I keep being told that God objects to abortion...

[Contenders Edge]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

You need to understand that what God is commanding is not the killing of innocent babies as many have charged. At the time that God made this command, the wickedness of the nations that God told the Israelites to drive out had reached a height that even the children were given over to it.

But the reason why we can't comprehend how this can be is because we have not yet experienced such a level of wickedness in our respective societies. We would have had to have lived and walked among the people whom God destroyed from off the face of the earth to understand why even the children and the babies could not be allowed to live and if we could all have witnessed the height of the evil in those particular societies, only then might we have a full understanding of why God issued the command that He did

I understand that this could very well stray from the thread topic and I do want to be careful about that but what we have to understand about evil is that it is not confined to just human sinful behavior, but that there is also demonic evil as well. It is very well possible that these particular nations and peoples who were destroyed and driven out of the land Canaan had sold themselves over to wickedness to such an extent so as to attract a degree of demonic influence that was so strong that even the children of these people had become corrupted beyond redemption and that is not the first time that such a thing has happened.

In Genesis chapter 6, we read about how the sons of God (angels but fallen ones in this case) had managed to produce corrupted offspring by interbreeding with the daughters of men. Now I know there is bound to be some debate about this but these corrupted offspring were known as Nephilim and this unholy activity between man and the celestial hosts involved was partly the reason why God destroyed the world with a flood save for Noah and those who were with him in the Ark, but not only were there Nephilim before the flood, scripture goes on to say that there were Nephilim even after the flood due to this demonic activity that was taken place between the wicked angels and man (Gen. 6:4)

That being said, it could be very well possible that due to the level of demonic activity taking place within the people whom the Israelites were told to destroy and drive out (which they didn't fully do by the way), their offspring were so corrupted and so wicked by nature that they too had to be wiped out.

Understand that nothing that God does is unjust or inconsistent. He is always just and always consistent in His ways.

 

[St_Worm2]

He ordered the killing of every man, woman, and child. That means sanctioned infanticide. Which means that there is NO absolute prohibition on abortion (because abortion too is infanticide).

Hello Inkfingers, if we follow your line of reasoning it would mean that there is no prohibition by God against murder, period (of any age, not just infants). Are you really willing to go that far?

Considering what the Decalogue's Commandment #6 tells us, it seems to me that you should consider a different line of reasoning

--David

​

 

[Cis.jd]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

The OT is very hard to come to understanding. I may be disagreed with here, but my way of being comfortable with these verses was coming to acceptance that a lot of the things where you read "God did this" or certain events where it God has some form of involvement in the OT probably wasn't historically true.

It could also be possible that writings involving God's dialogue/involvement with certain situations is on the same kind of nature as some person who says "God moved me to this location for xyz". He/she could be right but also could just believe so.

Us Catholics do not find importance in the historicity of the OT. We don't see the Truth in the events but the truth is in the message of the text. The main thing in the Bible that has to be believed as historical/factual is the Gospels. Your Faith is defined in the Apostles Creed not if/if not events in the OT are historical as narrated.

 

[chad kincham]

That does not, however, suggest that Christians have a mission to use the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians.

America has a law against murder and homicide, and abortion on demand is both.

The government displays blatant hypocrisy, in that if someone injures a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, provided she wanted the baby, they charge the perpetrator with manslaughtrer or murder - but if she doesn’t want her baby, she can pay a doctor to legally kill the child in her womb.

 

[St_Worm2]

They are genetically human, but they aren't viable human persons (which is what murder would require).

Hello Bekkilyn, the Bible demands life for life in the case of an unintentional abortion (that results in the baby's death) .. Exodus 21:22-25, and our courts, even today, convict men (or women) of murder if their actions result in the death of an unborn child (Scott Peterson, for instance, was convicted of the 1st Degree murder of his wife, Laci, and the 2nd Degree murder of their unborn son, Conner back in 2002, I believe).

Here is an odd (and what would have formerly been unbelievable) twist to their story. Had Laci and Conner ~not~ been murdered by Scott, but instead, Laci decided to take the life of her unborn son by abortion, no murder would have occurred according to the law, even though her son would have been just as dead by her hand as he actually was by Scott's.

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green​

.
~The Abortion Clock

 

[chad kincham]

God knew when a people-group had become so wicked - wicked to the point of no return - to the point of harm to themselves and their children AS a people group. At that moment - a moment only God can discern, he passed judgment. And that can include death.

Not only that, but God First sent prophets to warn the wicked cities to repent of their evil ways, like He did to Nineveh, for example.

There’s another reason to kill everyone including children, involving fallen angels, nephilim, human/angel hybrids that are a corruption of humans - which is why God destroyed the world in a flood, because the hybrids had badly corrupted humanity.

 

[chad kincham]

I'm not criticising the actions of Joshua. I'm criticising the position that says God hates child-killing so abortion is wrong. God clearly does not not hate infanticide (as he has ordered it to occur at least once before).

You seem to misunderstand how things work.

A human judge can sentence someone to death, but we as individuals cannot judge someone worthy of death, apart from self defense. We don’t have that authority, but a judge does.

God is the ultimate judge. We aren’t.

If as judge He sentences someone to death, he has the authority - we don’t have authority to judge the unborn worthy of death because they are an inconvenience.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My Amish former neighbors would tell you that we cannot kill even in self defense.

"I would thee no harm, young man, but thee standest where I am about to shoot!"

 

[ABCthings]

He ordered the killing of every man, woman, and child.

That means sanctioned infanticide. Which means that there is NO absolute prohibition on abortion (because abortion too is infanticide).

God ordered killings too so I should be able to maim anyone want with no absolute law prohibiting it?

 

[bekkilyn]

Hello Bekkilyn, the Bible demands life for life in the case of an unintentional abortion (that results in the baby's death) .. Exodus 21:22-25, and our courts, even today, convict men (or women) of murder if their actions result in the death of an unborn child (Scott Peterson, for instance, was convicted of the 1st Degree murder of his wife, Laci, and the 2nd Degree murder of their unborn son, Conner back in 2002, I believe).

Here is an odd (and what would have formerly been unbelievable) twist to their story. Had Laci and Conner ~not~ been murdered by Scott, but instead, Laci decided to take the life of her unborn son by abortion, no murder would have occurred according to the law, even though her son would have been just as dead by her hand as he actually was by Scott's.

--David

"A baby is cradled / carried in the womb of it's mother, to grow and be nurtured until birth. Each baby is a wholly separate person from it's mother: With different DNA, different fingerprints, with possibly a different blood type or the opposite sex. The baby is a person living within a person and not "the mother's body". The mom is appointed to care for the separate life she carries within her and once it's born, find a home for her baby, if she can't provide one." -- Melody Green​

.
~The Abortion Clock

Perhaps this commentary from the NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible can help to explain the passage in Exodus you quoted:

There are two possible understandings of this verse, both having to do with who sustains serious injury—the fetus or the mother. Ancient Near Eastern parallels to this law suggest the mother is in view. Four other law codes address the issue of a man’s striking a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry. All stipulate monetary penalties that the assailant must pay in order to compensate the family for the loss of the child. Three of these codes go on to consider what to do if the woman is killed by the blow. In two, the man who struck the blow is to be killed. In another, the daughter of the man is killed, since the law assumes that he struck the pregnant daughter of another man. Only once is the death of the fetus linked to a death penalty: If the husband of the victimized woman has no sons and the fetus is male, the perpetrator is to be killed. In light of the provisions in these other codes, it seems likely that this law in Exodus follows their general pattern. The law calls for a fine in this verse, probably as compensation for the fetus. It then addresses possible “serious injury” to the woman. If she dies, the perpetrator dies—“life for life” (v. 23). Otherwise, the perpetrator will suffer a punishment similar to that inflicted on the woman (vv. 24–25).

This passage isn't talking about abortion or even murder. It's about what penalty should be bestowed on another for loss of a man's (not a woman's) property, and how that man should be compensated based on the seriousness of the loss.

Just because we may not like the idea of abortion doesn't mean we add it into the bible when it doesn't exist and decide on God's behalf what he thinks of the matter.

Abortion happened back in those days as well and if they were as obsessed with the topic as we seem to be, it would surely have been clearly addressed in scripture, but it wasn't. Not even once despite scripture going into detail on such topics as menstruation and men spilling their seed on the ground, etc.

 

[bekkilyn]

The OT is very hard to come to understanding. I may be disagreed with here, but my way of being comfortable with these verses was coming to acceptance that a lot of the things where you read "God did this" or certain events where it God has some form of involvement in the OT probably wasn't historically true.

It could also be possible that writings involving God's dialogue/involvement with certain situations is on the same kind of nature as some person who says "God moved me to this location for xyz". He/she could be right but also could just believe so.

Us Catholics do not find importance in the historicity of the OT. We don't see the Truth in the events but the truth is in the message of the text. The main thing in the Bible that has to be believed as historical/factual is the Gospels. Your Faith is defined in the Apostles Creed not if/if not events in the OT are historical as narrated.

I largely agree with you. The salvation message of the gospel is still the same regardless of whether a huge fish literally swallowed Jonah for three days, or if that story is some sort of metaphor. Our faith doesn't depend on it literally being historic fact. (Of course, this is a whole different other conversation, though one I find far more interesting than neverending arguments over abortion.)

 

[mindlight]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

If we knew with clear Divine insight that the child in its mothers womb would be evil and dammed and would only ever be a toxic presence on this earth then I believe we would have the right to execute it. But since that insight belongs to God abortion is playing God and is therefore murder.

 

[RDKirk]

America has a law against murder and homicide, and abortion on demand is both.

The government displays blatant hypocrisy, in that if someone injures a pregnant woman and she loses her baby, provided she wanted the baby, they charge the perpetrator with manslaughtrer or murder - but if she doesn’t want her baby, she can pay a doctor to legally kill the child in her womb.

That has nothing to do with what I said:

That does not, however, suggest that Christians have a mission to use the sheriff's gun to force pagans to act like Christians.

 

[RDKirk]

The OT is very hard to come to understanding. I may be disagreed with here, but my way of being comfortable with these verses was coming to acceptance that a lot of the things where you read "God did this" or certain events where it God has some form of involvement in the OT probably wasn't historically true.

It could also be possible that writings involving God's dialogue/involvement with certain situations is on the same kind of nature as some person who says "God moved me to this location for xyz". He/she could be right but also could just believe so.

Us Catholics do not find importance in the historicity of the OT. We don't see the Truth in the events but the truth is in the message of the text. The main thing in the Bible that has to be believed as historical/factual is the Gospels. Your Faith is defined in the Apostles Creed not if/if not events in the OT are historical as narrated.

I tend to agree.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

They are genetically human, but they aren't viable human persons (which is what murder would require), at least up to some point of physical development when practically no one would dispute it and there can and likely should be some debate as to where and under what conditions to draw the line. But when we are simply talking about a fertilized egg or an embryo, no.

And when it comes to actual murder, we still create gods in our own image because we are defining what is a murder and what is not a murder on his behalf. After all, it's perfectly fine and righteous to blow up an entire city with an atomic bomb but somehow a woman should get the death penalty for taking a morning after pill?

Did you read the verse I referenced? Jeremiah and abortion - Adam4d.com

Then there's Psalm 51:5: 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.'
The second clause should be enough to quell any doubt.

Also, I never said anything that is even slightly related to the notion that 'it's perfectly fine and righteous to blow up an entire city with an atomic bomb'

 

[Archivist]

"I would thee no harm, young man, but thee standest where I am about to shoot!"

Never heard any of the Amish say thee. That was the Quakers (who also traditionally won’t raise a finger in self-defense.

I went to a Quaker wedding one time. We all sat on silence for a long time until the bride and groom stood up, pledged their love to each other and agreed to be husband and wife. No one pronounced them husband and wife, they did it themselves. After the service we all signed their church license as ministers. One person was designated to sign the official license because that is all that can sign under state law.

 

[Blade]

So God told them to do this? I thought God handed him over to them and they did what?

"And the LORD our God delivered him over to us; so we defeated him, his sons, and all his people. We took all his cities at that time, and we utterly destroyed the men, women, and little ones of every city; we left none remaining."

So..

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

...but then I read Deuteronomy 2:33-34 and see that He sanctioned infanticide without any problem.

How do people reconcile those two stances?

"20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9)

"And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21)

"...Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25)

"‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand" (Deuteronomy 32:39)

"5For I know that the LORD is great; our Lord is above all gods. 6The LORD does all that pleases Him in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and in all their depths." (Psalm 135)

 

[Bond-servant of Christ]

illegal or immoral

but not so if the God of the Bible is the One taking the action!

 

[bekkilyn]

Did you read the verse I referenced? Jeremiah and abortion - Adam4d.com

Then there's Psalm 51:5: 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.'
The second clause should be enough to quell any doubt.

Also, I never said anything that is even slightly related to the notion that 'it's perfectly fine and righteous to blow up an entire city with an atomic bomb'

Well the verse in Jeremiah only goes to show that it is not the fertilized egg, embryo, or unviable fetus that is the person, and that we are not our physical bodies. We *have* them, but we are not them. So of course God would know each person before they were ever breathed into a physical body because they already exist with God, or at least in his mind, and that would be true regardless.

And as for the Psalms, every part of our physical world is corrupted by sin. It's saturated into our very cells, and so the cells being conceived would be affected and so would a child at birth in spite of never having the opportunity to sin. It's the human condition and has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

There is nothing anywhere in the bible that discusses abortion, mentions abortion, or gives us any indication of God's opinion of it. Everything we think on the topic comes from us and our own personal or cultural biases, and deciding that it comes from God is an attempt to create him in our own image. We can't use "God's will" to enforce our opinion of it either way.

I brought up the topic of blowing up a city with an atomic bomb because when we've done it, it murdered many and did not distinguish between adults, children, or even unborn. Anyone in it's path was destroyed and we consider it within our rightful authority to do whenever we believe it is justified, and yet, we go on getting outraged and demanding the death penalty for a woman who chooses to take a morning after pill.

Which indicates that this argument has very little or nothing to do with the unborn or saving lives and everything to do with exerting control over other people (in this case, women.) If we truly cared about children, we would be spending all of the energy we spend in attempts to criminalize women on actually creating safe and healthy environments for women to raise children and for children to thrive and making it economically feasible for even the poorest of women and children to prosper. But instead, we take the easy way out, talking about how much we appreciate life when we really don't.