and for all to pardon our sins. Christians must still obey God's laws, but certain ceremonial and dietary restrictions have been eliminated with the new covenant.

The fact that Jesus died for our sins does not mean we can keep sinning and expect forgiveness. The new covenant actually holds Christians to a higher standard since Jesus mentioned that we can be condemned for mere thoughts instead of actual deeds. Your interpretation of scripture is at your peril.

Aaron, Jesus is the only way to salvation. Merely recognizing this fact without the requisite change of heart and behavior will guarantee nothing. I understand your points, but the Bible needs to be taken as a whole. Anyone can pick out a sentence or two and make a point. I understand the concepts of love and forgiveness, but there are certain behaviors/sins that will not be forgiven regardless of how much you would like that to be the case.

Aaron, if you accept Jesus as your savior and then go and kill someone, then ask forgiveness, then next week kill someone else, then ask forgiveness, then go molest some kid, then ask forgiveness, you WILL NEVER receive salvation. That is my only point. Your contention seems to be that you can continue to commit serious sins, ask for forgiveness, and continue to perform serious sins. That interpretation of scripture is inaccurate.

"The Hebrew word mistranslated miscarriage in this verse is "yatsa," which actually means to "come out" or "give birth." This word is regularly used for live birth in the OT. In fact, it is never used for miscarriage, though it is used once for still birth. In this passage, as in virtually all OT texts, it refers to a live, though premature birth.

It is very important to note the same writer used the normal word Hebrew word for miscarriage "shakal" just two chapters later in Exodus 23:26. This clearly indicates the writer had something besides miscarriage in mind for the Exodus 21:22-25 passage."

then what was it?

my point is only that according to the bible, a lost fetus is not a lost life. it never has been. the word "yatsa" is also translated as "departed", "exiled" and "lost". it implies nothing about live birth.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03318

in fact, in numbers 12:12 it refers to a stillbirth as you say. why do you believe that's unimportant?
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=nu+12:12&t=str&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1

"Twice in the Didache, "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," the Exodus 21:22-25 passage is referenced, "Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not commit pederasty, thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not practice witchcraft, thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten."

this is not the bible. nothing in the bible suggests your interpretation is more correct than the one i quoted. if you believe your knowledge of hebrew is superior, that's certainly fine, but i do not find it at all compelling.

bstrangely, at this point, you and I are in the middle of a tennis game. None of my arguments will be compelling to you. Ultimately, scripture is consistent, but I will allow that translations of 2000 year old texts are subject to a bit of uncertainty. My belief is that scripture is clear...........which is your belief as well, apparently. We'll agree to disagree then.

no, apparently i explained myself poorly. my argument was that scripture is unrepentantly not clear on the subject. if it was clear, i couldn't make my argument.

you are asserting that you know exactly what every word in the bible means in a very nuanced and sophisticated way. maybe you're absolutely right. but what kind of god would be at all unclear about this message? what would make him create a text that made st augustine and st thomas aquinas interpret it so unlike the way you do?
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm

bstrangely, I am sorry I misinterpreted you. I read your link and I have to consider the source. I consider the modern Catholic church to be nothing more than a continuing criminal enterprise for pedophiles, so I do not put much stock into any dogma they may barf out.

If we assume that the Bible IS the word of God and that the compiling and editing of scripture was done by men under divine guidance, then we must have equal faith the Bible is consistent. There are many passages which people cite as contradictory, but that upon further examination prove to be consistent.

I do not know what every word in the Bible means, but in my heart I know it is consistent. If I find a contradictory passage, I consult with those more knowledgable than myself to explain my error in interpretation. I apologize again for missing your previous point and I appreciate your link and discussion. Thanks.

"If we assume that the Bible IS the word of God and that the compiling and editing of scripture was done by men under divine guidance, then we must have equal faith the Bible is consistent. There are many passages which people cite as contradictory, but that upon further examination prove to be consistent."

in your opinion.

i notice that you said nothing about aquinas' interpretation or augustine's, in favor of simply noting the address of the link and disregarding it. why do you disbelieve? if you believe the bible is the word of god, yet rely on only one or two interpretations which only reflect a very very modern view of science (does anyone still talk about quickening?)... then i must point out, that god has allowed the church to mislead people for centuries.

there is nothing to suggest your view is correct. nothing, but your assertion. do you truly believe these men had "divine guidance"?
http://michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-did-saint-augustine-really-say.html

then how could they believe differently from you?

"Aquinas did question when the soul was created. He spoke of the then-current scientific conviction that a male child was not fully enough developed to be judged human (and therefore to have a soul) until forty days, and that the female fetus could not be judged fully human until eighty days. This obviously says something about scientific knowledge of that age."
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_30.asp

how about pope innocent iii? it simply isn't possible for me to assume what you do, because there is too much literature from some very confused people to wade through, that implies that there is no consistent view. evidence of divine guidance seems exceedingly hard to come by, unless you assume it is already there.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm

God is God, strangely. I do not why the Bible evolved as it has, nor do I know why the world is as it is. Some folks rely on faith and some do not.

Honestly, I wish the world was different and we could all be happy and at peace. I'd rather not have kids growing up in the world we live in today.

I understand how people who are religious would believe that abortion is murder. That doesn't meant that a religious belief should be made into law.