[caterpi11ar]

Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video, I will offer you some Biblical and non-Biblical Christian arguments against abortion. Various Psalms (22, 139) in which the narrator speaks of themselves in the womb being created by God. The Gospel of Luke also uses the same word for an infant before and after He is born. It is also a heresy to suggest that Jesus in the womb was fully God but not Human. Of course, Paul's letters to the Galatians suggests that God had set him apart in the womb, which seems an odd thing to do to a non-living clump of cells.

Given the above information, I don't find the idea that The Bible doesn't directly condemn abortion to be the gotcha that reddit atheists think it is. I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder, much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized. The Bible doesn't go very in depth about the benefits of exercise, do we therefore interpret it to suggest we should all get fat, or is this just so obvious that the authors didn't bother to put it in? Should we start using 50 layers of abstraction and euphemism to believe that being fat is fine, just as we do with abortion (oh, we started doing that too).

Furthermore, (and this might surprise you if you are from an American context) most Christians in the world do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the soul source of authority. We also venerate saints and the Church Fathers, and the Church itself (whether it be the Catholic Church or one of several Orthodox Churches), all of which we believe to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Abortion was condemned very early on by the Church Fathers. This is all to say that The Bible is not the soul source of authority for most of the world's Christians and therefore not the soul battleground for the religious debate on abortion.

[Ensorceled]

> Ok, if you're willing to renounce the style of 14 year old who just saw their first Hitchslap video

Well, this is a pleasant, open minded start... but thank you for the references.

> much in the same way that life-at-conception was mainstream biology until the moment it became politicized.

I think most mainstream biologist believe that a fetus is living cells and, hence, life. Most mainstream biologists would not, and did not, agree that humanity begins a conception, similarly most would agree a human is dead upon brain death and not "alive" simply because the corpse still has a heart beat. This is a discussion that was foisted upon biology and politicized, not vice versa.

The abortion debate is a fundamentally a religious debate, so it's good to understand it from that point of view.

[caterpi11ar]

When I was an atheist, I eventually came to understand that the belief that saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human was essentially a euphemism I could use to keep myself sane while still arguing in favour of abortion on social harmony grounds. But it is difficult to lie to oneself.

[Ensorceled]

At a minimum, it is logical to assume a human life biologically begins at the same time it ends ... using brain function. Any argument that a fetus with nothing but a brain stem, or a brain damaged adult with only a functioning brain stem remaining, is 'alive' is based on "sanctity of life" or other religious or pseudo religious beliefs.

As an atheist, I have no qualms or guilt about choosing to pull the plug on any biological "human" without a functioning cerebrum and cerebellum.

The third trimester is when the abortion debate gets at all tricky for me.

[tremon]

saying that a new organism created by two humans wasn't itself human

If this is your idea of an open, honest debate you can keep it.

[caterpi11ar]

Sorry about the barb.

[giaour]

> I think it suggests that life-at-conception was so obvious to the authors that they didn't feel the need to distinguish between abortion and murder

Mosaic law does distinguish between violently inducing a miscarriage (punishable by a fine to be paid to the father) and murder (punishable by death) in Exodus 21. It is unclear whether there was any penalty for a self-induced miscarriage, though that would not have been uncommon in other ancient societies.

[dane-pgp]

Do you mean Exodus 21:22-24? That's not what it says at all:

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.

[giaour]

As with any ancient text, translations will vary. The one you've quoted seems to play up the ambiguity, which is non-standard for English renditions. The Common English Bible renders this passage as,

"When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life"

The traditional Talmudic interpretation is that any harm to the fetus is to be punished with a fine, and any harm to the mother is punishable wound for wound: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortio....

> Not only is the fine specifically a punishment for inadvertently hitting the woman (in the case where the child is not harmed), but it says "life for life", proving that children in the womb are considered alive and their death is a capital offence, just like killing an adult.

I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean, but it is usually understood as a reference to an induced miscarriage.

[dane-pgp]

> I'm not sure what you're taking "so that her children come out" to mean

I took it to mean that the children are born prematurely. In any case, it doesn't say "so that the bundles of cells come out".

[giaour]

It was understood by ancient commentators (i.e., in the Talmud) to refer to miscarriage. This would mirror other laws in the ancient near east that imposed a fine for inducing miscarriages and death for murdering an adult, like the Code of Hammurabi (law 209).

It seems like you're taking one literal interpretation of a specific English translation as the only legitimate reading. There is plenty of scholarship and commentary by ancient and contemporary authors who can shed light on how the text was read (and, in this case, upheld in a legal setting) in the original Hebrew.