Todd Akin and the Republican platform have highlighted the "personhood" movement to legally define fertilized eggs as human beings with the same constitutional rights born children have.
Proponents argue their case on religious grounds, so it's worth asking what the Bible says about it.
The Bible doesn't talk about abortion, but it does say when a human being's life begins.
Genesis 2:7 is clearest. The first human became a "living being" (nefesh hayah, "a living breath") when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe. Human life begins when you start breathing, biblical writers thought. It ends when you stop. That's why the Hebrew word often translated "spirit" (ruah) -- "life force" might be a better translation -- literally means "wind" or "breath."
But what about babies in the womb?
A few passages talk about someone called by God before birth: "The LORD called me from the womb. From the innermost parts of my mother, God named me ... and said to me, 'You are my servant Israel, in whom I'll be glorified" (Isaiah 49:1-3).
Here, the one called is the nation Israel, not an individual. A nation of course can't occupy a womb. The language is figurative not literal. It isn't describing prenatal biology or pinpointing when human life begins. It's affirming God's power and Israel's calling to a special mission in the world.
Other passages make the same point by saying someone's called by God before they're even conceived (Genesis 18:9; 1 Samuel 1:17; Luke 1:31). I've not heard anyone make the case, based on these texts, that human life begins before conception.
It's hard to ask biblical texts the modern question, "when does human life begin?" because the Bible has a very different understanding of human reproduction. Biblical writers don't talk about sperm fertilizing eggs. They talk about male "seed" planted in fertile female ground. Just as a seed becomes a plant when it emerges from the ground, so too a man's planted seed becomes another human being when it emerges from the womb.
The only verses I know that address the legal status of "seed" in the womb come in a brief section of case law.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a case where a pregnant woman jumps into a fight between her husband and another man and suffers injuries that cause her to miscarry. Injuries to the woman prompt the normal penalties for harming another human being: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Killing the woman is murder, a capital crime.
The miscarriage is treated differently, however -- as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it's not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is.
My impression is that most Americans have a more nuanced and conservative view than the Bible does on this, though we're getting at the same idea: an important moral and legal line is crossed when the fetus can survive outside the womb.
For the Bible, that's when a child is born and starts breathing. For many of us today, it's when a fetus becomes "viable" -- somewhere between 21 and 27 weeks into the pregnancy, thanks to our amazing medical technology.
If something goes wrong late in the pregnancy and the fetus dies, we call it "still birth" and, by law, issue a death certificate.
If the pregnancy ends early on, we call it "miscarriage." It's traumatic, a terrible loss, but most of us think of it differently than we think of a still birth. We don't require death certificates for miscarriages.
Recognizing this difference, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade created the "trimester" system to sort through the legal implications of the constitutional "right to privacy" they said we all have as Americans.
The justices ruled that the early and late stages of pregnancy are morally and legally distinct.
Early on, in the "first trimester," the embryo undeniably is human life, but it's not "a human being" in the normal sense of the term. At this stage of pregnancy, a woman's right to privacy trumps any responsibility the state might have to protect the embryo by interfering with the woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy.
Late in the pregnancy, certainly by the "third trimester," however, the child has reached a stage of development that changes its moral and legal status. To protect the rights of the viable fetus, states can put serious limits on a woman's right to abortion, though they must continue to respect her right to self-defense, to terminate the pregnancy to save her own life or prevent serious injury.
In the ambiguous middle of the pregnancy, the "second trimester," the state has to balance the right to life of the unborn with the right to privacy of the woman, a balance that continues to tip toward the fetus as the pregnancy progresses. In this stage, our constantly improving medical technology plays an important role in the moral-legal equation.
Roe doesn't require "abortion on demand" until the moment of birth. Rather, abortion is illegal in most states once the fetus is viable (normally 24 weeks into the pregnancy), unless it's necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent serious physical or mental harm.
I think the moral reasoning of Roe and subsequent Supreme Court decisions reflects what many of us actually think: the moral status of the fetus changes over the course of the pregnancy.
Advances in medical technology affect our opinions about when exactly the line is crossed. But most of us think there's a difference between a recently fertilized egg and a late-term unborn child.
I think that's true even of many people who consider themselves "pro-life." It's implied in their willingness to allow abortion in cases of rape or incest.
No one would argue that a mother can kill the child she just bore because it was conceived through rape or incest. If we really think a recently fertilized egg is morally and legally exactly the same as a child recently born, how can we possibly allow these exceptions for abortion?
Whatever Mitt Romney's reason for supporting "personhood" legislation, his argument that abortion is OK in cases of rape and incest implies that he doesn't really believe that a fertilized egg is morally and legally the same as a born child.
I long for a world where unintended pregnancies and abortions are rare, where every woman controls her own sexuality, contraceptives are easily available for those who wish to use them, and couples make reproductive choices responsibly, with mutual respect and love.
I respect, though I disagree with the conviction of many Americans that a human being's life begins at conception. And I share their belief in the sanctity of life.
I appreciate the biblical view that a human being's life begins at birth. But modern science and medical technology give me a more nuanced and conservative conviction.
The moral view that underlies Roe v. Wade -- that a line is crossed when a fetus becomes "viable" -- seems most plausible, morally defensible, and consistent with the spirit of the biblical view.
I hope that view continues to prevail.
Rev. Debra Haffner: Diverse Religious Leaders Affirm Contraceptive Access as 'Moral Imperative'
Rev. Steven D. Martin: Terry Jones Must Be Stopped, and Evangelicals Must Stop Him
John Shore: The Fundamentally Toxic Christianity
Eliza Wood: God, the Celebrity
And I don't agree that the majority of Americans (I think that's what you mean by "People") believe that life begins at conception. It may be true where you live, but not across the country. While you're entitled to your gut feeling about when life begins, you should be cautious about believing that a majority share it without checking available facts. A little Google research will confirm or refute your feeling. For example, the CDC polled American women when researching attitudes on emergency contraception: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2203385/
"RESULTS A total of 178 women completed questionnaires. Nearly one-half (47%) of respondents believed that pregnancy begins with fertilization; however, less than one-third (30%) believed that life begins with fertilization."
The passage does not say that the woman was struck or killed "by accident" but merely that she was struck. There are two separate outcomes to be considered here: Number 1, the death of both the mother plus her unborn child -- and 2 -- the death of the unborn child, alone. In the first case, it may be presummed the mother stepped up to help her husband as is the case cited in Deuteronomy 25:11-12. In such a case where it may be believed the man used excessive force against the mother and killed both her and her unborn child, he would be guilty of a double homicide and subsequently put to death.
In the second case where the mother was not seriously injured, but the child was killed, it may be believed that the man did not intend to kill and the child's death would be considered an accident, although he will have to pay a penalty for the injury. In this case, the fault of the child's death would fall on the mother who is responsible for safeguarding the life of her unborn child. By negligence in placing herself in harm's way, she puts her baby at risk. In this, also, the death of her child may be unintentional and she would have to pay a penalty, and the loss of her child is punishment enough.
1) What is a major threat? must I risk a 10% case of death, to abort? Must I risk losing my limbs?
2) why should i have to put my feelings and desires behind a baby, even if it is later in the pregnancy. Remembering that virtually all late term abortions are done on WANTED CHILDREN women should be trusted to know what risks are right for them.
If I am diagnosed with some mild, "easy" cancer (to the extent any are), should i be forced to carry the pregnancy, even though I want to start meds today? even if i will likely survive? is that 1% great chance, my right to make?
I don't care if this human being is 9 years old. if it is living INSIDE OF MY BODY, should i not be teh one to say "I COME FIRST?" not have to fit someone else's definition of what an acceptable risk is?
We are not walking wombs. as you lovely said, we are "whole persons".
But what they really like, Scotland Dave, is CONTROL. over everyone.
The problem with you fundies are that you are brought up on a diet of killing, rape and incest and sexual slavery and selling off your daughter's because the book was written by a bunch of misogynist people who thought women were not even second class citizens; so take your twisted religious bigotry and talk to someone who might agree with your childish beliefs, I don't!
If you believe in the sanctity of life, why are you pro- guns? Aren't they for ...Hmmm, KILLING people? And tell me when the last Democrat President took us into war, I can sure tell you ALL the Republicans who did and they all spout about their christian values! Hupocrites all!
Women being used as human incubators are no different as they are forced to give part of their body to keep something else alive.
I hope you see the parallel. Try to imagine, if you can, what you would think if the government told you that you must donate some of your body to keep someone else alive. With the knowledge that it might kill you and that it wouldn't matter.
http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=214899624
In effect, life began the second some amino acids formed inside a protien bubble and reproduced. and ever stopped. see, sperm are alive. eggs are alive. they are human. not fully human, but human.
But you are meaning a new "life". which is ironic, since your God insures that 90% of all "souls" are aborted naturally. 60-70% of fertilized eggs will not implant in the mother, and will just pass out the body. 10% of fertlized eggs that actual make it to the womb and implant, will not survive the first month.
of the 20-30% left? every woman knows about 1/3 will miscarry in the first 3 months. onlly then does that egg have a fighting chance. your god is pretty mean, if he kills off that many souls.
of which i'm sure there will be many. thanks.
Apart from the religious connotations in your piece, I agree with the rest of your point of view. A woman should have total control over her personal life and be allowed to make her decision without any kind of pressure from religious minded people. It's no-one's business but the woman's on such a delicate and personal issue.
As to your second paragraph... I have to disagree. It is not the women and the women only who is involved in the equation. First we have to define what it is to be a human being. Because if we define a human being as being a fertilized egg, or 2nd trimester or 3rd, whatever that decision is, that person has rights to be considered as well.
There is a very strong secular argument to be considered when it comes to abortion. Not everyone who is against it is against it for religious reasons. The idea of when life begins, when a human being becomes an independent person deserving of rights of protection is a serious and still unanswered question.
At one point in time the life of black men and women was considered to be of lower value. There were many white people at that time (in fact a majority) who would have said "the slave owner should have total control over his personal life and property and allowed to make his decisions without pressure from certain minded people". We know now they were wrong... Whos to say in 20 years secular people wont come to that conclusion about fetuses?
What voters are you talking about? Fundamentalists? There are only THREE commandments from which we use in law, murder, theft and perjury; oh and by the way, these laws are endorsed in EVERY country in the world regardless of religious beliefs. These laws are not unique to the bible and were in force long before the bible was cobbled together.
And if we follow the archaic views of the bible, should we endorse these laws from your 'good book?'
If our laws should be Bible-based - which of the following should we be campaigning for: kill disobedient sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), kill those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), kill blasphemers (Leviticus), kill non-virginal brides (Deuteronomy 22:20,21), kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), kill adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), kill witches (Exodus 22) (Did a god really come up with these?). And should eating shellfish and wearing blended fabrics be illegal?
CONT;
Morality and the bible is the biggest oxymoron going. The reason why it was so successful was for the reasons I've already stated. Where is the morality in losing your life because you don't agree with a particular set of superstitions? The Founding Fathers came at the start of the enlightenment in Europe and just as well for us all.
The bible is a piece of misogynistic suppression of women and the uneducated masses who had no choice whatever in deciding about the bible's meaning; it was "Do as we say or die a horrible death!" So much for god's love and morality.
And to finish, no-one I know is advocating that abortion should be treated lightly, regardless of religion. It is NOT an easy decision for a woman no matter what her status is in life but things happen and no-one should stand in the way of a woman having control over her own body.
I know Fundamentalists here in SC who say that a woman should NEVER have an abortion regardless of circumstances! Does that mean that if the baby is not going to make it anyway and prolonging the pregnancy could endanger the life of the mother? In their eyes it does.
Well, it failed to convince anyone. For one thing, the old covenant is obsolete and for another, those who try to use the Word of God to support murdering the innocent don't have a clue what the Scriptures teach.
Ever since Adam, man has been given that precious gift of life, and those who are born into this world had that life prior to birth. The fetus is developed by the oxygenation of the mother, as that which God did to Adam. She gives the baby the "breath of life" until birth.
The passage you referred to, are intended to show that God knows each and every one of us, before the foundations of the world, while we are in the womb, and at birth. Life is defined, not by breathing, as you are insinuating, but what God holds to be true not man.
The gift of life was given by God, lost by Adam, and restored by Jesus. Life, in the Bible, is not a breath of fresh air, but an eternal abode for the soul of man. Every soul that "is conceived" in the womb, has the potential, and the life, that will one day be outside the womb. And if that life is terminated for any reason, then they would be received in the arms of Jesus.
show me how Adam was connected to God by an umbilical cord, or how he was in God's uterus - because "oxygenation" is *not* the same as "breath of life." you can pump all the oxygen you want into a dead man's veins, and he still will not be alive.
That the Servant is an individual, is clear from chapters when this un-named servant is given a commission to bring back Israel.
The Bible has much to say about the overly-educated, Independent Israelite upper class women who sacrificed their babies to Baal for convenience.
It was a rare freedom for Bronz-age upper class women, when the Idol they worshiped brought rain, followed by abundant crops,more servants and less household chores, and what a freedom, eliminating wet-nurses and nannies: no more the daily grind of motherhood.
The spirit of Baalism is alive today.
what really is the difference eliminating unwanted children: laying the screaming little infant upon the out-stretched red hot glowing arms of a brass idol, or having its limbs and body broken up and sucked from the womb?
No, the Bible doesn't say much about what the methods of killing Yahweh's children, but it has much to say about children!
In fact in some of the words from the last book, God spoke to His people by the prophet Malachi, He warned them:
"Didn't Yahweh make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are His. And what does He (Yahweh) want? Godly children from your union!"
"Yahweh" was worshipped on mountain tops in Judah; "El" was worshipped in Israel. "El" is the same god as "Allah." "Elohim" means "gods." polytheism was also the order of the day in Israel.
Japhteth sacrificed his daughter to God in return for success in battle. God demanded human sacrifice up until Abram's day. God didn't have much concern for the lives of *other* children.
so don't give me this nonsense about how much God values foetal life. no god values foetal life.
Faved.
I think you mean the Hebrew word Pawr, a word that means breaking forth in wild strength, an apparent idea closely associated with of the dividing of the hoof= young bull, or bullock, calf or Ox.
The word Yahweh is not even a name, but a sound, and what the sound makes Yaaaaah, itself means "breath of Life".
So the well-known ending verse in the Psalms "let everything that has breath praise the Lord" is not exactly what it said in Hebrew and the whole verse ought to recast.
The central idea is this: everything that has breath, whether human or animal does in fact praise the Lord, with each breath they or it takes...every time they breath out yaaaah...on average of 15 times per minute.
Indeed, every living thing in the universe whether fish of fowl vetebrate or invertebrate are praising God constantly night and day......
Since the Apostles, who were the Early CHurch Fathers predessors and the closest to the tteaching and events we can safely assume abortion was not practiced in the Christian Church.
"For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother’s blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away the life once born or destroy it as it comes to birth. He is a man who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.” (Apology, 9:8.) A.D. 197
Encouragment, public acceptance and legality of an act guarantees you will have more of what ever you deem acceptable.
I presume you mean unacceptable? But if it's illegal you don't KNOW how much is going on because people don't admit to it. As far as abortion goes it drives it underground and makes it more dangerous. But the only figures you have is for operations that go wrong.