Priests Urge Nancy Pelosi to Condemn Abortion or Leave the Catholic Church

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to post by windword

 

I know there is no reference to abortion in the Nicene Creed, and the link was provided to show exactly what Catholics believe. Just a reference to the points stated in your previous reply. She is actually in violation of the creed, because it say "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." Her position on abortion violates the teachings of the Catholic Church. Did you read the Catechism link I posted? In there, you would have found the complete explanation, and foundation of their position. Not some abridged version of it.

In addition to the Church's position on abortion, the Catechism also mentions the very foundation of their position. It cites the 5th Commandment, and the words of Christ according to Matthew 5:21-22. When you click on the the link look to right of the quote and there is a number. Scroll down to the bottom of the page you will see the Biblical reference associated with that number.

ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.

As for your link about the secular foundation of the legality of abortion, and its emergence in the Roman Empire? We are not talking about that, but why the clergy is outspoken about Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, and her record on abortion in regards to her so-called Catholic faith. That is the crux of the matter as I see it.

Futhermore, your own link mentions that early Christians thought of abortion as a "grave sin." Perhaps, the consensus of how to interpret it was mixed, but it was still as grave then as it is now. We can play semantics all day, and that is all well and good. I only mentioned the facts straight from the source, and feel free to formulate your own opinion about it. Hopefully it can alleviate some confusion about the topic? Thanks for your response!

edit on 25-6-2013 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

Here's something to blow your mind: the original Hippocratic Oath had an anti-abortion part:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

From a pagan philosopher 400 years before Catholics were around, no less.

www.imagerynet.com...

reply to post by NavyDoc


I did not know about that portion of the Hippocratic oath. You learn something new everyday. Very interesting. Thanks for the link!

To put it plainly, the Catholic church is making a mess of this. They tried to force it quietly and it was a failure. Now they want to do it publically. Choosing Pelosi may have been their biggest failure yet as she's one cold fish.

Father Roger J. Landry concludes here that the strategy of the Church to privately persuade Catholic pro-abort pols of the errors of their ways has been a flat failure.

“Let us take an honest look at the numbers. When we survey the long list of pro-choice Catholic politicians from both parties — Kennedy, Kerry, Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Leahy, Mikulski, Pelosi, Delahunt, Capuano, Markey, McGovern, Meehan, Granholm, Sebelius, Pataki, Richardson, Cellucci, Cuomo, and Biden to name just a handful — is it possible to say that the strategy has worked with any of them? Over the last three and a half decades, can we point to even one success story?

- See more at: the-american-catholic.com...

reply to post by NavyDoc


I'm glad you provided that quote, some people still seem to think if you disagree with abortion, you must be some kind of religious fundementalist.

I was pro choice myself until i actually had children, then suddenly i realised what it was i had been defending.It was nothing to do with any religious conviction.

reply to post by StoutBroux

Dear StoutBroux,

You're right, it is a mess. They tried quietly and peacefully first, without success. Now they have two choices, give up the Church's beliefs, or try public denounciation, excommunication, and shame (if they have any).

I have my own preference, but we'll see what the Church does.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by WilsonWilson
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I'm glad you provided that quote, some people still seem to think if you disagree with abortion, you must be some kind of religious fundementalist.

I was pro choice myself until i actually had children, then suddenly i realised what it was i had been defending.It was nothing to do with any religious conviction.

Well, some people in this thread seem to think that an anti-abortion stance is a modern Christian phenomenon, but it obviously is not. Once mankind figured out where babies came from and figured out ways to abort said child, the debate began and has not stopped since. Hippocrates, oft called "the father of western medicine" believed that a physician's duty was to preserve life so strongly that he made it part of the oath that all physicians in the west took until the middle of the 20th century.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Hippocrates was a therapeutic born in 460 BC. Abortion was legal then and most likely the reason he and his followers didn't offer abortive services was because birthin' babies, (midwives duties), and dealing with "unclean" woman's issues such as menstruation issues, abortions and fertility issues, which were all considered women's work was taboo to men. He left those things up to the experts.

The text continues: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary." This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion. However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

It should also be noted how little Hippocrates knew about women's anatomy or understood their bodies.

" The Hippocratics thought that the womb moved upward in the woman's body when ever it became hot and dry from overwork, or lack of irrigation from male seed, searching for cool and moist places in an effort to restore its equilibrium. As the womb tried to force its way toward the crowded places at the centre of a woman's trunk, it wreaked havoc with her physical and mental well being, causing her to faint or become speechless.
academic.mu.edu...

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.

If you were take the Hippocratic Oath literally, no doctor would do surgery either, but he clearly left that up to experts.

The Oath continues: "I will not cut, and certainly not those suffering from stone, but I will cede this to men who are practitioners of this activity." Another common misconception is that the Oath forbids surgery.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Hippocrates was a therapeutic born in 460 BC. Abortion was legal then and most likely the reason he and his followers didn't offer abortive services was because birthin' babies, (midwives duties), and dealing with "unclean" woman's issues such as menstruation issues, abortions and fertility issues, which were all considered women's work was taboo to men. He left those things up to the experts.

The text continues: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary." This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion. However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.

It should also be noted how little Hippocrates knew about women's anatomy or understood their bodies.

" The Hippocratics thought that the womb moved upward in the woman's body when ever it became hot and dry from overwork, or lack of irrigation from male seed, searching for cool and moist places in an effort to restore its equilibrium. As the womb tried to force its way toward the crowded places at the centre of a woman's trunk, it wreaked havoc with her physical and mental well being, causing her to faint or become speechless.
academic.mu.edu...

As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.

If you were take the Hippocratic Oath literally, no doctor would do surgery either, but he clearly left that up to experts.

The Oath continues: "I will not cut, and certainly not those suffering from stone, but I will cede this to men who are practitioners of this activity." Another common misconception is that the Oath forbids surgery.

news.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 25-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

No, your premise is incorrect. He mentions abortion in the same line of "I shall give no fatal dram" including it with poison, IE destruction of life. It has been interpreted as a position against abortion for millennia until recently and was removed from the modern version because it was seen as a direct statement against abortion and modern doctors did not want to swear not to perform abortions. The oath I took, for instance, did not include this clause. Medical ethicists also are considering removing "I will give no fatal dram" given the advancement of the euthanasia movement and an AMA stance against capital punishment.

The premise of "leaving it to the midwives" is incorrect. Why would he say "leave cutting to the surgeons" but left out "leave abortion to the midwives.?" The Oath has very precise language. If he meant "leave it to the midwives" he would have said "leave it to the midwives." The rest is assumption.

I know that many people like to re-write history to fit their ideological narratives, however, the truth still stands that anti-abortion stances and debates precedes Christianity and the Hippocratic Oath is an example of such and held up as such for about 2500 years, the revisionist opinion aside. That is was always recognized as a proscription against abortion is exactly why it was removed from the modern version of the oath.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Does the Oath Prohibit Abortion?

No. The literal translation of the phrase in question is “And likewise I will not give a woman a
destructive vaginal tampon.”

Though widely misinterpreted as a blanket injunction against all abortions, the clause prohibits only the use of a drug-soaked tampon (a vaginal suppository or pessary). Perhaps this method of abortion was considered more dangerous to the woman than other methods. Other texts in the Hippocratic corpus discuss abortion as if there were no
prohibitions, describing it as something women were “always doing”.

In one section of Diseases of Women, a text attributed to Hippocrates, a pregnant slave is advised to jump up and down repeatedly, touching her heels to her buttocks, in order to expel the seed.

A range of abortion methods were routinely used in the ancient world, including herbs, drugs, and physical techniques.
www.arcc-cdac.ca...

reply to post by adjensen


Here are some writings from Origen that I found that appear to speak of the pre-existence of the soul, the lack of innocence of any given soul, the culpability of the soul for it's past actions, and reincarnation, in my opinion.

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

CHAP. XXXIII.

Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor yet in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous body, so that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned, which has the head disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether too short; and another receives such a body that the soul is a little more rational than the other; and another still more so, the nature of the body counteracting to a greater or less degree the reception of the reasoning principle; why should there not be also some soul which receives an altogether miraculous body, possessing some qualities common to those of other men, so that it may be able to pass through life with them, but possessing also some quality of superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by sin? www.earlychristianwritings.com...

"It can be shown that an incorporeal and reasonable being has life in itself independently of the body... then it is beyond a doubt bodies are only of secondary importance and arise from time to time to meet the varying conditions of reasonable creatures. Those who require bodies are clothed with them, and contrariwise, when fallen souls have lifted themselves up to better things their bodies are once more annihilated. They are ever vanishing and ever reappearing." —Origen www.reversespins.com...

But if we once admit that there were certain older causes (at work) in the forming of a vessel unto honour, and of one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the subject of the soul, and (in supposing) that a more ancient cause for Jacob being loved and for Esau being hated existed with respect to Jacob before his assumption of a body, and with regard to Esau before he was conceived in the womb of Rebecca? www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Here are some writings from Origen that I found that appear to speak of the pre-existence of the soul, the lack of innocence of any given soul, the culpability of the soul for it's past actions, and reincarnation, in my opinion.

As I said, Origen's belief in the pre-existence of the soul is well known (it's one of the reasons that he's not "Saint Origen",) innocence of the soul is related to original sin, and he never taught anything that is clearly reincarnation.

In addition, neither the pre-existence of the soul or reincarnation was ever orthodox church teaching -- I've spent some time looking at your source, and it appears to all point back to one person (Peter Andreas) who does not cite credible sources in his claims that they were. In other words, historical evidence notwithstanding, he appears to have just made it all up.

Let's look at the illogic of that opinion piece (on the first page of google results I noticed). They say that, since Hippocrates used the word "pessary" that he meant that only a tampon device was forbidden, not abortion entirely. Given that reasoning, then he would have approved of any means of a physician killing a patient as long as it was not " a lethal dram." Strangulation, cutting the throat, hanging--as long as it was not poison. That makes no sense at all and is a pretty poor attempt at changing a position based on semantics. Also, consider that "pessary" or "tampon" is not in all of the translations:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

Looking at the Greek:

21 phthorion. 'abortifacient.' LSJ: 'destructive: esp. of means to produce abortion.' This prohibition of abortion is similar to the previous prohibition of euthanasia. Abortion was extremely common in ancient Greece, as was the practice of exposure.

The writer of the article only focus on a single translation/version to make a point...one that contradicts 2500 years of understanding...and understanding that caused this clause to be removed from the Oath in the mid-twentieth century.

So what if it was legal in Greece? It is legal in the US but there are many philosophically opposed to it. That he could not have been against it because it was legal in Greece is a horrible exercise in bad logic. One cannot conclude one from the other. It would be like a scholar 2500 years from now concluding that nobody in the US could have been against abortion because it was legal at the time. The author did not even try to think that one through at all.

Infanticide through exposure and slavery were also legal in Greece but some philosophers disagreed with them Thus it is illogical to say that it was impossible that Hippocrates was against abortion simply because it was legal at that time an place.

You seem to work under the misunderstanding that this debate is a modern one and a Christian one, I have shown that this is not true, but a revisionist stance for some people to justify their position. Notice I have not posted a position pro or con abortion, but just to point out that this debate is not only soley regulated to the Christian faith, but also predates Christianity.

Cicero stated:

The first known pagan Roman to publicly attack abortion was Cicero. But his concern
was not for the welfare of the unborn baby but for the father, the family name, the family’s
inheritance, the Roman state and the human race in general. Cicero wrote: “I remember a case
which occurred when I was in Asia: how a certain woman of Miletus, who had accepted a bribe from the
alternative heirs and procured her own abortion by drugs, was condemned to death: and rightly, for she
had cheated the father of his hopes, his name of continuity, his family of its support, his house of an heir,
and the Republic of a citizen-to-be.”

Caesar Augustus:

To try to build a strong Roman state, the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus in edicts in
18 B.C. and 9 A.D. promoted childbearing instead of abortion and infanticide.

Pliny The Elder:

“But say, that in these cases it might be tolerable to set down in their
books some poisons: what reason, nay what leave had those Greeks to shew the means how the brains
and understanding of men should be intoxicated and troubled? What colour and pretence had they to set
down medicines and receipts to cause women to slip the untimely fruit of their womb, and a thousand
such-like casts and devices that be practiced by herbs of their penning? For mine own part, I am not for
them that would send the conception out of the body unnaturally before the due time: they shall learn no
such receipts of me.”

first
century Stoic text by Musonius Rufus opposes abortion,
it most likely does so because its widespread practice
would be detrimental to the family and to the state, not
because of a belief in the inherent value of fetal life: the
Stoics did not believe that the child was human until it
had drawn its first breath. Geytenbeek,, pages 78-88.

Ovid poetically speaks against abortion as an immoral practice. www.perseus.tufts.edu... Ov.+Am.+2.14&fromdoc=Perseus%253Atext%253A1999.02.0069

The satirist Juvenal (60-140 A.D.) wrote in approximately 116 A.D. about rich Roman
women having abortions: “how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that is lying in it. So great is
the skill, so powerful the drugs of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb.” Juvenal, “Satire”, 6, 593-596.

In his “Attic Nights”, the Roman writer Aulus Gellius (born between 113-130 A.D.)
refers to Roman women who aborted their babies just because these women did not want their
physical attractiveness to be lessened by being pregnant and giving birth. He records how the
philosopher Favorinus spoke of “those who strive by evil devices to cause abortion of the fetus itself
which they have conceived, in order that their beauty may not be spoiled by the weight of the burden they
bear and by the labour of parturition.”


So...the debate about abortion is neither modern nor a Christian invention. This debate, pro and con has been going on for as long as mankind has understood where babies came from. To pretend that this is a modern and Christian invention is to ignore the historical record.

reply to post by adjensen


What are you talking about? I cited those quotes, mostly, from your link.

If there was no early Christian movement in the church towards reincarnation why did it have to banned? Why were the followers of such beliefs banned by Emperor Justinius?

"If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema" (The Anathemas against Origen, attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14:318).
lone77star.hubpages.com...

Anyway, here's more:

After the original generations of Christians, we find the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr (AD 100-l65), St. Clement of Alexandria ( AD 150-220), and Origen ( AD 185-254) teaching the pre-existence of souls, taking up reincarnation or one or another aspect of reimbodiment. Examples are scattered through Origen's works, especially Contra Celsum (1, xxxii), where he asks: "Is it not rational that souls should be introduced into bodies, in accordance with their merits and previous deeds . . . ?"

And in De Principiis he says that "the soul has neither beginning nor end." St. Jerome (AD 340-420), translator of the Latin version of the Bible known as the Vulgate, in his Letter to Demetrias (a Roman matron), states that some Christian sects in his day taught a form of reincarnation as an esoteric doctrine, imparting it to a few "as a traditional truth which was not to be divulged."

Synesius (AD 370-480), Bishop of Ptolemais, also taught the concept, and in a prayer that has survived, he says: "Father, grant that my soul may merge into the light, and be no more thrust back into the illusion of earth." Others of his Hymns, such as number III, contain lines clearly stating his views, and also pleas that he may be so purified that rebirth on earth will no longer be necessary. In a thesis on dreams, Synesius writes: "It is possible by labor and time, and a transition into other lives, for the imaginative soul to emerge from this dark abode." This passage reminds us of verses in the Revelation of John (3:12), with its symbolic, initiatory language leading into: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out."
www.theosophy-nw.org...

A number of Christian Church Fathers believed in and wrote about reincarnation:

2 St. Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.) expressly stated that the soul inhabits more than one human body.

3 Origen (185–254 A.D.), who was considered by St. Jerome as “the greatest teacher of the Church after the Apostles,” defended the idea that the soul exists before the body, fundamental to the concept of reincarnation.

4 Another Church Father, St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (257–332 A.D.), wrote: “It is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth it must be accomplished in future lives. . . . The soul . . . is immaterial and invisible in nature, it at one time puts off one body . . . and exchanges it for a second.”

5 St. Gregory also wrote: “Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of its previous life.”

6 St. Augustine (354–430 A.D.), one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church, speculated that philosopher Plotinus was the reincarnation of Plato. St. Augustine wrote: “The message of Plato . . . now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think . . . that Plato is born again in Plotinus.”

7 Other Church Fathers who demonstrated a belief in reincarnation included Synesius (the Bishop of Ptolemais), St. Ambrose, Pope Gregory I, Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and Clement of Alexandria. 8
www.amazon.com... Pages 35 -39

reply to post by NavyDoc


Right. Hippocrates didn't use poison laced tampons because they had shown to be fatal to his patients and he didn't believe in fatal medicine or euthanasia. Women were still getting abortions from midwives.

As far as the other "debates" on childbearing and abortion, their motives were mostly based on using women as baby makers to supply their armies. Other reasons were strictly misogynous.

Nobody in those days was concerned about the personage of a fetus or the consent of women and what they needed and wanted. Women were not free to say no to men. Any moral objection to abortion was based on the subjugation of women, and it still is today.

reply to post by windword

Do you not understand the difference between the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation?

In the former, the soul exists with God (nature of, and timeline, differs among beliefs) prior to being incarnated. In the latter, multiple incarnations. Mormons and Jews both believe in the former, the latter is an Eastern, not Western, belief.

Origen taught the former and did not teach the latter. In case you missed it, the two quotes of his that you posted earlier appear to have been fabricated.

Originally posted by Plugin
Are there any words about abortion in the bible? They didn't invented it yet back then.

There are 10 rules and basicly 1 golden rule which covers all rules ''treat others the way you want to be treated''.

I can't remember; ''you shall not abort a pregnancy''.

edit on 24-6-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Really? You're going with that argument? Gee, I wonder what Jesus would have said if a woman came to him and said, "Sir, I am pregnant and my baby is due in a month, would you help me rip it out of my body and throw it in a trash can so I can get rid of this unwanted pregnancy?"

Yes, that is just how it would have gone and Jesus would have said, "Sure ma'am, just get up on this table and let me cut it's neck, crush it's head, and rip it's arms and legs off".

Yes, I'm sure Jesus would have said a pregnancy is nothing but a blob of tissue and it doesn't matter what happens to that nuisance.

How about, "Thou shalt do no murder".

I think that sums it up.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

Do you not understand the difference between the pre-existence of the soul and reincarnation?

One compliments the other. There is no logical reason to supposed that if the soul pre-exists, it couldn't enter and reenter this earthly plain again and again.

8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

.

appear to have been fabricated.

No.

Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.

CHAP. XXXIII.

Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor yet in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous body, so that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned, which has the head disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether too short; and another receives such a body that the soul is a little more rational than the other; and another still more so, the nature of the body counteracting to a greater or less degree the reception of the reasoning principle; why should there not be also some soul which receives an altogether miraculous body, possessing some qualities common to those of other men, so that it may be able to pass through life with them, but possessing also some quality of superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by sin? www.earlychristianwritings.com...

re-posted from: www.abovetopsecret.com...
More:
www.overlordsofchaos.com...

There is plenty of evidence to argue that Jesus didn't believe the unborn to be innocent souls.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


What do you think Jesus would have said if the woman was suffering from lupus and kidney failure, and her life was at risk AND she was carrying an anencephalic fetus, with a brain stem but no brain?

www.cbsnews.com...

Hadn't heard that, off to research some more.

That's because it isn't about abortion, but the woman receiving a curse if her husband believes she has cheated on him and made him jealous. The priest has her drink bitter waters and if she has cheated her thigh will rot and stomach swell. Granted, she might not carry a baby either, but it's a sickness for her. If she hasn't cheated then nothing will happen to her.

Here is the passage (it's a little long):

Num 5:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Num 5:12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

Num 5:13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
Num 5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Num 5:15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

Num 5:16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
Num 5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Num 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

Num 5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
Num 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

Num 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
Num 5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Num 5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
Num 5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

Num 5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

Num 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Num 5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
Num 5:30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
Num 5:31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

So, there is no mention of aborting a baby, but a woman being cursed for cheating on her husband.