When Roe was decided, the Southern Baptist Conference initially took the position that abortion was an individual decision. Evangelicals turned against abortion when the so called "Moral Majority concluded it was a divisive issue that they could exploit.
"Roe" was based off the earlier Menhennit ruling in Victoria, Australia in 1969. It's where they got the foetal viability bullshit from in the first place. They didnt just conjur it up out of thin air.
@@pebystroll Jerry Falwell invented the pressure group in the seventies. They claimed Reagan was elected because of their influence. Were you alseep in the eighties?
@@pebystroll Maybe you've heard of Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, an extremely conservative Christian college. Jerry Falwell spoke about his perception that there were a lot of quiet conservative Christians who would have a lot of power if they just formed a coalition. So he formed that coalition and called it the Moral Majority in about 1978-79, a faction of the Republican party. Republicans who were eager to get elected tried to align with the Moral Majority so they were talked about quite a bit during the 1980s and 1990s by Republicans. I think this marked the place where Republicans veered off from their former respectable stance as a party interested in smaller federal government, strong military, and favor of business owners (as opposed to union workers). Falwell finally died and few people refer to the Moral Majority anymore. After all, look at Trump and his flaunting of immorality -- lying, cheating, breaking laws, etc. It would be fairly ridiculous for Republicans who support Trump to refer to the Moral Majority. So remnants of this movement remain but the term Moral Majority is seldom used anymore.
I recently had the pleasure of traveling to Barbados and while I was there I went to a botanical walk at a place called Andromeda Gardens. The guide there taught us about the Pride of Barbados (Caesalpinia pulcherrima), their national flower. Enslaved women used to use its seeds as a way to induce abortion so their children wouldn't be born into the system. It wasn't just a way to take back their bodily autonomy, they were making sure no one could profit off their kids too. They were heroes and they're still honored to this day for their sacrifice 🇧🇧
@@mtauren1 I disagree, any woman who has been or is incarcerated in a state with limited access to abortion is still living this horror out. Imagine being clean for years only for contraception to fail and then be forced to give a child up for adoption because you have a record and can't find a job to provide. Imagine being forced to carry a child you desperately want to term, only to be told your past makes you incapable of parenting (despite being capable enough to do it for the nine months you carry them). That's what women face today in the United States.
The pregnant girl is not a concubine. She is a real person with real feelings and should be in charge of what happens to her body. I am pro life of the pregnant person.
her body is her body, the babies body is the babies body. Two different and unique DNA's, two different and unique bodies, two different and unique persons.
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis Personhood is a legal concept, you shouldn't derive that from DNA. There are persons without DNA (organizations), and unique strands of DNA that aren't persons (tumors)
@@juanausensi499and if the law says that some humans are slaves so then they don't have rights and that is a legal concept and that's where the discussion ends.
Numbers 5:23: “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, HER ABDOMEN WILL SWELL AND HER WOMB WILL MISCARRY, and she will become a curse!
@@GameTimeWhy They have read it. They try to explain this away as not being abortion or try to say this verse is unclear. when it only makes sense if this is talking about pregnancy.
@@GameTimeWhy Talking of ‘CHRISTIANS’ nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Bible holds the answers to all or most of life's basic questions, yet only 45% of American adults can name the four gospels and 37% of American ‘Christians’ cannot name the first book of the Bible and only 39% knew who Job was!!!
I was told once that god must have made everyone sterile for the required number of years so that no children born or unborn were killed by the flood. Why the flood was then even necessary, just wait longer to end the human race, was not explained.
They use plausible deniability. We know that they will use their religious bias to craft laws, but their arguments tend to leave out their religion and shape it as something else. You can see this because the logic of their arguments waver with the circumstances.
@yallimsorry5983 The quote I was replying to said religion can't be the basis for a law. I fully agree the Constitution says Congress may not establish a state religion, but that's not the claim here.
@@Zachary_Setzer The same provision exists in the Australian Constitution and it has been interpreted very narrowly. The state props up religion here to an absurd degree funnelling billions to them.
If God gave the law for priests to give 'the water of bitterness' to a pregnant woman, with the intention being, that an abortion would occur if that woman had a different partner than her husband, then God is saying that not only is abortion permissible, but it is called for in these dubious situations.
100% END OF DISCUSSION!!! though a fake god.... One of the bible GODs gave them a ritual abortion and a reason for it. If your owner / husband did not knock you up to carry on his line, then say a chant and drink the curse drugs and flush it out. I looked for years also and one day came across this. when ever challenged that the bible god is against killing kids is easy, but aborting.... is right there. if not by your husband..... its outta there
Actually, pregnancy is not the issue in Numbers 5 but Jealousy. The curse would go farther than just aborting a fetus if present, it could cause the woman to perish by her belly swelling and thigh rotting. That being said, this is not the only time that God was indifferent to a fetus. He actually put out order of death on the new born son of Bat Sheba before she gave birth!
AFAIK people in the ancient near east didn't seem to get that philosophical about individual lives, ever. It'd be completely non-controversial that a fetus's life was 100% under the control of their family. It was not considered their own life to begin with.
The foetus was thigh, in other words a part of the woman's body. She is totally entitled to prefer her health over the foetus. Not the GOP way that she should sacrifice her life to bring forth a possible unviable baby.
@@Zachary_Setzer any number of cases in the news recently- where women were refused care until they were actively dying, even when there was no possibility of a live healthy baby as an outcome, sometimes even when the fetal electrical activity/ “heartbeat” had ceased
@@signespencer6887 The claim I was referring to is that the GOP way is that a woman should sacrifice her life. I was wondering if anyone has actually seen that position advocated. I haven't seen it. I'm pretty sure it's a fabrication, but I'm open to seeing contrary evidence.
Abortion has never been and will never be murder. You can't murder something that emits as many brain waves as a person who's been declared legally dead.
Exodus 21:22,23 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
A Christian once told me that the holy spirit guides modern Christians to interpret the Bible the correct way regardless of how previous Christians interpreted the Bible.
The 'holy spirit' is everyone's inner voice. That's why it always agree with the 'enlightened' and that's why the 'holy spirit' says different things to different people. Reading the Bible with 'the guidance of the holy spirit' means believing blindly whatever you interpret from the text. It means being convinced by yourself, but imagining you were convinced by a supernatural entity.
22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
@@mrfunkington Who understands Christianity better than most people in the US who call themselves Christian but come across as monsters to many of the rest of us. That's why I'm here. Looking for information to help me get my head around why so many US self--proclaimed Christians are so hell-bent on destroying their god's creation, rather than be its stewards, as their Bible instructs them to be. Or on claiming some nonsense about abortion while being perfectly okay with letting millions of children live in poverty, without healthcare, or be at the receiving end of genocides they themselves take part in committing..... Utter madness.
@@mrfunkington He is an ex-christian. He is however and more to the point a biblical scholar who has studied the bible and how it came to be, which makes him an expert on what the ancients thought.
I thought that, in the ancient world, Zoroastrian Persians believed that freeing a slave was a Good Deed and that doing Good Deeds is at the center of the religion. Meaning there were people in the ancient world who believed slavery was wrong. Cyrus famously freed slaves, including the Jews in Babylon, so they should have been aware of this moral concept from the Persians.
They believed freeing someone was a good deed, but they did not believe slavery was wrong. Slavery was what happened naturally when you ran out of money or when you lost a war, and then a particularly nice king or gentleman could free you if they wanted to be nice. Obviously I don't agree with this.
@@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh Believing something is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory is still a moral concept. The Zoroastrian Persians believed performing Good Deeds was morally obligatory, and that freeing a slave was a Good Deed, among others. I don't think, therefore, it's true to say that no one in the ancient world realized slavery was bad.
@@eldorian91 Either way, the deported Jewish elite weren’t slaves in Babylon. That’s why many chose to stay there after the forced exile, and went on to form a highly successful Jewish community until Israel made that impossible after 1949. Avi Shlaim has written and spoken excellently about this history.
@@rdklkje13 If Israel's mere existence made it impossible to tolerate Jews who had never been to Palestine, then those communities were always a hair's breadth from extinction.
I am in favor of abortion. It's a medical procedure other people might have that has *nothing* to do with me. And I don't care why anyone has one, it's simply not my business.
I feel even the language of being “born again” and the language around becoming a *new person* in Christ all imply that birth is when personhood begins. Im not defending that view, but I’m saying I think the NT seems to suggest that
I don’t know why Bart keeps asserting that the Biblical view is of personhood beginning at the point of “viability.” He himself says that the biblical authors assume personhood begins with first breath. That is, birth. This is not the same as viability, not at all.
I think he might mean the " quickening", as in John the Baptist kicking in the womb. Also, if only breathing defines life what if a baby is delivered but you hold your hand over their mouth and never let them breathe, not even biblical people would see that as less than murder
Well old testament authors would have most likely defined life as beginning at first breath. But hellenized Jews had been influenced by greek philosophy and so new testament authors are more likely to have believed life began at the quickening, when the fetus begins to move (easily confused with viability, though not quite the same). So biblical authors believed both depending on which biblical authors you're talking about.
Numbers 5 is very clear. God himself is commanding and explaining how to perform a MAGIC SPELL that carries a CURSE if the woman was unfaithful and if pregnant to cause a miscarriage or abortion. Is so freaking clear that i cannot believe people still try doing headstands to say is taken out of context.
I don't think even it you take it litterally not metaphorically that something like "god knew me when i was in the womb" implies god considers fetuses to be people. no one is denying that every person used to be a fetus. and if god is omniscient then obviously if someone is pregnant then god knows, and you could say knows what that fetus will grow up to be like. but you could also point to a wooden chair and say god knew that chair when it was a tree. of course he did, but that doesn't mean god considers trees to be the same thing as chairs or thinks all laws which apply to chairs should also apply to trees.
Do you realise that trees do not grow up naturally to be chairs? You have to kill a tree to make a chair out of it. But fetuses naturally grow into an adult human being. If you don't kill them, that is.
I've seen Dan McClellan, who I don't think teaches anywhere but has a PhD in religious something or other from Exeter, assert that Catholicism (pre-16th century Christianity basically) held the view that life began at the quickening up until a couple of hundred years ago. I had always understood that Catholicism had a long tradition of the doctrine of ensoulment at conception, and that Protestantism was mostly pro-choice up until the 1980 election. You used to be able to go to the SBC website and look at their 1970 convention platform, and they were explicitly pro-choice in 1970. Interesting to see the scholarly disagreement on Catholicism, though.
Yeah, I think Augustine discussed this. The allowable-abortion period was 3 months for girls and 4 months for boys (or vice versa, I forget), but since no one knew back then what sex the fetus was that meant 4 months. Nuts, the bunch of them.
@@kuhnemund6523 Thank you. I needed to remember "Augustine" to look it up. It appears that McClellan and Ehrman can both be right to some degree. Augustine was against abortion but made a distinction between abortion before and after the "quickening." The issue is also complicated by his view changing. He initially viewed ensoulment as happening at conception as the current Church view is, but later amended his view to think that ensoulment happened at three or four months, or the "quickening." At least that's what a quick couple of Google searches came up with. McClellan is probably referring to the Church changing its position on when ensoulment happens, which it changed in the 19th century.
On the matter of Zoroastrian influence - I think it makes sense it would take a long time for post-exilic Judaism to embrace the Persian concepts. Scholars posit that the Jews maintained their mythology throughout their captivity. Upon release they are not going to immediately adopt their captors' stories. But they probably learned them... If grandpa was captive we can't like the stories (other than rebellious younglings who would have been spreading it around), but once we're a few generations removed... plus it takes time for ideas to disseminate and build momentum. I think it makes perfect sense Persian ideas wouldn't appear in Jewish writing until quite a bit after the exile ended.
The penalty described in Exodus 21 for causing an _unwanted_ miscarriage gives the impression that intentional abortion wasn't considered noteworthy. Indeed, since the fine was primarily at the father's discretion, he could simply not penalize them at all if he chose. 🤔
That's my understanding as well. Not only an unintended miscarriage, but by a third party. There's no suggestion in the text that if the woman herself induced the miscarriage that there would be anything done.
the Bible allows for post birth abortion to the age of 12 (Deuteronomy 21), and the current view of among Jews is that it's a fetus until it graduates medical school.
Ah, yes. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is about the stoning (very late post-birth 'abortion') of rebellious sons. The precise age limit of 12 years must be extra-biblical, though.
@@johaquila The point being the reason why I said 12 years old is because of the age of accountability under the law. Which by tradition was around 12 or 13?
We need a deeper analysis of the facts in this video. This is a very important issue touching all aspects of our lives. Having two people back and forth in a discussion is better than a one person course, imo. A conversation is ideal.
I feel like Bart contradicts himself here. He says so vociferously early in the episode that the Bible does not take any position on abortion, and I was quite irritated because I knew of the numbers passage he cited later. But then he gets to that passage and doesn't seem to connect that this shows that the Bible in fact explicitly DID NOT condemn abortion. It's own priesthood was PERFORMING them, albeit as a twisted judgement procedure rather than as a choice and medical procedure. So the Bible not only isn't pro-Life in that respect, but far, FAR closer to pro-Choice. I feel like in light of that, his earlier statements don't really stand up. Bart also mentioned people wanting to weaponize the bible. This sort of argument-by-bible seems so strange to those of us outside the evangelical community, but many of them grew up doing bible studies where arguments were won and lost BY THE BIBLE. Whomever had better instant command of biblical passages won the argument. They effectively grow up being trained to view finding the right bible verse as a sort of argument-ending drop-the-mic moment. It's therefore entirely understandable why they often seem confused when this DOESN'T work outside their community. After all, it worked every other time they tried it! It's how they were taught to approach difficult topics. It really leaves alot of hardcore evangelical kids unprepared for real life. They go away to college and suddenly citing the bible doesn't have cache of any kind. It's a culture shock that can either liberate or radicalize.
I love that Burt mentioned the Didache and what it has to say about abortion. No discussion of this topic can be complete without touching on early church’s rather speedy conviction on abortion.
bart lied about exodus 21 .. 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
@@CalebJudah-l3q "So that her children come out" here clearly means that birth is induced before the child/children can survive. I agree that if you really want you can read into it what you say, but it's not the natural reading and almost certainly not how it was interpreted at the time. A child being born a week earlier than expected with no complications and growing up to become a healthy adult would hardly have been a reason for the "the one who hit her [to] surely be fined". You need to read such passages in the context of others, such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which show that human life was not an absolute value and that children were the property of their parents.
15:00 Yes! People DEFINITELY exist before they're born. Some people remember where they were, during the period between physical incarnations, most can remember, through hypnotic regression.
Speaking of babies, please comment on Psalms 137-9. This talks about being happy to dash infants against rocks! What are they actually try to say here? Thanks.
And different religions have different views - and rarely make sense with an understanding of female biology; reproductive biology or reproductive medicine.
The Greeks had the concept of a "soul" being up in heaven, knowing what their life would be, but then have to pass under the throne of Zeus , the throne of fogetting, and then pass down into the world to be born, but not remembering what they decided their life would be - however!!! the soul was accompanied by a daimon who would try to direct them to experience what the soul had chosen.
The historical way to create lye was to run water through ashes, which the dust of the temple would be. So the result of the Biblical recipe would be a crude form of lye. Lye has been used to as an abortifacient historically, so that mixture would probably be effective at least part of the time.
Dan McClain has made a similar case as Bart, that ancient Hebrew mythology and culture did not view fetuses as fully human. Hence, why the miscarriage verse in Numbers exists. It's supported by the historical understanding of Hebrew culture and of ancient Near Eastern culture, too.
The supposed Jews of today believe that only Jewish males are fully human, no one else. Their own mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, et cetera are not even human beings.
There is one single passage that can be interpreted as describing a method of abortion to me administered as a punitive measure. But it's quite contested by scholars. Other than that... Not. A. God. Damn. Thing.
Exodus 21: 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
40:20 Nobody, in the ancient World, opposed slavery. Today, we oppose slavery, as, no doubt, pep[le will, in the future, oppose killing & eating animals.
@@rationalpear1816 As God is omniscient he knew you before the universe was born. The bible as far as I can recollect does not specify when a soul is created. It does specifically say it (or life) was breathed into you with your first breath. Science may argue against that but you have to takes straight forward as metaphor and vague as implying what you want from a biblical view.
I've been telling my fellow Christian conservatives this for years, though they never listen. Human life begins at conception, not because the Bible says so (it doesn't) but because embryology says so (it does, unequivocally).
Everyone should have the right to make decisions about their own body. _Their own body_ - not the body of a different human, irrespectible where that body resides.
We still are the ones who need to decide what rights that 'human life' should have. Calling it 'human life' (and yes, it's human, and yes, it's alive) doesn't grant rights automatically.
But a human person begins with a CNS and PNS and that does not begin at conception. A dead person’s fingernails growing is human life cellularly, but it is not A human life, it is not a person’s life. A human person’s life begins at least 3 months, maybe much longer, after conception.
In the creation poem Genesis, Adam doesn't become a living soul until air is breathed into his body...so for those who believe Genesis literally ... a fetus isn't a person until he/she breathes air.
Thank you for a very illuminating discussion of the Bible's silence on abortion. Sadly, popular opinion and media have a very distorted view on the matter. Although some fundamentalists mistakenly appeal to the Bible in this debate, most serious Christian ethicists, and virtually all scholarly Catholic ethicists appeal to philosophical arguments when engaged in this debate. For example, among Catholic scholars, appeals to natural law tend to be common. This is important since popular opinion and media tends to strawman serious Christians by failing to acknowledge that their serious scholarly anti-abortion arguments are not based on the Bible at all!
The Mosaic Law of Jealousy never outlined the adulteress being “stoned to death” Since the Mosaic Law of Jealousy was established to address allegations of “undetected” adultery as outlined in Numbers 5:11-15, it did not meet the requirement of having at least two witnesses for all legal cases as outlined in Deuteronomy 19:15, so the death penalty mandated in Leviticus 20:10 in cases of adultery was not applicable as punishment, therefore, if proven guilty, a lesser sentence was imposed on both the wife and her paramour. This lesser sentence included infertility and becoming curses among the people. Additionally, the wife would then lose all rights to her marriage contract, the Ketubah, and she would be restricted from having any further relations with her paramour.
You are missing the obvious point that if the ritual indicates that she was unfaithful then the priest and the husband both become witnesses to this....
I'm going to walk up to the next beautiful woman I see and declare, "God KNOWS our child before it has been conceived...we must oblige His will and fulfill His objectives!!"
Bart, you are following established Rabbinical interpretation and the Hebrew text in regard to God making Adam from the dirt or indeterminate particles (adamah) with breath, which is his spirit. The standard interpretation is that there are three parts of the human being mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis: the nephesh (animal soul), nechama (human soul), and ruach (spirit). The composition of the human being is more complex than Christians understand. Jews generally agree that life starts with breath and have already gone to court against laws against abortion. One case has been thrown out for lack of standing (none of the women were pregnant).
At the very end, Professor Ehrman stated that the Hebrew Bible we have today is from a manuscript from the year 1000. Does anyone here know if he meant BCE or CE? The closed captioning didn't properly spell out the name of the codex he referenced. EDIT: I'll be using the Google method to see if I can find my answer, too, but many folks here are quite knowledgeable. I'm a rookie in the area of Biblical scholarship. 😊
Even if you were to convince an evangelical that life begins at first breath, i bet they will would then say, well, the fetus begins to “breathe” the amniotic fluid at 10-12 wks.
Why did the early church make such an issue of it? This is from a query to ChatGPT. Pre-third century theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others did indeed address the issue of abortion, typically within the context of broader discussions about the sanctity of life and Christian ethics. Here’s a summary of their views: Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 202 AD): Irenaeus, in his work "Against Heresies," does not directly focus on abortion, but he emphasizes the sanctity of life, particularly in the context of creation. He argues that God is the creator of life, and therefore, human life, even in the womb, is sacred. He emphasizes the importance of human life as created in the image of God and argues against anything that would destroy or harm that life. While he doesn't explicitly mention abortion, his theological framework would suggest that abortion is contrary to God's creative work. Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 240 AD): Tertullian is one of the earliest Christian writers to directly address the issue of abortion. In his work "Apology," Tertullian condemns abortion as murder, equating it with infanticide. He argues that life begins at conception, stating that "the embryo becomes a human being in the womb long before delivery," and therefore, any act to destroy it is morally wrong. Tertullian’s writings provide a clear and early Christian condemnation of abortion, reflecting the view that life is sacred from the moment of conception. Additionally, in "De Anima" (On the Soul), Tertullian discusses the ensoulment of the fetus, arguing that the soul is present from the moment of conception, reinforcing his stance against abortion. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340 - 397 AD): Although Ambrose lived slightly after the pre-third century period, he was influenced by earlier Christian thought. Ambrose strongly opposed abortion and viewed it as a grave sin. In his letters and sermons, he condemns abortion as an act that destroys a life that God has begun to form. He views abortion as not only a violation of divine law but also as an affront to the community, which is deprived of a future member. Other Early Christian Writings: The Didache (c. 50 - 120 AD): This early Christian text, often called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," directly condemns abortion. It states, "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." This is one of the earliest explicit references to abortion in Christian literature. The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70 - 132 AD): This early Christian writing also condemns abortion, stating that Christians should not "kill the child by procuring an abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born." General Consensus in Early Christianity: The general consensus among early Christian theologians was a strong opposition to abortion, rooted in the belief that life begins at conception and that taking that life is equivalent to murder. These views were influenced by Jewish ethical teachings and were often articulated in response to practices in the Roman world that the early Christians found morally reprehensible. In summary, early Christian theologians, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, and later Ambrose, as well as early Christian documents like the Didache, consistently condemned abortion as contrary to Christian ethics and the sanctity of life. This opposition formed a key part of early Christian moral teaching.
I have found chatGPT to be very inaccurate as to conclusions on religion. It is heavily biased in favor of religions. I point out data that it hadn’t taken into account and it will agree with me in that session. But the next day in a new session, it reverts to pro-religion conclusions.
or just read the Bible, no need to consult the early Father's exodus 21 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
32:40 Are there any sources for the one-up reactions to morality? I just know that a fundamentalist will want to scrutinize and discredit that if I just say "trust me bro"
I think Ehrman is biased. Here's an accepted translation of Exodus 22: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." I must suppose that "serious injury" means a miscarriage or any damage to the baby (this one is intentional) or the woman, including death. Now, the text refers to "giving birth prematurely" not, necessarily, to a miscarriage (accidentally.)
Regarding the literal meaning of Psalm 139-13, even if poetic, we need to consider these distinctions were disregarded by Israelites, for them they were commands from Yahweh, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made", being Ehrman's interpretation simply modern.
@@PoloMaldonadoM You wrote, “Here is an accepted translation.” That is the problem: you are relying on *one* translation. If you cannot read the original then you are going to have to rely on a translation. Don’t assume that the translation you are using is more correct. This is why actual scholars learn to read ancient languages, so they can go back to the earliest texts we have and read them for themselves in context. Since you are relying on a single translation, why do you assume that your interpretation of that text is correct and Ehrman is biased?
Regarding Jeremiah 1, 4-5, 4, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"', it's evident the Ehrman's view is based on his personal incredulity. He's saying that since he believes spirit can't exist before pregnancy, the text is, thus, allegorical.
i have been preaching this same word for many many years i have sermon after sermon on this sunbject, but i do go a little futher in that the fetus has no life and no spoul just like adam, the only life in that fetus is the life of the mother through the umblical cord, as well, technology today is such that we can look right into tne womb and see the fetus and tell what medical shape it is in, why would we give the life that comes into that body, a destorted crippled body, why would we not abort it and try again to give our child a body that is decided by the medical professionals, and the mother, for life and soul is not there until it is born of the water and the blood, why give that life a body that is determined by doctors that it would die anyway, or for what ever other medical reasons that come up, we should work to create a body that will benefit the child god gives when the fetus breathes the breath of life, for it is not alive or has no spoul until then, i say again just this year ive put sermon after sermon of facebook among other places about this subject, but the religious have been so decieved bu this subject because of ignorance to the word of god and the spirit of god that they just dont care what the bible says about it, they no better than the word of god does, jesus said the children of this world are wiser than the children of light, and that light is very dim indeed, amen and amen
I like the way Dr Ehrman starts off with an appeal to authority - his own: 'The bible says nothing about abortion', and then goes on to list the verses where it does. I'm sure Dr Ehrman is aware of Dr Sagan's assertion that 'arguments from authority are worthless': so well played!
@@CalebJudah-l3q This bit? 'If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, 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'. I mean it does sound like a fine, but perhaps 'pay' has a wider meaning?
That’s because it’s really not in the Bible. They attempt to take things from the Bible and turn into something that it’s not talking about , but if you were to do the same then they would quickly call you out for taking it out of context.
Genesis 2:7 describes one singular non-repeating event, the creation of Adam; establishing him as “the first man,” serving as “the progenitor of our species and the point of origin for human society”. It has never equated Yahweh's breath of life, the starting of biological human life, or the onset of lived sentient experiences, with childbirth or postnatal respiration. Genesis 2:7 also does not prescribe any actions pertaining to the creation of Adam's progeny or the subsequent propagation of humanity through intercourse, conception, gestation, and birth from the wombs of our mothers. That initial propagation between Adam and Eve is described in Genesis 4:1-2 and Genesis 4:25, where it is noted that Adam's children-Cain, Abel, and Seth-were all “conceived and born” from Eve’s womb from Adam's seed “that God has set,” rather than being “formed from the dust of the ground” like their father or “fashioned from the rib” like their mother.
My first time out of the country, I must have been something like 6. The one and only vacation we took the plane. My mother flew to Italy with me (my father rarely took vacations with the family, both too much work and different tastes in vacations). We spent some time in Bellaria (Rimini), and a day trip to Venice, and that's most of my memory. We had a bit of weather. Lots of fun standing right at the bow until the crew insisted we go inside, where it was warm and study and I spent most of the time sleeping. After debarking in Venice, I noticed the ship had acquired some new vertical racing stripes. I think the journey back was by bus. In any case, since then I know I don't get seasick.
Mosaic Law never prescribed the death penalty for involuntary manslaughter. In the case where the mother dies in Exodus 21:22-25, "Life for Life" is a fine.
I don't think that's really a problem. If the Bible were explicit on viability, then any such passage would naturally update gradually as viability increases due to technology. The real problem is that the Bible is _not_ very explicit about viability. Exodus 21:22 is sufficiently unclear to potentially cover everything from a miscarriage to giving birth a day earlier to a healthy child. That's because the literal meaning of the relevant phrase is that of her children coming out. Even that they come out _earlier_ isn't explicit, so interpretation is obviously required. The precise meaning depends on how exactly this idiomatic phrase was interpreted in its original context. Did it cover a viable child coming out a little earlier? Maybe yes, but very likely not.
@@John.Flower.Productionswhy does your state require a death certificate for a foetus who has died? It seems absurd to me to ask a woman who has just experienced a miscarriage who was hoping for a child, to add to their grief and mourning seems cruel even in the situation of an abortion. Do they not think it's enough to suffer the loss or the judgement of others? It just sounds strange to me that they can make laws which confirm a foetus has passed but wasn't born. Actually now that you have mentioned it, I will have to check the laws here.
@@johnrangi4830 Every state keeps a record of *human deaths* that occur within its border, including stillborn and aborted fetuses. Every state has prosecuted someone suspected of murdering a pregnant woman for *two (2) counts of homicide.* Every state has prosecuted someone suspected of illegally disposing of and/or burying the *corpse* of a fetus, both stillborn and aborted. I am alive, despite never having been born.
@@UnimatrixOne Many Jews believed that en-soulment took place at birth and thus personhood and thus the baby had moral and legal rights! Adam was formed from the dust of the earth but did not become a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him. A fetus even though formed in the womb did not become a living soul until birth and it's first breath.
When Roe was decided, the Southern Baptist Conference initially took the position that abortion was an individual decision. Evangelicals turned against abortion when the so called "Moral Majority concluded it was a divisive issue that they could exploit.
Who are the moral majority?
"Roe" was based off the earlier Menhennit ruling in Victoria, Australia in 1969. It's where they got the foetal viability bullshit from in the first place. They didnt just conjur it up out of thin air.
@@pebystroll Jerry Falwell invented the pressure group in the seventies. They claimed Reagan was elected because of their influence. Were you alseep in the eighties?
@@pebystrollIt was a conservative political movement in America in the late 1970's in America.
@@pebystroll Maybe you've heard of Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University, an extremely conservative Christian college. Jerry Falwell spoke about his perception that there were a lot of quiet conservative Christians who would have a lot of power if they just formed a coalition. So he formed that coalition and called it the Moral Majority in about 1978-79, a faction of the Republican party. Republicans who were eager to get elected tried to align with the Moral Majority so they were talked about quite a bit during the 1980s and 1990s by Republicans. I think this marked the place where Republicans veered off from their former respectable stance as a party interested in smaller federal government, strong military, and favor of business owners (as opposed to union workers). Falwell finally died and few people refer to the Moral Majority anymore. After all, look at Trump and his flaunting of immorality -- lying, cheating, breaking laws, etc. It would be fairly ridiculous for Republicans who support Trump to refer to the Moral Majority. So remnants of this movement remain but the term Moral Majority is seldom used anymore.
I recently had the pleasure of traveling to Barbados and while I was there I went to a botanical walk at a place called Andromeda Gardens. The guide there taught us about the Pride of Barbados (Caesalpinia pulcherrima), their national flower. Enslaved women used to use its seeds as a way to induce abortion so their children wouldn't be born into the system.
It wasn't just a way to take back their bodily autonomy, they were making sure no one could profit off their kids too. They were heroes and they're still honored to this day for their sacrifice 🇧🇧
Thank you for sharing this
Good that nobody needs to be that kind of a hero anymore, at least in the West.
@@mtauren1 I disagree, any woman who has been or is incarcerated in a state with limited access to abortion is still living this horror out.
Imagine being clean for years only for contraception to fail and then be forced to give a child up for adoption because you have a record and can't find a job to provide. Imagine being forced to carry a child you desperately want to term, only to be told your past makes you incapable of parenting (despite being capable enough to do it for the nine months you carry them).
That's what women face today in the United States.
@@zapkvr Thank you for reading it!
In the American South cotton root was widely used for this purpose.
The pregnant girl is not a concubine. She is a real person with real feelings and should be in charge of what happens to her body. I am pro life of the pregnant person.
her body is her body, the babies body is the babies body. Two different and unique DNA's, two different and unique bodies, two different and unique persons.
How dumb an argument
@@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis Personhood is a legal concept, you shouldn't derive that from DNA. There are persons without DNA (organizations), and unique strands of DNA that aren't persons (tumors)
@@juanausensi499and if the law says that some humans are slaves so then they don't have rights and that is a legal concept and that's where the discussion ends.
A concubine is a real person with real feelings.
Numbers 5:23: “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water.
24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.
25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water.
27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, HER ABDOMEN WILL SWELL AND HER WOMB WILL MISCARRY, and she will become a curse!
I'm interested to hear their thoughts on this passage in particular!
If only christians would read the bible they would know this.
@@magicdog9523 I wonder if pro-life MAGA know that not only does the Babble (not a typo) condone abortion but it gives instructions 😱
@@GameTimeWhy They have read it. They try to explain this away as not being abortion or try to say this verse is unclear. when it only makes sense if this is talking about pregnancy.
@@GameTimeWhy Talking of ‘CHRISTIANS’ nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Bible holds the answers to all or most of life's basic questions, yet only 45% of American adults can name the four gospels and 37% of American ‘Christians’ cannot name the first book of the Bible and only 39% knew who Job was!!!
Lots of UNBORN babies in NOAH'S flood!
Abrahamism was founded on ritual child sacrifice.
Irrelevant
@@bubbag8895 Irrelevant that it's irrelevant - its a FACT -- COPE!
I was told once that god must have made everyone sterile for the required number of years so that no children born or unborn were killed by the flood. Why the flood was then even necessary, just wait longer to end the human race, was not explained.
Ah, but those fetuses were incorrigibly evil, just like everyone on the planet apart from _one_ family and the chicks that their sons married. 😜
We should also remember that the Constitution says that religion should not be the sole basis for a law.
They use plausible deniability. We know that they will use their religious bias to craft laws, but their arguments tend to leave out their religion and shape it as something else. You can see this because the logic of their arguments waver with the circumstances.
Which provision says that?
@@Zachary_Setzer “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
@yallimsorry5983 The quote I was replying to said religion can't be the basis for a law. I fully agree the Constitution says Congress may not establish a state religion, but that's not the claim here.
@@Zachary_Setzer The same provision exists in the Australian Constitution and it has been interpreted very narrowly. The state props up religion here to an absurd degree funnelling billions to them.
Congratulations on 2 years. Idk how long I've been here, but I've really enjoyed learning.
If God gave the law for priests to give 'the water of bitterness' to a pregnant woman, with the intention being, that an abortion would occur if that woman had a different partner than her husband, then God is saying that not only is abortion permissible, but it is called for in these dubious situations.
100% END OF DISCUSSION!!! though a fake god.... One of the bible GODs gave them a ritual abortion and a reason for it. If your owner / husband did not knock you up to carry on his line, then say a chant and drink the curse drugs and flush it out. I looked for years also and one day came across this. when ever challenged that the bible god is against killing kids is easy, but aborting.... is right there. if not by your husband..... its outta there
Don't put words in God's mouth
@@bubbag8895 He did not - don't assume someone is. Do you understand the word IF?
tHe BarBel iS MetERfOrecUL!
Except the parts I agree with.
Actually, pregnancy is not the issue in Numbers 5 but Jealousy. The curse would go farther than just aborting a fetus if present, it could cause the woman to perish by her belly swelling and thigh rotting. That being said, this is not the only time that God was indifferent to a fetus. He actually put out order of death on the new born son of Bat Sheba before she gave birth!
AFAIK people in the ancient near east didn't seem to get that philosophical about individual lives, ever. It'd be completely non-controversial that a fetus's life was 100% under the control of their family. It was not considered their own life to begin with.
The foetus was thigh, in other words a part of the woman's body. She is totally entitled to prefer her health over the foetus. Not the GOP way that she should sacrifice her life to bring forth a possible unviable baby.
@@albertmagician8613 Can I get a reference to someone advocating that position? I don't think I've seen it.
Correct. As if it was even relevant.
@@Zachary_Setzer any number of cases in the news recently- where women were refused care until they were actively dying, even when there was no possibility of a live healthy baby as an outcome, sometimes even when the fetal electrical activity/ “heartbeat” had ceased
@@signespencer6887 The claim I was referring to is that the GOP way is that a woman should sacrifice her life. I was wondering if anyone has actually seen that position advocated. I haven't seen it. I'm pretty sure it's a fabrication, but I'm open to seeing contrary evidence.
5:58 gets going
13:45 part two
34:33 part three
Discussion of Numbers 5 begins at 20:50.
Asking if a fetus is alive is asking the wrong question. A petunia is alive, but you won’t find many people who think killing a petunia is murder.
Thank you.
wow great point
for them human beings are a special creation by God to be treated with higher standards from any living thing on this planet.
Abortion has never been and will never be murder. You can't murder something that emits as many brain waves as a person who's been declared legally dead.
You are entirely correct, of course. Not only is a petunia alive, but so is a Covid-19 virus.
Hosea 13:16 (Abortion as punishment)
Hosea 9:14 (Miscarriage as punishment)
Numbers 5,11-28 (Abortive ritual)
Job 3:16, Job 10:18-20 (Miscarriage as positive option)
Exodus 21:22,23 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
@@CalebJudah-l3q Even accepting your biased translation, I never mentioned Exodus. Anything against my points?
@@CalebJudah-l3q
What does that passage tell you?
A Christian once told me that the holy spirit guides modern Christians to interpret the Bible the correct way regardless of how previous Christians interpreted the Bible.
The 'holy spirit' is everyone's inner voice. That's why it always agree with the 'enlightened' and that's why the 'holy spirit' says different things to different people.
Reading the Bible with 'the guidance of the holy spirit' means believing blindly whatever you interpret from the text. It means being convinced by yourself, but imagining you were convinced by a supernatural entity.
@@juanausensi499well said.
How nice of the holy spirit to have recently started to guide Christians the right way. What was he doing before?
Ooh, this should be a juicy one. You two are doing a public service!
22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Need time stamp for when discussion begins
6:10
@@mrfunkington exactly the reason for listening
@@mrfunkington Who understands Christianity better than most people in the US who call themselves Christian but come across as monsters to many of the rest of us. That's why I'm here. Looking for information to help me get my head around why so many US self--proclaimed Christians are so hell-bent on destroying their god's creation, rather than be its stewards, as their Bible instructs them to be. Or on claiming some nonsense about abortion while being perfectly okay with letting millions of children live in poverty, without healthcare, or be at the receiving end of genocides they themselves take part in committing..... Utter madness.
@@mrfunkington He is an ex-christian. He is however and more to the point a biblical scholar who has studied the bible and how it came to be, which makes him an expert on what the ancients thought.
@@mrfunkington Why are you here?
I thought that, in the ancient world, Zoroastrian Persians believed that freeing a slave was a Good Deed and that doing Good Deeds is at the center of the religion. Meaning there were people in the ancient world who believed slavery was wrong. Cyrus famously freed slaves, including the Jews in Babylon, so they should have been aware of this moral concept from the Persians.
What makes you think that the Jewish elites deported to Babylon became slaves there?
They believed freeing someone was a good deed, but they did not believe slavery was wrong. Slavery was what happened naturally when you ran out of money or when you lost a war, and then a particularly nice king or gentleman could free you if they wanted to be nice.
Obviously I don't agree with this.
@@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh Believing something is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory is still a moral concept. The Zoroastrian Persians believed performing Good Deeds was morally obligatory, and that freeing a slave was a Good Deed, among others. I don't think, therefore, it's true to say that no one in the ancient world realized slavery was bad.
@@eldorian91 Either way, the deported Jewish elite weren’t slaves in Babylon. That’s why many chose to stay there after the forced exile, and went on to form a highly successful Jewish community until Israel made that impossible after 1949. Avi Shlaim has written and spoken excellently about this history.
@@rdklkje13
If Israel's mere existence made it impossible to tolerate Jews who had never been to Palestine, then those communities were always a hair's breadth from extinction.
I am in favor of abortion. It's a medical procedure other people might have that has *nothing* to do with me. And I don't care why anyone has one, it's simply not my business.
Nobody cares
@@noahziegler3478 you clearly cared enough to expend the energy to comment.
Yup. I don't have a uterus, so my stance on it doesn't matter. But I will fight for others' bodily autonomy.
I feel even the language of being “born again” and the language around becoming a *new person* in Christ all imply that birth is when personhood begins.
Im not defending that view, but I’m saying I think the NT seems to suggest that
Very grateful for your podcasts. Your scholarships are great gifts to the world. Please keep up your great work!
I don’t know why Bart keeps asserting that the Biblical view is of personhood beginning at the point of “viability.” He himself says that the biblical authors assume personhood begins with first breath. That is, birth. This is not the same as viability, not at all.
I think he might mean the " quickening", as in John the Baptist kicking in the womb. Also, if only breathing defines life what if a baby is delivered but you hold your hand over their mouth and never let them breathe, not even biblical people would see that as less than murder
You know the point he's making.
Well old testament authors would have most likely defined life as beginning at first breath. But hellenized Jews had been influenced by greek philosophy and so new testament authors are more likely to have believed life began at the quickening, when the fetus begins to move (easily confused with viability, though not quite the same).
So biblical authors believed both depending on which biblical authors you're talking about.
@@aaronparry2636 maybe so, I’m just responding to Bart here
Bart understands 'viability' in this context to mean that the baby could breathe if outside.
Numbers 5 is very clear. God himself is commanding and explaining how to perform a MAGIC SPELL that carries a CURSE if the woman was unfaithful and if pregnant to cause a miscarriage or abortion. Is so freaking clear that i cannot believe people still try doing headstands to say is taken out of context.
I don't think even it you take it litterally not metaphorically that something like "god knew me when i was in the womb" implies god considers fetuses to be people. no one is denying that every person used to be a fetus. and if god is omniscient then obviously if someone is pregnant then god knows, and you could say knows what that fetus will grow up to be like. but you could also point to a wooden chair and say god knew that chair when it was a tree. of course he did, but that doesn't mean god considers trees to be the same thing as chairs or thinks all laws which apply to chairs should also apply to trees.
Do you realise that trees do not grow up naturally to be chairs? You have to kill a tree to make a chair out of it.
But fetuses naturally grow into an adult human being. If you don't kill them, that is.
read exodus 21:22,23
@@CalebJudah-l3q
What do you think those passages are telling you?
The argument should be about a universal right to appropriate medical/surgical treatment.
I've seen Dan McClellan, who I don't think teaches anywhere but has a PhD in religious something or other from Exeter, assert that Catholicism (pre-16th century Christianity basically) held the view that life began at the quickening up until a couple of hundred years ago. I had always understood that Catholicism had a long tradition of the doctrine of ensoulment at conception, and that Protestantism was mostly pro-choice up until the 1980 election. You used to be able to go to the SBC website and look at their 1970 convention platform, and they were explicitly pro-choice in 1970. Interesting to see the scholarly disagreement on Catholicism, though.
Yeah, I think Augustine discussed this. The allowable-abortion period was 3 months for girls and 4 months for boys (or vice versa, I forget), but since no one knew back then what sex the fetus was that meant 4 months.
Nuts, the bunch of them.
@@kuhnemund6523 Thank you. I needed to remember "Augustine" to look it up. It appears that McClellan and Ehrman can both be right to some degree.
Augustine was against abortion but made a distinction between abortion before and after the "quickening." The issue is also complicated by his view changing. He initially viewed ensoulment as happening at conception as the current Church view is, but later amended his view to think that ensoulment happened at three or four months, or the "quickening."
At least that's what a quick couple of Google searches came up with. McClellan is probably referring to the Church changing its position on when ensoulment happens, which it changed in the 19th century.
On the matter of Zoroastrian influence -
I think it makes sense it would take a long time for post-exilic Judaism to embrace the Persian concepts. Scholars posit that the Jews maintained their mythology throughout their captivity. Upon release they are not going to immediately adopt their captors' stories. But they probably learned them...
If grandpa was captive we can't like the stories (other than rebellious younglings who would have been spreading it around), but once we're a few generations removed... plus it takes time for ideas to disseminate and build momentum. I think it makes perfect sense Persian ideas wouldn't appear in Jewish writing until quite a bit after the exile ended.
The penalty described in Exodus 21 for causing an _unwanted_ miscarriage gives the impression that intentional abortion wasn't considered noteworthy. Indeed, since the fine was primarily at the father's discretion, he could simply not penalize them at all if he chose. 🤔
That's my understanding as well. Not only an unintended miscarriage, but by a third party. There's no suggestion in the text that if the woman herself induced the miscarriage that there would be anything done.
The old & New Testament talks a lot about adultery, but I don’t hear the white men in control talking about this at all 😂
well if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus says marriage after divorce is prohibited ... that is certainly a topic best avoided
Who’s responsible for the estimated 20 million spontaneous abortions aka miscarriages, that occur globally every yr ? 🤷🏻♂️
Nobody?
@@billyhw5492 great point, Billy!
That is a very low number. Most pregnancies result in a miscarriage even before the woman knows she is pregnant.
The actual discussion begins at 7:12
What's wrong with the idea of pre-existing souls? Bart shrugs it off so casually like it was the most obvious thing.
the Bible allows for post birth abortion to the age of 12 (Deuteronomy 21), and the current view of among Jews is that it's a fetus until it graduates medical school.
lol
Ah, yes. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is about the stoning (very late post-birth 'abortion') of rebellious sons. The precise age limit of 12 years must be extra-biblical, though.
@@johaquila Around 12 is the bar mitzvah. After that out of the parents control.
@@jiohdi Bar mitzvah is from Mishnah and Talmud, not from the Bible.
@@johaquila The point being the reason why I said 12 years old is because of the age of accountability under the law. Which by tradition was around 12 or 13?
Leviticus 27:6 says babies aren't worth anything until they are 1 month old. It also says that females are always worth less than males.
We need a deeper analysis of the facts in this video. This is a very important issue touching all aspects of our lives. Having two people back and forth in a discussion is better than a one person course, imo. A conversation is ideal.
I feel like Bart contradicts himself here. He says so vociferously early in the episode that the Bible does not take any position on abortion, and I was quite irritated because I knew of the numbers passage he cited later. But then he gets to that passage and doesn't seem to connect that this shows that the Bible in fact explicitly DID NOT condemn abortion. It's own priesthood was PERFORMING them, albeit as a twisted judgement procedure rather than as a choice and medical procedure. So the Bible not only isn't pro-Life in that respect, but far, FAR closer to pro-Choice. I feel like in light of that, his earlier statements don't really stand up.
Bart also mentioned people wanting to weaponize the bible. This sort of argument-by-bible seems so strange to those of us outside the evangelical community, but many of them grew up doing bible studies where arguments were won and lost BY THE BIBLE. Whomever had better instant command of biblical passages won the argument. They effectively grow up being trained to view finding the right bible verse as a sort of argument-ending drop-the-mic moment. It's therefore entirely understandable why they often seem confused when this DOESN'T work outside their community. After all, it worked every other time they tried it! It's how they were taught to approach difficult topics.
It really leaves alot of hardcore evangelical kids unprepared for real life. They go away to college and suddenly citing the bible doesn't have cache of any kind. It's a culture shock that can either liberate or radicalize.
what about johns mother and john receiving the holy spirit
I love that Burt mentioned the Didache and what it has to say about abortion. No discussion of this topic can be complete without touching on early church’s rather speedy conviction on abortion.
bart lied about exodus 21 .. 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
@@CalebJudah-l3q the secondary harm is referring to the woman, not to the unborn child.
@@CalebJudah-l3q "So that her children come out" here clearly means that birth is induced before the child/children can survive. I agree that if you really want you can read into it what you say, but it's not the natural reading and almost certainly not how it was interpreted at the time. A child being born a week earlier than expected with no complications and growing up to become a healthy adult would hardly have been a reason for the "the one who hit her [to] surely be fined".
You need to read such passages in the context of others, such as Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which show that human life was not an absolute value and that children were the property of their parents.
I was just thinking that you guys needed to do a video on abortion. You guys read my mind!
15:00 Yes! People DEFINITELY exist before they're born. Some people remember where they were, during the period between physical incarnations, most can remember, through hypnotic regression.
Speaking of babies, please comment on Psalms 137-9. This talks about being happy to dash infants against rocks! What are they actually try to say here? Thanks.
Abrahamism was founded on ritual child sacrifice.
They’re telling us how great they (the author and his immediate group) think it would be to murder defenseless Babylonians.
And different religions have different views - and rarely make sense with an understanding of female biology; reproductive biology or reproductive medicine.
We are, including the foetus, made of food which does comes from the earth. (Psalm 39) "earth to earth".
Who cares what a 2000+ year-old book as about abortion ?
The Greeks had the concept of a "soul" being up in heaven, knowing what their life would be, but then have to pass under the throne of Zeus , the throne of fogetting, and then pass down into the world to be born, but not remembering what they decided their life would be - however!!! the soul was accompanied by a daimon who would try to direct them to experience what the soul had chosen.
The historical way to create lye was to run water through ashes, which the dust of the temple would be. So the result of the Biblical recipe would be a crude form of lye. Lye has been used to as an abortifacient historically, so that mixture would probably be effective at least part of the time.
Everyone go read Exodus 21:22 for yourselves
Is the NINT event held at the University of North Carolina? Lots of great info about the event….. just not if you want to attend in person.
It is an online webinar, not an in person event. I attended the first one and enjoyed it a lot.
Hi James, it is a virtual event and you get lifetime access to the recordings if you can't make the live times. - Social Media Team
Dan McClain has made a similar case as Bart, that ancient Hebrew mythology and culture did not view fetuses as fully human. Hence, why the miscarriage verse in Numbers exists. It's supported by the historical understanding of Hebrew culture and of ancient Near Eastern culture, too.
The supposed Jews of today believe that only Jewish males are fully human, no one else.
Their own mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, et cetera are not even human beings.
9:25
Stipulating “before viability” is a big condition, given that late term abortion is a major point of disagreement.
"Late term abortion" has no legal or medical meaning.
Terminating a pregnancy in the 8th or 9th month is inducing birth.
There is one single passage that can be interpreted as describing a method of abortion to me administered as a punitive measure. But it's quite contested by scholars.
Other than that... Not. A. God. Damn. Thing.
Exodus 21: 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
40:20 Nobody, in the ancient World, opposed slavery. Today, we oppose slavery, as, no doubt, pep[le will, in the future, oppose killing & eating animals.
Really important discussion. Thank you.
How many unborn children were killed during the flood? How many children?
"Before you were born" doesn't mean "Before you were conceived."
“Before I formed you in the womb….” is how the verse starts. that’s before conception.
@@rationalpear1816 As God is omniscient he knew you before the universe was born. The bible as far as I can recollect does not specify when a soul is created. It does specifically say it (or life) was breathed into you with your first breath. Science may argue against that but you have to takes straight forward as metaphor and vague as implying what you want from a biblical view.
before you were born is before you breathed the breath of life, that life was with god, not in that fetus.
I've been telling my fellow Christian conservatives this for years, though they never listen.
Human life begins at conception, not because the Bible says so (it doesn't) but because embryology says so (it does, unequivocally).
The elements needed for conception were alive previous to conception.
"Life begins at conception" is a false statement.
Everyone should have the right to make decisions about their own body. _Their own body_ - not the body of a different human, irrespectible where that body resides.
We still are the ones who need to decide what rights that 'human life' should have. Calling it 'human life' (and yes, it's human, and yes, it's alive) doesn't grant rights automatically.
@@juanausensi499 That's what Dobbs allows to happen. Unlike under Roe and Casey, the people now get a say at the ballot box.
But a human person begins with a CNS and PNS and that does not begin at conception. A dead person’s fingernails growing is human life cellularly, but it is not A human life, it is not a person’s life. A human person’s life begins at least 3 months, maybe much longer, after conception.
What does the Bible say about suffering a witch to live?
Good points. Plus it makes sense as to why abortion is the big issue verses going after men and their issues raping, incest, and male contraception
In the creation poem Genesis, Adam doesn't become a living soul until air is breathed into his body...so for those who believe Genesis literally ... a fetus isn't a person until he/she breathes air.
Because we make babies out of clay?
in Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita" also is an alternative Pilate story. interesting, is it influenced by any known noncanonical texts? a must read.
Awesome book.
16:40 For all-knowing (past and future) God, knowing someone before they were conceived would be easy.
At the 30 minute mark it seems history is repeating itself today. Very good video! 🇨🇦
Thank you for a very illuminating discussion of the Bible's silence on abortion. Sadly, popular opinion and media have a very distorted view on the matter. Although some fundamentalists mistakenly appeal to the Bible in this debate, most serious Christian ethicists, and virtually all scholarly Catholic ethicists appeal to philosophical arguments when engaged in this debate. For example, among Catholic scholars, appeals to natural law tend to be common. This is important since popular opinion and media tends to strawman serious Christians by failing to acknowledge that their serious scholarly anti-abortion arguments are not based on the Bible at all!
A great and timely episode! Thanks to Bart and Megan.
The Mosaic Law of Jealousy never outlined the adulteress being “stoned to death”
Since the Mosaic Law of Jealousy was established to address allegations of “undetected” adultery as outlined in Numbers 5:11-15, it did not meet the requirement of having at least two witnesses for all legal cases as outlined in Deuteronomy 19:15, so the death penalty mandated in Leviticus 20:10 in cases of adultery was not applicable as punishment, therefore, if proven guilty, a lesser sentence was imposed on both the wife and her paramour.
This lesser sentence included infertility and becoming curses among the people. Additionally, the wife would then lose all rights to her marriage contract, the Ketubah, and she would be restricted from having any further relations with her paramour.
You are missing the obvious point that if the ritual indicates that she was unfaithful then the priest and the husband both become witnesses to this....
Abortion is rarely medical care.
Dr. Ehrman, what do you consider to be the most accurate English translation of the Bible?
Thank you Dr. Bart Ehrman .
0 this whole conversation is ridiculous a life is a life no matter how young it is still a life 😢
Short answer, nothing
Was the death penalty applied for killing slaves or non-Jews in the bible?
I'm going to walk up to the next beautiful woman I see and declare, "God KNOWS our child before it has been conceived...we must oblige His will and fulfill His objectives!!"
Should I just skip checking the comments for this one 🤔
The bible does not appear to say anything about abortion.
Bart, you are following established Rabbinical interpretation and the Hebrew text in regard to God making Adam from the dirt or indeterminate particles (adamah) with breath, which is his spirit. The standard interpretation is that there are three parts of the human being mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis: the nephesh (animal soul), nechama (human soul), and ruach (spirit). The composition of the human being is more complex than Christians understand. Jews generally agree that life starts with breath and have already gone to court against laws against abortion. One case has been thrown out for lack of standing (none of the women were pregnant).
Why do they spend the first six minutes talking about their vacations?
Pro "life" folks are always in favor of the death penalty. Go figure.
Pro “life” folks are in favour of not murdering innocent human beings 👍
@@seanredfearn isn't every child a sinner in your mythology? original sin or something?
@@seanredfearn The Bible is quite clear that a fetus is not the same as a human being
Not always.
"Pro-life" camp would be better named "Anti-choice"
At the very end, Professor Ehrman stated that the Hebrew Bible we have today is from a manuscript from the year 1000. Does anyone here know if he meant BCE or CE? The closed captioning didn't properly spell out the name of the codex he referenced.
EDIT: I'll be using the Google method to see if I can find my answer, too, but many folks here are quite knowledgeable. I'm a rookie in the area of Biblical scholarship. 😊
Even if you were to convince an evangelical that life begins at first breath, i bet they will would then say, well, the fetus begins to “breathe” the amniotic fluid at 10-12 wks.
Shame the moral one upmanship never stopped to this day... Even with the child molestations and televangelist grift and such..
Why did the early church make such an issue of it? This is from a query to ChatGPT.
Pre-third century theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others did indeed address the issue of abortion, typically within the context of broader discussions about the sanctity of life and Christian ethics. Here’s a summary of their views:
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130 - c. 202 AD):
Irenaeus, in his work "Against Heresies," does not directly focus on abortion, but he emphasizes the sanctity of life, particularly in the context of creation. He argues that God is the creator of life, and therefore, human life, even in the womb, is sacred. He emphasizes the importance of human life as created in the image of God and argues against anything that would destroy or harm that life. While he doesn't explicitly mention abortion, his theological framework would suggest that abortion is contrary to God's creative work.
Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 240 AD):
Tertullian is one of the earliest Christian writers to directly address the issue of abortion. In his work "Apology," Tertullian condemns abortion as murder, equating it with infanticide. He argues that life begins at conception, stating that "the embryo becomes a human being in the womb long before delivery," and therefore, any act to destroy it is morally wrong. Tertullian’s writings provide a clear and early Christian condemnation of abortion, reflecting the view that life is sacred from the moment of conception.
Additionally, in "De Anima" (On the Soul), Tertullian discusses the ensoulment of the fetus, arguing that the soul is present from the moment of conception, reinforcing his stance against abortion.
Ambrose of Milan (c. 340 - 397 AD):
Although Ambrose lived slightly after the pre-third century period, he was influenced by earlier Christian thought. Ambrose strongly opposed abortion and viewed it as a grave sin. In his letters and sermons, he condemns abortion as an act that destroys a life that God has begun to form. He views abortion as not only a violation of divine law but also as an affront to the community, which is deprived of a future member.
Other Early Christian Writings:
The Didache (c. 50 - 120 AD): This early Christian text, often called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," directly condemns abortion. It states, "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." This is one of the earliest explicit references to abortion in Christian literature.
The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70 - 132 AD): This early Christian writing also condemns abortion, stating that Christians should not "kill the child by procuring an abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born."
General Consensus in Early Christianity:
The general consensus among early Christian theologians was a strong opposition to abortion, rooted in the belief that life begins at conception and that taking that life is equivalent to murder. These views were influenced by Jewish ethical teachings and were often articulated in response to practices in the Roman world that the early Christians found morally reprehensible.
In summary, early Christian theologians, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, and later Ambrose, as well as early Christian documents like the Didache, consistently condemned abortion as contrary to Christian ethics and the sanctity of life. This opposition formed a key part of early Christian moral teaching.
I have found chatGPT to be very inaccurate as to conclusions on religion. It is heavily biased in favor of religions.
I point out data that it hadn’t taken into account and it will agree with me in that session. But the next day in a new session, it reverts to pro-religion conclusions.
or just read the Bible, no need to consult the early Father's exodus 21 22“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. 23But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Megan was in my country? OMG !
32:40 Are there any sources for the one-up reactions to morality?
I just know that a fundamentalist will want to scrutinize and discredit that if I just say "trust me bro"
I think Ehrman is biased. Here's an accepted translation of Exodus 22: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
I must suppose that "serious injury" means a miscarriage or any damage to the baby (this one is intentional) or the woman, including death. Now, the text refers to "giving birth prematurely" not, necessarily, to a miscarriage (accidentally.)
You should not rely on translations as the language they use will differ.
@@OldMotherLogoI'm not sure that Ehrman's translation is better than the ones I have been consulting.
Regarding the literal meaning of Psalm 139-13, even if poetic, we need to consider these distinctions were disregarded by Israelites, for them they were commands from Yahweh, "For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made", being Ehrman's interpretation simply modern.
@@PoloMaldonadoM You wrote, “Here is an accepted translation.” That is the problem: you are relying on *one* translation. If you cannot read the original then you are going to have to rely on a translation. Don’t assume that the translation you are using is more correct. This is why actual scholars learn to read ancient languages, so they can go back to the earliest texts we have and read them for themselves in context. Since you are relying on a single translation, why do you assume that your interpretation of that text is correct and Ehrman is biased?
Regarding Jeremiah 1, 4-5, 4, "The word of the Lord came to me, saying,
5 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations"', it's evident the Ehrman's view is based on his personal incredulity. He's saying that since he believes spirit can't exist before pregnancy, the text is, thus, allegorical.
i have been preaching this same word for many many years i have sermon after sermon on this sunbject, but i do go a little futher in that the fetus has no life and no spoul just like adam, the only life in that fetus is the life of the mother through the umblical cord, as well, technology today is such that we can look right into tne womb and see the fetus and tell what medical shape it is in, why would we give the life that comes into that body, a destorted crippled body, why would we not abort it and try again to give our child a body that is decided by the medical professionals, and the mother, for life and soul is not there until it is born of the water and the blood, why give that life a body that is determined by doctors that it would die anyway, or for what ever other medical reasons that come up, we should work to create a body that will benefit the child god gives when the fetus breathes the breath of life, for it is not alive or has no spoul until then, i say again just this year ive put sermon after sermon of facebook among other places about this subject, but the religious have been so decieved bu this subject because of ignorance to the word of god and the spirit of god that they just dont care what the bible says about it, they no better than the word of god does, jesus said the children of this world are wiser than the children of light, and that light is very dim indeed, amen and amen
I like the way Dr Ehrman starts off with an appeal to authority - his own: 'The bible says nothing about abortion', and then goes on to list the verses where it does. I'm sure Dr Ehrman is aware of Dr Sagan's assertion that 'arguments from authority are worthless': so well played!
Bart also blatantly lies about what exodus 21:22 says. go read it
@@CalebJudah-l3q You are the liar!
So Dr Sagan's assertion and your use of him as an authority is also worthless - awesome! FM!
No he went on to discuss verses that people think are about abortion.
@@CalebJudah-l3q This bit? 'If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, 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'. I mean it does sound like a fine, but perhaps 'pay' has a wider meaning?
'Intricately woven in the depths of the earth'. That passage could be used to argue that evolution is god's plan.
Nothing bitter water
Great discussion as always
I've never been able to find this topic in the bible so I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
That’s because it’s really not in the Bible. They attempt to take things from the Bible and turn into something that it’s not talking about , but if you were to do the same then they would quickly call you out for taking it out of context.
@@Dizzinator2114 Exactly
Genesis 2:7 describes one singular non-repeating event, the creation of Adam; establishing him as “the first man,” serving as “the progenitor of our species and the point of origin for human society”. It has never equated Yahweh's breath of life, the starting of biological human life, or the onset of lived sentient experiences, with childbirth or postnatal respiration.
Genesis 2:7 also does not prescribe any actions pertaining to the creation of Adam's progeny or the subsequent propagation of humanity through intercourse, conception, gestation, and birth from the wombs of our mothers.
That initial propagation between Adam and Eve is described in Genesis 4:1-2 and Genesis 4:25, where it is noted that Adam's children-Cain, Abel, and Seth-were all “conceived and born” from Eve’s womb from Adam's seed “that God has set,” rather than being “formed from the dust of the ground” like their father or “fashioned from the rib” like their mother.
My first time out of the country, I must have been something like 6. The one and only vacation we took the plane. My mother flew to Italy with me (my father rarely took vacations with the family, both too much work and different tastes in vacations). We spent some time in Bellaria (Rimini), and a day trip to Venice, and that's most of my memory. We had a bit of weather. Lots of fun standing right at the bow until the crew insisted we go inside, where it was warm and study and I spent most of the time sleeping. After debarking in Venice, I noticed the ship had acquired some new vertical racing stripes. I think the journey back was by bus. In any case, since then I know I don't get seasick.
Mosaic Law never prescribed the death penalty for involuntary manslaughter. In the case where the mother dies in Exodus 21:22-25, "Life for Life" is a fine.
So no, it doesn't...and now?
Great episode as usual! I think, though, that you should have called this week’s episode “Misquoting Moses.”
It's a bit confusing to use the term "viability" since that was very different in antiquity compared to now.
I don't think that's really a problem. If the Bible were explicit on viability, then any such passage would naturally update gradually as viability increases due to technology. The real problem is that the Bible is _not_ very explicit about viability. Exodus 21:22 is sufficiently unclear to potentially cover everything from a miscarriage to giving birth a day earlier to a healthy child. That's because the literal meaning of the relevant phrase is that of her children coming out. Even that they come out _earlier_ isn't explicit, so interpretation is obviously required. The precise meaning depends on how exactly this idiomatic phrase was interpreted in its original context. Did it cover a viable child coming out a little earlier? Maybe yes, but very likely not.
Absolutely great podcast
I have said this before, if life begins at conception then we would receive conception certificates and not birth certificates.
Please don’t try to justify the emotional pain and trauma caused by your decision to have an abortion.
The state requires that a fetal death certificate be filed.
Find a new ridiculous justification.
@@John.Flower.Productionswhy does your state require a death certificate for a foetus who has died?
It seems absurd to me to ask a woman who has just experienced a miscarriage who was hoping for a child, to add to their grief and mourning seems cruel even in the situation of an abortion.
Do they not think it's enough to suffer the loss or the judgement of others?
It just sounds strange to me that they can make laws which confirm a foetus has passed but wasn't born.
Actually now that you have mentioned it, I will have to check the laws here.
@@johnrangi4830 Every state keeps a record of *human deaths* that occur within its border, including stillborn and aborted fetuses.
Every state has prosecuted someone suspected of murdering a pregnant woman for *two (2) counts of homicide.*
Every state has prosecuted someone suspected of illegally disposing of and/or burying the *corpse* of a fetus, both stillborn and aborted.
I am alive, despite never having been born.
@@John.Flower.Productions depends on the state. Virginia does. Maryland doesn’t. And notice that it is not a standard death certificate.
In Genesis, Adam’s life begins when the breath is breathed into him.
So what?
@@UnimatrixOne Many Jews believed that en-soulment took place at birth and thus personhood and thus the baby had moral and legal rights! Adam was formed from the dust of the earth but did not become a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into him. A fetus even though formed in the womb did not become a living soul until birth and it's first breath.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Good point
Напишу на русском, Толстой, Достоевкий и другие великие писатели России. Мастера и Маргариту Булгатова читали?
15:43 !
19:43
22:44