There are 4 other denominations, who agree and approve of abortion in some circumstances. Some church governments can be so deluded and conflicted that they take a stance in partial support of abortion. I plead with those among these denominations to leave them. Here are the words of the United Methodist denomination, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Latter-Day Saints, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America:
The United Methodist Church is with the United church “of Christ” in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The United Methodist Church says,
“Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.
We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption” (“Abortion.” The United Methodist Church. 20 Mar 2012. <umc.org>).
The Seventh-Day Adventist church states,
“Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman’s life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. […]
Therefore, any attempts to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom” (“Guidelines on Abortion.” SDA. 23 May 2012. <adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main-guide1.html>).
The Mormon LDS church states,
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother” (“What is the Church’s Position on Abortion?” LDS. 15 May 2012. <mormon.org/faq>).
The “Evangelical“ Lutheran Church in America asserts,
“Induced abortion, the act of intentionally terminating a developing life in the womb, is one of the issues about which members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have serious differences. These differences are also found within society. […]
The language used in discussing abortion should ignore neither the value of unborn life nor the value of the woman and her other relationships. It should neither obscure the moral seriousness of the decision faced by the woman nor hide the moral value of the newly conceived life. Nor is it helpful to use the language of ‘rights’ in absolute ways that imply that no other significant moral claims intrude. A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy […]
This church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion. The following provides guidance for those considering such a decision. We recognize that conscientious decisions need to be made in relation to difficult circumstances that vary greatly. What is determined to be a morally responsible decision in one situation may not be in another. […]
A woman should not be morally obligated to carry the resulting pregnancy to term if the pregnancy occurs when both parties do not participate willingly in sexual intercourse. This is especially true in cases of rape and incest. This can also be the case in some situations in which women are so dominated and oppressed that they have no choice regarding sexual intercourse and little access to contraceptives. Some conceptions occur under dehumanizing conditions that are contrary to God’s purposes.
There are circumstances of extreme fetal abnormality, which will result in severe suffering and very early death of an infant. In such cases, after competent medical consultations, the parent(s) may responsibly choose to terminate the pregnancy. Whether they choose to continue or to end such pregnancies, this church supports the parent(s) with compassion, recognizing the struggle involved in the decision” (“Abortion.” What We Believe: Social Issues. 28 Feb. 2012. <elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx>).
[If any denomination have been overlooked, please note them in the comments.]
however mibeten is used has out of the womb or from birth.
BibleWorks software says there are 56 verses (in English Bible versions) in the OT with “womb” in them. Every one is reverse-translated. New Living Translation actually puts into Bible the term “womb” when it’s not there (i.e., in Job 10:10). It is by no means the black sheep of the English translation family: they all are bad. Job 31:15, for example, uses Hebrew “asah” twice to distinguish that Job didn’t become Job until outside the womb (Hebrew wouldn’t need the second asah, else: it is a very strong statement that God didn’t make anything in the womb — English doesn’t even translate the second asah). [New American Standard tried to translate the second asah, but its translation clearly makes no sense. When Bible’s Hebrew doubles verbs (or clauses), it’s always making a distinction between two disparate but related actions (or ideas).]
Occasionally a brave NIV translator will properly translate a “womb” verse, i.e., in Luke 1:15 (“from birth”). Yet keep MIStranslating the same original language words, with the reverse meaning, “in the womb”, or “from the womb” in other verses. Trés bizarre. The other languages I can read often do the same. (Louis Segond will show more accuracy bravery, “des ta naissance”, from your birth, Isa44:2. German “von” isn’t really like the English “from”, so I’m not sure if the German is mistranslated.) After all, it’s supposed to be about God’s Word, not politics.
mibeten is used bebeten wold be in the womb but mibeten is used for the meaning birth.
While your point is clear, it does not address the points before that still stand. Sure, Isa. 44.2 does mean “from the womb”, but does not exclude life within the womb as seen in Jer. 1.5, etc. as you may search further. Luke 1:15 does mean from birth, but does not exclude the life of John and Jesus in the womb in Luke 1:28-35.
It is hard to be convinced that a human life pumping blood, having one’s own genetic code, and having active brainwaves is not a person while on life support in or outside of the womb.
Again, the fetus is not a person when in the womb, but here the fetus becomes a person once the head or greater part of the body has emerged. It follows that when the Talmud in Sanhedrin 72b states that you are not permitted to murder one person in order to save another, the law is simply inapplicable to the fetus, because the fetus is not a person. Furthermore, the Talmud does allow dismemberment of a partially emerged child when the motherís life is endangered, thus according final priority to the life of the mother over the life of the child. These discussions turn on the technical Talmudic concept of rodef. The term for a potential murderer is rodef, a “pursuer” or, in contemporary parlance, a stalker, one who pursues another in order to kill him. Under normal circumstances, a rodef may be killed if this is the only way in which the life of the intended victim can be saved. Two conflicting viewpoints about the applicability of the rodef principle to the fetus are offered by commentators. Some commentators believe that when it is the child who threatens the mother, then the law of rodef applies, even though the rodef is a minor and so not responsible for his or her actions. Others believe that the motherís life is not being pursued by the child, but by “heaven,” that is, the mother is dying as a result of natural causes, hence, the childís life cannot be made forfeit on the grounds of rodef, but there is still acknowledgement that the motherís life is to be saved at the expense of the child’s life.
More evidence that Jewish tradition does not regard the fetus as a person independent of the mother emerges in the laws of the Sabbath. Many pages of the Talmud are devoted to the question, “Can you desecrate the Sabbath to save the fetus?” It is certainly permissible to desecrate the Sabbath to save the mother, but there is much discussion on the issue of whether it is permissible to do the same for the fetus. In Arakin 7a, the commentators decide that if the mother dies before giving birth, the fetus may be removed from the dead mother on the Sabbath because at that point the fetus is considered a person, that is, no longer dependent on the mother. Here we see that the fetus has intrinsic value because the Sabbath may be desecrated to save it (A knife may be carried on the Sabbath in order to aid in the delivery of a child [Yoma 85b]), but the very fact this point was debated shows that the fetus is considered only as part of the mother except in unusual circumstances and, moreover, that a existing human life has precedence over a potential human life.
It is strangely inconsistent to not consider the child person in the womb a person, but if the mother is dead, the child is a person while in the womb. That reasoning for a fetus not being human life is not consistent, and I can see the debate. The truth appears to shine through that the child is a person, human living being.
actaully even thought it was Jewish Law many chiristans did follow this the Talmund makes it clear that a baby is not a person until it comes out but if the mom life is in danger the baby can be aborted.
In the Jewish tradition, only a few texts relate to the fetus, and thus to abortion. The Talmud states that for the first forty days, the fetus should be considered mere fluid in the womb (Yevamot 69b). Elsewhere, the Talmud twice (Hullin 55a; Gittin 23b) describes the fetus as “part of the mother” (ubar yerekh imo; the Latin counterpart is pars viscerum matris), which indicates the dependence of the fetus on the mother and, like Exodus 21:22-23, implies that the fetus has no legal personality of its own. The debate in Archin 7a on whether a condemned women who is pregnant should be executed immediately or after she has given birth seems to confirm that the fetus is not an independent entity, since the commentators tend to recommend immediate execution. Further support is lent by the interpretation given in Sanhedrin 76b on Leviticus 24:17: “If one smite any human person, then one is culpable.” The “any” is understood to include the day-old child but exclude the fetus, for the fetus in the womb is “not a person,” until born. Commenting on this verse, Rashi states that only when the fetus “comes into the world” is it a “person.”
The pivotal rabbinic text on abortion is found in Mishnah Oholot 7:6.
If a woman was in hard travail [such that her life is in danger], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the greater part of it was already born, it may not be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.
however since this has to do when life starts both Jewish and Chiristan have to teach this samething the baby is not a person until it’s born.
I certainly greatly disagree with Talmud. It has no authority other than a commentary over a Christian or a Jew. For the Jew and Christian, the human life is a child in the womb (Gen. 25:21-22, Ruth 1:11, 2 Kings 19:3) and Job believed so from conception (Job 3:3). The Spirit spoke through David to express that he was formed in the womb (Psa. 139:13-17). The pregnant woman, who is struck and either miscarries or gives birth, has a child, and if child or mother is harmed, the guilty will give life for life, etc. (Exo. 21:22, cf. Jer. 20:17). For the Christian, the child is conceived as a child, that a baby is in the womb, and that motherhood starts from conception (Luke 1:28-35).
The descriptions that you presented for the unborn human fetus being fluid are absurd. Knowing that at conception that the human zygote is formed and living with his or her own genetic code and that 3 weeks from conception that a human fetus has a heartbeat and numerous brainwaves, the human fetus is not a fluid, but is a living human being. The impression of an unborn infant’s foot from within the womb shows that the child is a person whether born at 40 weeks or 20 weeks earlier. Even in ancient times, women knew the form of a child when they miscarried.
The unborn child that is dismembered and removed from the womb is a disturbing sight and one that pricks the conscience. Why? Because we know that child is a human being, who was cruelly slaughtered.