NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/52702

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 10.4 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:52702 talk.religion.misc:24437
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Abortion and Religion II: OT attitudes
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: abortion, infanticide
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:27:33 GMT
Lines: 208

This is, for the most part, an attempted post in response to a much
earlier post by Steve Adams, but I am afraid it came at a time when
my netserver was "mute", so here it is again, with some modifications:

Steve Adams and I have had a heated exchange on the subject of just
what the bible means by "Lo Tirtzach" in Exodus, variously translated
"Thou shalt not kill," "You shall not kill," "Thou shalt not commit
murder," and Steve only knows what else. :-)

In my very first post on this subject, in which I was refuting a trumped-up
charge agains Suzanne Forgach, I suggested an intermediate reading, "Thou
shalt not commit unjustifiable homicide." [To include, for example,
negligent manslaughter].  It's been like pulling teeth
to get anyone else in talk.abortion or talk.religion.misc to address
this issue.  Fortunately, Steve (inadvertently?) gave me a promising
lead on this, by directing my attention to the 35th chapter of Numbers,
where I found [I am using the Jerusalem bible]:

    Yahweh spoke to Moses and said:
    "Say this to the sons of Israel:
    `...If the killer has maliciously manhandled his victim, or thrown
     some lethal missile to strike him down, or out of enmity dealt the
     deathblow with his fist, then he who struck the blow must die; he
     is a murderer.'    Numbers 35:9-10, 20-22

Despite the use of "murderer" this seems to be a more broad definition
of "murder" than is in general use today.  For example, in the movie
"In the Heat of the Night," Sidney Poitier deduces who committed the
"murder" which was the centerpiece of the plot, and it turns out that
the culprit "dealt the deathblow" without actually intending to kill
the victim, but just to knock him unconscious, the better to rob him.
[In the taped confession, he closes with the words, "I did not mean
to kill him."]  I got the distinct impression that he was not about
to be charged with murder, but only with manslaughter, yet his deed
arguably falls within the use of "murderer" above.

[Interesting talk.abortion sidelight: the motive for the robbery was to
get enough money for an illegal abortion; the killer had gotten a young
woman pregnant and an old Black woman was all set to do the abortion.]

I mentioned this passage of Numbers in my first reply to Steve, with
the words, "Now we are getting somewhere."  Apparently, I said, the
Biblical meaning of murder does NOT coincide with the present-day one.

Steve deleted all hint of this in his reply, to which I am following
up below as though to a post still on the boards.  If he does not feel
up to dealing with this issue, perhaps some other reader can help take
it further.

      ********* POST BY ADAMS, EDITED AND ANNOTATED **********

> From: [e-mail] (Steve Adams)
> Subject: Re: Reply to Steve Adams on biblical homicide passages
> Message-ID: <adams.720725264@spssig>
> Keywords: homicide, Christian, Hungarian, game
> Sender: [e-mail] (Net News Admin)
> Organization: SPSS Inc.
> References: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1992 17:27:44 GMT
> Lines: 201
>
> [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> >Steve Adams writes:
> >>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>>In <adams.719249243@spssig>[e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
> >>>>[e-mail] (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >>>
> >>Ahem, you do not know what you are talking about.  Here, for example, is
> >>the Biblical teaching on 'feticide' (for want of a better word):
> >
> >Accidental feticide, like accidental manslaughter, to be exact:

This had to do with the biblical passage about two men struggling and
a woman intervening, getting hurt in the process enough to cause a
miscarriage.  The penalty for that was a fine, like for a misdemeanor.
Reference: Exodus 21:22-25.

BTW there is some dispute as to whether the penalty only applied if
the child was prematurely born and survived; some read the "injury" to
apply to the unborn child as well as to the mother, and that if the
child died as a result of the blows, the same "life for life" penalty
applied as if the woman had died.  [References: (1) John Jefferson Davis,
_Abortion and the Christian_, Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1984, p.52 and (2) Edwin H. Palmer, "Abortion: the Crucial Issue"
reprint available from Reformed Fellowship, Inc., P.O. Box 7383, Grand
Rapids, Mich. 49510]

> >But are there passages which say anything
> >about the status of intentional abortion in re the Exodus commandment?
>
> How about the following...where not only is the abortion intentional, but
> required:
>
> Numbers 5 - punishment for an unfaithful wife

This one was pretty thoroughly thrashed out in talk.abortion a few months
ago, Steve.  Couldn't you have picked some fresh material, like
Jeremiah 20: 15-18?  That seems about as relevant to the Exodus commandment
as the following--that is, not at all, IMO.

>     "(27)When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled
>      herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings
>      the curse shall enter into her and shall cause bitter pain, and HER
>      WOMB SHALL DISCHARGE, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become
>      an excretion among her people.  (28)But if the woman has not defiled
>      herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive
>      children." [NRSV] [Emphesis mine]
>
>      NRSV Study Notes: 5:23-28 The oath is followed by the drinking of the
>                        'water that brings the curse (v18).  It was believed
>                        that if a person were guilty this potion would have
>                        effects which would signify the Lord's verdict of
>                        judgement (Ex32:20,35).
>
>
>      NASB Study Notes: 5:11-31  These verses describe the "law of jealousy,"
>                        whereby a woman suspected of marital unfaithfulness
>                        had to be brought to the priest for trial before the
>                        Lord (v16), who alone could reveal the truth of the
>                        matter.

This quote is taken out of context, at best, and should have been qualified
in several ways, at worst.  The Jerusalem Bible has the following to say
about the *husband*--no other person whose "suspecting" is relevant is
mentioned in 5: 11-31:

    then, if a spirit of jealousy comes over the husband and makes him
    jealous for the wife who has disgraced herself, or again if this
    spirit of jealousy comes upon him and makes him jealous for his
    wife even if she is innocent...v. 14

So much for the NASB exegete's unqualified claim of "had to be brought".

>                         The ritual of verse 23 symbolically
>                        transferred the written words of the curse to the
>                        water.  Verse 27 MAY INDICATE A MISCARRIAGE ('waste
>                        away' literal means 'fall'; see Job 3:16, where
>                        a similar Hebrew word refers to untimely birth).  The
>                        practice here prescribed, apparrantly used only in
>               the
>                        wilderness, prevented jealousy and suspicion from
>                        corrupting family and community life.  God must have
>                        miraculously controlled the results whenever this test
>                        was used.  [Emphesis mine]
>
> It seems clear that at least in this situation, God not only permits,
> but directly causes a miscarriage.  These verses describe an induced
> miscarriage.  There is not escaping this.

Of what relevance is something directly caused by God (your words, Steve,
not mine) to a commandment against killing/murder/homicide by men?  When
God is depicted in the bible as destroying all human and land animal life
except that saved in the ark, surely that has nothing to do with "Lo
Tirtzach"???

You may object that the miscarriage was done with the help of human
intermediaries, but again, of what relevance is that?  The selfsame
book of Numbers contains this passage, mercilessly satirized by
Mark Twain in his posthumous book _Letters From the Earth_:

    Moses was enraged..."Why have you spared the life of all the
    women?  These were the very ones who, on Balaam's advice,
    perverted the sons of Israel and made them renounce Yahweh
    in the affair at Peor: hence the plague which struck the
    community of Israel.  So kill all the male children. Kill
    also all the women who have slept with a man.  Spare the
    lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man,
    and take them for yourselves.  [Numbers 31: 15-19]

One does not have to be a liberal Lutheran/catholic like yourself to
resist concluding from this passage that it is all right, in time of war,
to kill everyone on the enemy side except young girls who have not slept with a
man, and to carry even those off into slavery.

If anyone reading this feels otherwise,
Lieutenant Calley, who gave the direct order for the My Lay massacre,
will be glad to hear about it.

> Note well that in addition to a miscarriage, the woman will no longer
> be able to conceive...
>
> So there you have it...

Have what, Steve?  That the bible allows elective abortion?  Would you also
conclude that the bible allows infanticide from Psalm 137, which closes
with the words:

    Yahweh, remember what the Sons of Edom did on the day of
    Jerusalem, how they said, "Down with her!  Raze her to the
    ground!"
    Destructive Daughter of Babel, a blessing on the man who
    treats you as you have treated us,
     a blessing on him who takes and dashes your babies against the rock!

By the way, Steve, you completely misunderstood what I meant when I said
"it seems that even non-fundamentalists have trouble with taking the bible
literally"--when I said non-fundamentalist, I meant EVERYONE who is not
a fundamentalist Christian, including (especially!) atheists, and even
liberal Lutherans like yourself.  So, you see, it was you who brought up
Christianity in this discussion, not me, although it is obvious that you
thought I did.

Peter Nyikos