The word of God makes it clear to us that abortion is not a sin.

by Abaddon 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  PeacefulPete,

  That Scripture in Job shows that, according to the Bible, Job's spirit/soul was already inside Job when he was in the womb.

  Also, I noticed that no one has replied to the questions I asked above, so I am going to post them again, with a few things added:

  According to your beliefs, what is the exact moment when a baby becomes a living human being that is protected under the United States Laws against Murder? At birth? So, does that mean, according to you, it is perfectly okay to kill a baby in the womb 5 minutes before it would have been born? Also, is it okay then to partially deliver the baby, but then intentionally leave part of the baby's body inside the mother, and then rip the brains out of the baby?

  Also, why stop there?

  Why not claim that the spirit/soul does not enter the baby until the baby can talk? Afterall, when Adam became a living person, he could talk!

  So, then, why not claim that it is perfectly okay in God's eyes to kill your baby until it can talk?

  Or, why not claim that the soul/spirit leaves a person when they get so old that they cannot remember much anymore?

  Or, if a person is born mute, why not say it is okay to kill that person for as long as they are alive?
  
  You see, coming up with these excuses does NOT justify humans murdering babies [unborn or otherwise] in God's eyes.

  PeacefulPete said:

  At best the one in Ex. can be made to appear to say this by overlaying it with modern sentiment about what constitutes "furthur injury". Some interpret it to be saying no injury to the woman beyond the ending of her pregnancy, while others interpret it to mean the infant was born premature but unharmed. The latter seems to ignore that the wording does not say "gave birth" but came out,expelled or left a lower place(ie womb). It does not even use the word for "came out" used at Genesis 25:25 that described a birth.

  Let's take a look at the Hebrew word for "came out" in Exodus 21:22:

  Strong's Bible Dictionary Definition of "yatsa":

  H3318
  ???
  yatsa'
  yaw-tsaw'

  A primitive root; to go (causatively bring) out, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, direct and proximate: - X after, appear, X assuredly, bear out, X begotten, break out, bring forth (out, up), carry out, come (abroad, out, thereat, without), + be condemned, depart (-ing, -ure), draw forth, in the end, escape, exact, fail, fall (out), fetch forth (out), get away (forth, hence, out), (able to, cause to, let) go abroad (forth, on, out), going out, grow, have forth (out), issue out, lay (lie) out, lead out, pluck out, proceed, pull out, put away, be risen, X scarce, send with commandment, shoot forth, spread, spring out, stand out, X still, X surely, take forth (out), at any time, X to [and fro], utter.__________________________________________

  Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Bible Dictionary Definition of "yatsa":

  H3318
  ???
  yatsa'

  1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth
  1a) (Qal)
  1a1) to go or come out or forth, depart
  1a2) to go forth (to a place)
  1a3) to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)
  1a4) to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)
  1a5) to come out of
  1b) (Hiphil)
  1b1) to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out
  1b2) to bring out of
  1b3) to lead out
  1b4) to deliver
  1c) (Hophal) to be brought out or forth_____________________________________________

  So, do you think that word could not be used for giving birth or bringing forth a baby?

  Nothing that I can see implies miscarriage or abortion from that Hebrew word.

  However, there was a very specific Hebrew word for miscarriage or abortion that was used in Hosea 9:14, and that word is "shakol". Let's see what "shakol" means:

  Strong's Bible Dictionary Definition of "shakol":

  H7921
  ????
  shakol
  shaw-kole'

  A primitive root; properly to miscarry, that is, suffer abortion; by analogy to bereave (literally or figuratively): - bereave (of children), barren, cast calf (fruit, young), be (make) childless, deprive, destroy, X expect, lose children, miscarry, rob of children, spoil._____________________________________________

  Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Bible Dictionary Definition of "shakol":
  H7921
  shakol

  1) to be bereaved, make childless, miscarry
  1a) (Qal) to be bereaved
  1b) (Piel)
  1b1) to make childless
  1b2) to cause barrenness, show barrenness or abortion
  1b3) to miscarry
  1c) (Hiphil) miscarrying (participle)______________________________________________

  Why wasn't that word used in Exodus 21:22?

  PeacefulPete said:

  The idea that the husband could fine the attacker for losses if the baby and mother were unharmed is without premise. This fining for damages only makes sense if the fetus was expelled/aborted but the mother survived.

  I don't have a really expert knowledge of "what would make sense" for the Jews' Laws.

  However, God was the One giving the Laws, so it really does not matter what we think makes sense. We are all sinful imperfect creatures.

  Do you not think God has so high a regard for human life, that He would impose a fine for even risking a baby's life? Or impose a fine for causing the baby to be born early, therefore, possibly having health problems in the future?

  When did Jesus Christ "become Flesh"? It was when He was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit.

  Also, in the Bible, starting at the time of conception, a pregnant woman is referred to as being "with child", therefore the unborn baby was considered to be a living human child.

  "The New Testament uses the usual Greek word for baby, brephos, to refer to the unborn John the Baptist, who "leaped in her [Elizabeth's] womb" because of the presence of the unborn Christ (Luke 1:41-44)." [That info is taken from http://www.christiananswers.net]

  Proverbs 6:16-17: These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

  Proverbs 8:36: ...all who hate Me [God] love death.
• 

  Abaddon

  Please note at the bottom of my initial post ‘More Bible straight talk from Miss Poppy Dixon at http://www.jesus21.com/’. This is just something I found; sorry if that wasn’t clear

  I was chiefly attracted to it as it is a competent demonstration of how a textual work (especially a large one like the Bible).can be interpreted a number of ways; no news to anyone who’s studied literature.

  UnDisfellowshipped;

  I believe the actual text is from the Revised Standard Version. The scripture is the cause of some dispute amongst scholars;

  “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined …. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth …. (Exodus 21:22f).

  Scholars do not agree on who exactly receives the harm in this passage. One reading understands the child to be dead because of the miscarriage, so concern is only for the woman. In this case, it could be argued that the fetus has no legal status. Another reading holds that the passage speaks of an act that leads to premature birth, and that the harm in question refers to the child. If this reading is correct, the unborn child is recognized implicitly as being fully human and worthy of legal protection.

  In any case, the Septuagint or Greek translation of the Old Testament, dating from the third century B.C., clearly understands the object of harm to be the unborn child. A distinction is made between a “formed” and an “unformed” fetus: If the child is born in an “unformed” state, the person who struck the blow must pay a fine determined by the woman’s husband. If the child is formed, however, the offender will suffer damages equivalent to those suffered by the child, including death.

  http://christianity.com/CC/CDA/Content_Blocks/CC_Printer_Friendly_Version_Utility/1,,PTID4859%7CCHID101227%7CCIID440588%7CCPATHL3BhcnRuZXIvQXJ0aWNsZV9EaXNwbGF5X1BhZ2UvMCwsUFRJRDQ4NTl8Q0hJRDEwMTIyN3xDSUlENDQwNTg4LDAwLmh0bWw=,00.html

  1.Exodus 21.22 RSV: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judge determine. 23. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye etc."

  COMMENT: Hard to determine whether chief point is harm to the child or to the woman & husband. Probably chiefly the latter, but yet the harm to the child seems not ruled out. The Septuagint reads: "If two men fight and strike a woman with child, and the child that is not fully formed, comes forth, there shall be a fine according as the husband of the woman imposes, he shall set it with fair measure. But if it was fully formed he will impose life for life, eye for eye, etc."

  Note 1 on p. 580 says: "Abortion and exposure of children were the current methods of family planning in pagan antiquity. Though the OT forbids neither practice (but see the LXX translation of Ex 21:22f), they are frequently condemned (in this ombination) in Jewish and Christian writings,

  http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ABORTN.TXT

  Some people see the ‘harm’ as referring to the woman, thus reading the text as;

  "When men strive together and hurt a woman with child,  so that there is a miscarriage [in antiquity, most accidentally caused pre-term births 
  would be fatal; it doesn’t matter if the translators choose ‘miscarriage’ or ‘so that her fruit depart from her’], and yet no harm [as lethal harm 
  to the baby is almost implicit in the previous phrase, this harm must refer to the woman] follows, the one who hurt  her shall be fined, according 
  as the woman's husband shall lay upon him;  and he shall pay as the judge determine. 23. If any harm follows, then you  shall give life for life, 
  eye for eye etc. [as the harm is to the women, the punishments are for harm to the woman]" 
  

  You ask, according to your beliefs, what is the exact moment when a baby becomes a living human being?

  Genesis 2:7, "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

  I must add, this isn’t my belief, as I think the Bible is just a book, but from the above verse respiration is what causes life.

  As for the other scriptures;

  Job 10:18: Why then have You brought me from the womb? Oh that I had given up the spirit, and no eye had seen me!

  Correct me if I am wrong, but if Job was written by Moses, the reference to ‘spirit’ is metaphorical, as the Jews of that time had no belief in an immortal soul, but rather believed spirit and respiration where the same. It’s a work of literature; it’s a metaphor.

  Jeremiah 20:17-18: because he did not kill me from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me. Why did I come forth from the womb to see labor and sorrow, that my days should be consumed in shame?

  See how Jerimiah says ‘that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.’ This doesn’t happen. He’s using a metaphor here, and in the rest of the verse. This scripture has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

  Luke 1:15: For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall neither drink wine nor strong drink. And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

  Er, it says ‘from’, not ‘in’, but in any case is talking about either ‘god’s active force’ or the Holy Ghost bit of the Trinity (as you will), not a human soul, and thus this verse has nothing to do with the discussion.

  Luke 1:44: For lo, as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

  Again, this scripture has nothing to do with whether abortion is wrong; it just says, as we all know, that babies can react to external stimuli after a certain point in the pregnancy.

  If you are having to use such vauge and uncertain application of scripture to prove a point, are you not in danger of bringing your own interpretation to the Bible, rather than taking the one that lies in there?

  In the thousands of pages in the Bible, why is it that some things (like masturbation and abortion) are NOT explicitly referred to, even though they were widely known and practised at the time? God couldn’t have ‘forgotten’ to put in a line ‘and abort not a child, as this is a sin before god’, thus the dependence on non-explicit scripture seems to be bringing preconceptions to the Bile rather than taking belief from it.

  You have more questions, and I am afraid it seems as though you are upset about this issue, which is your right, but makes meaningful discourse difficult;

  According to your beliefs, what is the exact moment when a baby becomes a living human being that is protected under the United States Laws against Murder? At birth? So, does that mean, according to you, it is perfectly okay to kill a baby in the womb 5 minutes before it would have been born?

  No, according to me that wouldn’t be fine as if you took the baby out at that point it would live anyway. You are asking questions for their emotive value rather than for their relevance in the discussion of what the Bible has to say about abortion.

  Also, is it okay then to partially deliver the baby, but then intentionally leave part of the baby's body inside the mother, and then rip the brains out of the baby?

  Given a choice between the woman I love and a baby, I chose the woman I love.

  Also, why stop there? Why not claim that the spirit/soul does not enter the baby until the baby can talk? Afterall, when Adam became a living person, he could talk! So, then, why not claim that it is perfectly okay in God's eyes to kill your baby until it can talk?

  Again, you’re being emotive to (unsuccessfully) score points). Your statements have nothing to do with the discussion in hand, indeed, even the most superficial look at the subject indicates that breathers are alive and have the rights of the alive, so your question is asinine.

  Or, why not claim that the soul/spirit leaves a person when they get so old that they cannot remember much anymore? Or, if a person is born mute, why not say it is okay to kill that person for as long as they are alive?

  Yet again, you’re being emotive to (unsuccessfully) score points). Your statements have nothing to do with the discussion in hand, indeed, even the most superficial look at the subject indicates that breathers are alive and have the rights of the alive, so your question is asinine.

  I respect your right to an opinion, but I object to you trying to move the discussion from one of what the Bible actually says to one where you are asking emotive questions that don’t pertain to the issue (what the Bible says) to find some moral high ground. You are entitled to your choice, and on the basis of what you have come up with thus far, the Bible holds no direct council for people, so it appears that people ARE entitled to their choice, even if it is different from yours.
• 

  peacefulpete

  A paragraph from a book I have read on social debate and psychology. "Some debates are so entwined with people's moral identity that one might dispair that they can ever be resolved by reason and evidence. Social psychologists have found that with divisive moral issues, especially those on which liberals and conservatives disagree, all combatants are intuitively certain they are correct and that their opponents have ugly ulterior motives. They argue out of respect for social convention that one should always provide reasons for one's opinions, but when an arguement is refuted, they don't change their minds but work harder to find a replacement arguement. Moral debate, far from resolving hostilities, can escalate them, because when people on the other side don't immediately capitulate, it only "proves" they are impervious to reason."

  My original comment answered all the questions Undisfellowshipped asked.
• 

  Abaddon

  I know pete; sometimes the paradigms are so far apart side A's argument means nothing to side B and side B's argument means nothing to side A, like;

  Side B; Look! See how the child in the womb is fully formed even at only 12 weeks; a miracle of life from God!

  Side A; Yes, a 12 week fetus looks like a human; but it is less then 2" long and has less nerve and brain tissue than a pet rat. I don't see what is wrong with terminating a pregnancy around the start of the second trimester.

  Side B; From the instant of conception human life is sacred, as life is a gift from god.

  Side A; I understand you believe that, but do you realise about half of fertilised eggs never implant? They just die, and the woman never knows. That doesn't fit with every conception being sacred human life.

  Side B; Nethertheless, we must respect the sanctity of human life as is laid down in God's word.

  See? One side's argument is MEANINGLESS to the other.

  I am interested what other Bible people feel about the scriptual side of the discussion...
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Abaddon,

  Thank you for responding to my comments.

  However, I believe my questions are very valid, and deserve valid answers. If you wish not to reply that is fine.

  Also, in my posts I never said anything about choosing your wife or your baby.

  I simply asked if you thought it was okay to perform partial birth abortions where part of the baby is intentionally left inside of the mother, and the baby's brains are ripped out. Afterall, the baby may not be breathing yet.

  That question has nothing to do with whether you have to choose wife or baby.

  Partial birth abortions can be (and have been) performed without having any life-or-death situation for the mother.

  Abaddon said:

  Side A; I understand you believe that, but do you realise about half of fertilised eggs never implant? They just die, and the woman never knows. That doesn't fit with every conception being sacred human life.

  Thousands of children and adults die from "natural" diseases. Does that mean children and adults are not sacred human lives? Does that mean their lives should not be protected by law?

  I don't get that arguement.

  Just because some die "naturally", that means we should be able to kill?
• 

  Abaddon

  Undis;

  I answered your question, so please don’t imply otherwise. If I had to choose between a baby and my girlfriend, I’d choose my girlfriend. I would think it is easy to extrapolate this to me approving of a partial birth abortion if the mother's life is a risk.

  How come you use the Bible to back your beliefs when it suits you, but when the Bible’s definition of a living soul doesn’t suit your feelings, you divert the conversation to a form of abortion representing 0.17% of abortions, and stop using the Bible as a source for your beliefs?

  Isn’t that inconsistent?

  In any case, partial birth abortions (and whether they happen just to save a mother’s life or not) are irrelevant to a discussion of whether the Bible condemns abortions (the topic of this thread, donchaknow), so I think you need to refocus.

  If you want to state it is a personal belief that all abortions are wrong, fine. That’s your PERSONAL choice, and everyone is entitled to their personal choice.

  If you want to state that the Bible condemns abortions, then please do so scripturally; your lack of scriptural refutation makes me believe that you cannot.

  Here you miss the point;

  Abaddon said:

  Side A; I understand you believe that, but do you realise about half of fertilised eggs never implant? They just die, and the woman never knows. That doesn't fit with every conception being sacred human life.

  Thousands of children and adults die from "natural" diseases. Does that mean children and adults are not sacred human lives? Does that mean their lives should not be protected by law?

  I don't get that arguement.

  Just because some die "naturally", that means we should be able to kill?

  This was an illustration of different paradigms, or ways of thinking. You AMPLIFY that demonstration by TOTALLY missing the point.

  In my example I talk about how about half of fertilised eggs don’t implant and are never even known about.

  You immediately try to make equivalence between a zygote and people who have been born, because you (apparently) believe there is no difference in importance between a child and a zygote. I don't believe there is any evidence to support this opinion, and just you saying so is not good enough.

  Now, I’m a little confused, as I thought this was a Scripturally based belief, and you’ve stopped defending it Scripturally. Now you’re asking me questions about law, and they are pretty inane ones, as obviously I believe children and adults should be protected by law, but I equally obviously don’t see them equivalent to a ball of cells, which is what I was talking about.

  If you are not defending it Scripturally, then you need to produce some evidence to support your opinion; as I also mentioned in my example, a 12 week-old foetus is less neurologically sophisticated than a pet rat, so I don’t see how you’ll make that argument.

  If you are defending your argument Scripturally, then please do so.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  The following was taken from http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm.

  I would like to hear your answers:

  Three Questions

  When someone raises this issue [of Exodus 21:22] with you, ask these three questions.

  First, why presume the child is dead? Though the English word “miscarriage” entails this notion, nothing in the Hebrew wording suggests it. Yasa doesn’t mean miscarriage; it means “to come forth.” The word itself never suggests death. [13] In fact, the word generally implies the opposite: live birth. If it’s never translated elsewhere as miscarriage, why translate it that way here?

  Second, what in the context itself implies the death of the child? There’s nothing that does, nothing at all. The fine does not necessarily mean the child is dead, and even if it did this wouldn’t indicate that the child wasn’t fully human (as in the case of the slave in v[erse] 32).

  Third, ancient Hebrew had a specific word for miscarriage. It was used in other passages. Why not here? Because Moses didn’t mean miscarriage. When his words are simply taken at face value, there is no confusion at all. The verse is clear and straight-forward. Everything falls into place.

  Regardless of the translation, it’s clear that killing the child--and the text does refer to the unborn as a child--is a criminal act. There is no justification for abortion-on-demand from the Torah. Instead, we have a reasonable--even powerful--argument that God views the unborn as valuable as any other human being.

  In the following Scriptures, the same Hebrew word for "come forth" ["Yasa"] used in Exodus 21:22, is used to describe GIVING BIRTH TO A LIVE CHILD:

  Genesis 25:21-26: And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out [Hebrew: "Yasa"] red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out [Hebrew: "Yasa"], and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them.

  Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth [Hebrew: "Yasa"] out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

  Exodus 21:22-23: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [Hebrew: "Yasa"], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

  The following Verses also use "Yasa" to refer to LIVING PERSONS:

  1 Kings 8:19: Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house; but thy son that shall come forth [Hebrew: "Yasa"] out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name.

  2 Kings 20:18: And of thy sons that shall issue from [Hebrew: "Yasa"] thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

  Genesis 15:4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth [Hebrew: "Yasa"] out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

  _______________________________________________

  Also, you are using like two examples to "prove" that life begins when a person takes his first breath -- and NEITHER example has ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILD BIRTH.

  Take for instance, the example of Adam's creation.

  God did not create Adam inside of a womb, so there is absolutely NO WAY to know when God would have declared Adam a living human being if he had been created inside of a womb (unless you check out the other Scriptures I have already posted which show that a baby inside the womb is considered to be a living child).

  God created Adam as a full-grown man who could already speak and walk. Adam became alive when he took his first breath, because GOD sent HIS "Breath of Life" into Adam's body.

  If I remember correctly, the other example you posted was Exodus Chapter 37.

  This example too, has nothing to do with childbirth or babies inside the womb.

  Ezekiel 37:5-8: Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them.

  Again, these Verses are discussing DEAD grown humans, and has nothing to do with babies inside the womb.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Some more Scriptural information:

  Luke 1:15: (English Majority Text Version): For he [John the Baptist] shall be great before the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, while still in his mother's womb.

  The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of God filled John the Baptist "while still in his mother's womb".

  Please, Abaddon, do not try to claim that The Holy Spirit was filling a NON-LIVING, NON-HUMAN "THING" in the womb.

  Do you know how crazy that would be? Why would God The Spirit fill a NON-HUMAN "THING"?

  It is extremely clear and obvious that John was a LIVING HUMAN BEING inside the womb.

  Luke 1:42-44: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

  Elizabeth said that Jesus was blessed inside the womb, she called Jesus her LORD inside the womb, and she said John the Baptist leaped FOR JOY inside her own womb (no doubt because God The Holy Spirit was living inside of John inside the womb!).
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Undis;

  So you agree that a discussion of partial-birth abortions is irrelevant in a discussion of whether abortion is condemned by the Bible?

  Likewise, do you understand that we are talking from two different paradigms, as I illustrated and you demonstrated?

  I’m happy to answer your questions, but I expect you to have the courtesy to respond to my posts with something other than questions.

  Looking at the Hebrew used in the passage, we see “ w°yase û ye ladêhâ ”. This is apparently a combination of a Hebrew noun--yeled--and a verb--yasa--and literally means “the child comes forth.”

  In many instances, yasa either refers to people coming forth, or to live birth, or creative processes.

  However, it is ALSO used to refer to spontaneous abortion. Numbers
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Abaddon said:

  So you agree that a discussion of partial-birth abortions is irrelevant in a discussion of whether abortion is condemned by the Bible?

  Did I say that it did? I simply wanted to know your beliefs about it. Partial-birth abortion is most obviously murder. So, I can determine a lot about someone by whether or not they think partial-birth abortions are okay.

  Abaddon said:

  Likewise, do you understand that we are talking from two different paradigms, as I illustrated and you demonstrated?

  Obviously.

  Abaddon said:

  I’m happy to answer your questions, but I expect you to have the courtesy to respond to my posts with something other than questions.

  Those questions I posted contain the answers.

  It is a FACT that the Hebrew word "yasa" has absolutely ZERO, NOTHING AT ALL, to do with abortion OR miscarriage.

  It is only used ONCE in the Bible to describe a dead child being born:

  Numbers 12:12: Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.

  The word "yasa" in that Verse has NOTHING to do with the child being dead. The Hebrew word "mooth" ["dead"] is the word that reveals that the baby is dead.

  What if Numbers 12:12 had read like this?

  Numbers 12:12: Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he is born.

  Would you try to claim that the word "Born" could mean miscarriage in other Verses, if the context did not reveal it? I do not think so.

  So, you actually have no arguement whatsoever that the Bible supports murdering children inside the womb, no matter how young.