"The most obvious passage is from Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc."
First, even if the above interpretation is correct, it doesn't follow that the fetus is seen as less than fully human. Such an argument, to be consistent, would then also have to be made that slaves are less than fully human:
Exo 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
Exo 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. (ESV)
Secondly, the problem with this argument is that the passage does not appear to make the distinction that the author claims. That is, it isn't about the "loss of the fetus" vs. "injury to the woman." It speaks of no harm to either or both of the fetus and the woman vs. harm to either or both the fetus and the woman:
Exo 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.
Exo 21:23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,
Exo 21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (ESV)
The Hebrew strongly suggests that it is a fully formed child that comes out, and that if it survives--"there is no harm"--then a fine is paid. But, if there is harm, then the appropriate response is to be meted out.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178933/
Liberal sources are hardly the way to prove anything.
As far as life beginning at conception... I disagree. Life begins well before that. My sperm cells are alive. A woman's egg is also alive. And research finds that sometimes sperm cells "murder" other sperm cells. But of course no one defends the lives of sperm because only one of them gets to fertilize the egg (normally) and the rest die. And if I don't have sex at all or the woman isn't ovulating or can't get pregnant for other reasons... they ALL die. So you have to draw a distinction between different stages of life and when that life is a person now, not just a group of living cells. Because living cells are born and die all the time. Nature programs them to do so. Billions of your cells, right now, are dying. But it's okay because most of them are being replaced by new cells. But you don't defend the cell, you defend the person. Right? Destroying a cell isn't murder, right? You don't murder your skin cells every time you exfoliate. Science does not say that conception = person. It's not a baby human at this point. It's a fusion of 2 cells that were just a second ago, what? Precious? No.
Arguments to cells and sperm as life are not at all relevant. It goes without saying that in discussions on abortion, when the argument is made that "life begins at conception," we are talking about the first beginnings of a distinct human life, that left to its own, and if all goes well, will fully develop and be born.
If you believe in God why would God create the reproductive process in a way that would require a million living sperm cells? It's kind of like "he knew that they wouldn't all make it??" And because he knew they wouldn't all make it he was okay with humans making the decision about when to have an actual baby. If he wanted it to be forced then abortion wouldn't be a thing at all because doesn't he have the power to make it so that a woman conceives ONLY when she is ready to start a family? And yet the equipment does the same function even in cases of rape and incest.
I don't understand your argument here.
With all due respect, and I say this in love, I believe that Christians (not just you) have been highly politicized and taken advantage of. I think they wanted you to think abortion is murder because they wanted you to think anyone in favor of abortion is a murderer in the same way that the new school attack on liberals is to say that they are pedophiles. If you can match the opponent to something hated and indefensible (like killing a child) then you don't have to work hard for their vote and you can get them to ignore other issues (like how you treat humans) so that the hatred against abortion speaks louder than the same political party giving so much aid and comfort to racism and misogyny. So for Christians (especially evangelicals), the issue is dumbed down and the complexity is removed as if it was a rounding error. No bible is required. They just reduce it down to "abortion is murder". And you know what? It's a very clever way to manipulate people.
That argument cuts both ways. It could very well be the pro-abortionists that have been taken advantage of. Again, this goes back to what I said about the justification for slavery and the Holocaust--make any group of people less than human and one can justify any treatment they want against that group.
For many/most anti-abortionists, it isn't about making people out to be murders, it's about
It's interesting that you bring up racism and misogyny, since most abortions occur among visible minorities and is also used for sex selection, and not only in China. My country, with a very liberal government, rejected a conservative Member of Parliament's (MP) motion to ban sex-selective abortion. What is surprising is that not only did all the left-wing MPs vote against it, so did 38 conservative MPs.
According to the bible, it's not even considered "murder" when you kill a full-grown adult human if you do so in war or in self-defense. That's decidedly, and by everyone, NOT MURDER.
Of course. Here is Mirriam-Webster's definition of murder:
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
aforethought
: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
So, it is the purposeful, unjustified taking of a human life.
But for a fetus that doesn't even have a beating heart you want to say its murder. Is it possible, that this conjecture is nothing more than propaganda?
Firstly, it's far from conjecture. Secondly, no, it isn't propaganda. The propaganda is on the pro-abortion side, where some who provide abortions or argue in favor of them have admitted that it is the taking of a human life, but then spread the idea to popular culture that the unborn are merely clumps of cells or parasites. Why is that? Could it be because it is good for business?
Thirdly, to imply that since "a fetus doesn't even have a beating heart," that it can't be murder, is to beg the question as to whether the fetus is truly human. That is to ignore that it is a human
at a certain point in development.
Moreover, if a woman loses a pregnancy without abortion... is that murder too?
Of course not.
What if a woman is barren? Is God pre-aborting her children? How does it work?
If a woman is barren, she is barren. There are likely biological or physiological reasons, and has nothing to do with abortion.