Current Events > Christianity, abortion, and "sanctity of life"

(+) Yeah! (+)

The bible provides instructions on how to perform an abortion sanctioned by a priest:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5%3A21-31&version=NIV

Pamphlet from Jehova's Witness community with pictures and stories of kids who died because they were not allowed to have blood transfusions:


God personally aborts pregnant israeli women as punishment for violation of faith:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+9
---

I love finding little things like this in the Bible that makes the zealous Christians arguments fall apart
---

Foiled a 2000 yr religion with 3 links in a single post :O
---

MrPeppers posted...

Foiled a 2000 yr religion with 3 links in a single post :O

I'm not trying to foil a religion. I'm just trying to foil the anti-abortion God-defense argument.
---

"my .44 makes sure all your kids don't grow" - god
---

any Christians wanna chime in and destroy this topic?
---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

"my .44 makes sure all your kids don't grow" - god

Pac would be proud fam
---

Did you even read the passage you quoted?
---

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?
---

Christians wanting to prevent abortions but having no qualms about killing adults always perplexed me.
---

Oh and I grew up Christian, the son of a former pastor.
---

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Does the passage in Numbers not describe a ritual in which God will "cause a miscarriage" in a given situation?
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.
---

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.

Did anyone even say anything about supporting abortion itt, though...?

FYI, being pro choice does not make someone pro abortion

I know several people who hate abortions but who are still pro choice because it just makes more sense in the long run (and the policies enacted from pro choice candidates tend to lower the abortion rates in communities in which they are enacted in)
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Does the passage in Numbers not describe a ritual in which God will "cause a miscarriage" in a given situation?

1. A Quick google search reveals that that specific translation is translate the Hebrew there as miscarriage, and implies that it has anything to do with a womb.

2. The purpose of the passage is not sanctioning an abortion, which implies giving it approval. Whatever the curse may be is a punishment for the woman. That is the exact opposite of what a modern liberal thinks "sanctioning" abortion means.
---

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.

The numbers passages provides instructions for which a woman imbibes poison to deliver a curse on her womb that will directly cause a miscarriage (but only if she was unfaithful, otherwise the baby will be okay, cause that totally works). This is literally the abortion pill, except without the nonsense about it only working if she was unfaithful.

Hosea is a prophet delivering the message of God's wrath wherein he intends to kill every child in every womb from the israelis and if he misses any somehow, he'll kill them as soon as they get out of the womb.
---

Samurontai posted...

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.

Did anyone even say anything about supporting abortion itt, though...?

FYI, being pro choice does not make someone pro abortion

I know several people who hate abortions but who are still pro choice because it just makes more sense in the long run (and the policies enacted from pro choice candidates tend to lower the abortion rates in communities in which they are enacted in)

Poor choice of words, but nothing in that passage is about the priest "sanctioning" an abortion.
---

Callixtus posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Does the passage in Numbers not describe a ritual in which God will "cause a miscarriage" in a given situation?

1. A Quick google search reveals that that specific translation is translate the Hebrew there as miscarriage, and implies that it has anything to do with a womb.

2. The purpose of the passage is not sanctioning an abortion, which implies giving it approval. Whatever the curse may be is a punishment for the woman. That is the exact opposite of what a modern liberal thinks "sanctioning" abortion means.

It's literally a punishment for being unfaithful to her husband, and the sentence is death to the fetus. So is abortion ok or not?
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.

The numbers passages provides instructions for which a woman imbibes poison to deliver a curse on her womb that will directly cause a miscarriage (but only if she was unfaithful, otherwise the baby will be okay, cause that totally works). This is literally the abortion pill, except without the nonsense about it only working if she was unfaithful.

That is not "sanctioning" an abortion, which suggests approval for the woman's actions. And there is also reason to doubt the passage is about miscarriage at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water
---

Callixtus posted...

Samurontai posted...

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

The answer is yes, but Which one? There are two. Did you read that?

Yep.

Neither of those passages has anything to do with supporting abortion.

Did anyone even say anything about supporting abortion itt, though...?

FYI, being pro choice does not make someone pro abortion

I know several people who hate abortions but who are still pro choice because it just makes more sense in the long run (and the policies enacted from pro choice candidates tend to lower the abortion rates in communities in which they are enacted in)

Poor choice of words, but nothing in that passage is about the priest "sanctioning" an abortion.

Much better wording there. Fair enough
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Does the passage in Numbers not describe a ritual in which God will "cause a miscarriage" in a given situation?

1. A Quick google search reveals that that specific translation is translate the Hebrew there as miscarriage, and implies that it has anything to do with a womb.

2. The purpose of the passage is not sanctioning an abortion, which implies giving it approval. Whatever the curse may be is a punishment for the woman. That is the exact opposite of what a modern liberal thinks "sanctioning" abortion means.

It's literally a punishment for being unfaithful to her husband, and the sentence is death to the fetus. So is abortion ok or not?

I have extreme doubts that you are well versed enough in ancient Hebrew to tell me that the passage is about abortion when scholars who do actually know that language and the idiom of the Bible are not agreed on the subject.

Nice flopic.
---

Callixtus posted...

That is not "sanctioning" an abortion, which suggests approval for the woman's actions. And there is also reason to doubt the passage is about miscarriage at all

I said nothing about the woman seeking the approval to have the abortion performed. It's being forced on her, and approved by the priest.

As for the translation issue, the site I linked has every translation of every bible. Feel free to flip through them and let me know if you find one that has radically different meanings.
---

Callixtus posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Did you even read the passage you quoted?

Does the passage in Numbers not describe a ritual in which God will "cause a miscarriage" in a given situation?

1. A Quick google search reveals that that specific translation is translate the Hebrew there as miscarriage, and implies that it has anything to do with a womb.

2. The purpose of the passage is not sanctioning an abortion, which implies giving it approval. Whatever the curse may be is a punishment for the woman. That is the exact opposite of what a modern liberal thinks "sanctioning" abortion means.

So then in a Biblical worldview, if abortion is wrong, why is it okay to cause a woman to miscarry an innocent fetus as punishment?

And how are you going to meaningfully separate "abortion" and "cause to miscarry"?
---

Callixtus posted...

I have extreme doubts that you are well versed enough in ancient Hebrew to tell me that the passage is about abortion when scholars who do actually know that language and the idiom of the Bible are not agreed on the subject.

One source thinks it's not an abortion. Literally everyone else thinks it's an abortion.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

That is not "sanctioning" an abortion, which suggests approval for the woman's actions. And there is also reason to doubt the passage is about miscarriage at all

I said nothing about the woman seeking the approval to have the abortion performed. It's being forced on her, and approved by the priest.

As for the translation issue, the site I linked has every translation of every bible. Feel free to flip through them and let me know if you find one that has radically different meanings.

I have already posted a link where scholars have translated the Hebrew literally as "thigh".

Here indeed is one such translation that can be found on Bible Gateway:

"then (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell; 22 may this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your body swell and your thigh fall away. And the woman shall say, Amen, Amen."

So please, since you are obviously an expert on Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Bible, why don't you resolve this interpretive issue for us definitively?
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

I have extreme doubts that you are well versed enough in ancient Hebrew to tell me that the passage is about abortion when scholars who do actually know that language and the idiom of the Bible are not agreed on the subject.

One source thinks it's not an abortion. Literally everyone else thinks it's an abortion.

So why don't you explain why the one source is wrong, or do you think it is valid to say "every source that I have looked at with no more than a layman's knowledge seems to think I am right, therefore I am right?"

You have no idea what you are talking about, because you have no idea how to read the source material. Your opinions are garbage.
---

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

I have extreme doubts that you are well versed enough in ancient Hebrew to tell me that the passage is about abortion when scholars who do actually know that language and the idiom of the Bible are not agreed on the subject.

One source thinks it's not an abortion. Literally everyone else thinks it's an abortion.

So why don't you explain why the one source is wrong, or do you think it is valid to say "every source that I have looked at with no more than a layman's knowledge seems to think I am right, therefore I am right?"

You have no idea what you are talking about, because you have no idea how to read the source material. Your opinions are garbage.

And the opinions of those non-laymen who say that it's referring to an abortion (or at least something similar to an abortion)?
---

Callixtus posted...

So why don't you explain why the one source is wrong, or do you think it is valid to say "every source that I have looked at with no more than a layman's knowledge seems to think I am right, therefore I am right?"

.......


---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

I have extreme doubts that you are well versed enough in ancient Hebrew to tell me that the passage is about abortion when scholars who do actually know that language and the idiom of the Bible are not agreed on the subject.

One source thinks it's not an abortion. Literally everyone else thinks it's an abortion.

So why don't you explain why the one source is wrong, or do you think it is valid to say "every source that I have looked at with no more than a layman's knowledge seems to think I am right, therefore I am right?"

You have no idea what you are talking about, because you have no idea how to read the source material. Your opinions are garbage.

And the opinions of those non-laymen who say that it's referring to an abortion (or at least something similar to an abortion)?

I am not saying their opinions are incorrect. However, TC has decided to side with some scholars, who he no doubt has not read anyway, while disregarding the views of others who do not agree with him.

He has promoted as fact that a priest was sanctioning an abortion in that passage, when it is not even clear in the scholarly literature that that is an accurate depiction of what happened in the text. Therefore, TC's opinion on the subject is obviously baseless, when the most he can say as a layman who has not even read the Hebrew is that scholars are divided on the subject.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

So why don't you explain why the one source is wrong, or do you think it is valid to say "every source that I have looked at with no more than a layman's knowledge seems to think I am right, therefore I am right?"

.......

You think there's a comparison to be made between interpreting an ancient text and scientific inquiry? Whoo boy...
---

Callixtus posted...

You think there's a comparison to be made between interpreting an ancient text and scientific inquiry? Whoo boy...

You can write scholarly articles about etymology and historical languages and language reconstruction. I don't know why you'd think otherwise.

I am not an ancient Hebrew scholar, however other people are and all of them are nearly in unison that this passage is about an abortion.

Your divided nonsense is nonsense. This isn't a 50/50 split, it's not even 60/40. It's just one source screaming something contrary to what everyone else (every other ancient hebrew scholar) is saying.

The gif, and the real life subjects illustrate to the point that if literally everyone is saying one thing and one person is saying the opposite, it's typically because the one person has a secret agenda and to side with the opposing consensus is damaging to his secret agenda. In the vaccine case, it was because a guy was hoping to capitalize on malpractice lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies and the doctors that administered those vaccines.

In this case, interpreting it as "god is sometimes okay with abortion" makes it a really hard sell to have a unconditional abortion ban.
---

And what makes you think that "all of them are nearly in unison" that the passage is about abortion?

What scholars are you referring to? Why don't you list a few who discuss the passage?
---

Callixtus posted...

And what makes you think that "all of them are nearly in unison" that the passage is about abortion?

What scholars are you referring to? Why don't you list a few who discuss the passage?

Oh hey, thank you for encouraging me to go investigate the sources.

Because the very first one I looked at tells us that "Thigh" when used in this context means sexual organs (and also tells us that this is an abortion)


---

1. Of course the NIV would say that, it's full of errors and omissions. Nowhere in the KJV does it even mention pregnancy.

2. Jahovah's Witness is a cult, what's your point?

3. God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for something I assume you also support. My point being, God's judgement is righteous, man's is wicked. You aren't God.

You can read yourself cross-eyed trying to twist scripture, but maybe it would serve you better to just accept that you're full of shit.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

And what makes you think that "all of them are nearly in unison" that the passage is about abortion?

What scholars are you referring to? Why don't you list a few who discuss the passage?

Oh hey, thank you for encouraging me to go investigate the sources.

Because the very first one I looked at tells us that "Thigh" when used in this context means sexual organs (and also tells us that this is an abortion)

Lmao you can't even read the sources you posted, which are themselves inconsistent on this point

The curse itself is a euphemism for miscarriage OR possibly sterility. You realize that those aren't the same thing? Yet, you proclaim as fact that the passage is about abortion, when your "favorable" source is not even decided on the question.
---

Also miscarriage and an abortion are not the same thing. The woman is not intentionally terminating her pregnancy which is what we usually mean by abortion. In the best possible reading for your point, she is taking a magic potion that will cause her to miscarry as a punishment if she is guilty, and if she is not then nothing happens at all.

In no way is that an "abortion", as commonly understood.

abortion
brSH()n/Submit
noun
1.
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
---

Callixtus posted...

Also miscarriage and an abortion are not the same thing. The woman is not terminating her pregnancy which is what we usually mean by abortion. In the best possible reading for your point, she is taking a magic potion that will cause her to miscarry as a punishment if she is guilty, and if she is not then nothing happens at all.

In no way is that an "abortion", as commonly understood.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/health-medicine/science-behind-abortion-pill-180963762/

an abortion is early termination of a pregnancy resulting in death of the developing embryo or fetus. how it's performed is not significant.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

Also miscarriage and an abortion are not the same thing. The woman is not terminating her pregnancy which is what we usually mean by abortion. In the best possible reading for your point, she is taking a magic potion that will cause her to miscarry as a punishment if she is guilty, and if she is not then nothing happens at all.

In no way is that an "abortion", as commonly understood.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/health-medicine/science-behind-abortion-pill-180963762/

an abortion is early termination of a pregnancy resulting in death of the developing embryo or fetus. how it's performed is not significant.

A termination implies a deliberate act. Your definition does not read "when a pregnancy terminates resulting in death of the embryo", but "the termination of a pregnancy", which is quite different.

termination
trmnSH()n/Submit
noun
1.
the action of bringing something or coming to an end.

Termination is an active word which implies an identifiable agent. In no way is the woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy as we commonly understand it, which would make her the actor in the abortion. At most it is a forced abortion as punishment for a crime, which is qualitatively different than saying that the priest "sanctioned" an abortion, which would be a free act on the part of the woman. The woman is not choosing to deliberately end the pregnancy, but is having it forced upon her.

And again, you have no real evidence that the passage is even about a miscarriage, let alone an abortion.
---

I wouldn't even give them any more attention, they're either full of steaming crap or trolling
---

Callixtus posted...

The woman is not choosing to deliberately end the pregnancy, but is having it forced upon her.

So god is okay with terminating pregnancies in some circumstances.

Callixtus posted...

And again, you have no real evidence that the passage is even about a miscarriage, let alone an abortion.

The passage literally says it is a miscarriage.

Me: "1 + 1 = 2"
You: "You have no real evidence that equation is about addition."
---

>Correct punctuation

>Lowercase G on a proper noun

Ok, so they're trolling.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Callixtus posted...

The woman is not choosing to deliberately end the pregnancy, but is having it forced upon her.

So god is okay with terminating pregnancies in some circumstances.

Callixtus posted...

And again, you have no real evidence that the passage is even about a miscarriage, let alone an abortion.

The passage literally says it is a miscarriage.

Me: "1 + 1 = 2"
You: "You have no real evidence that equation is about addition."

You have literally one passage that uses the word miscarriage. None of the others do , even on bible gateway, which you cited from, as far as I can tell. Stop being obtuse.

At best for your point, there is inconclusive evidence whether God may terminate pregnancies in some circumstances.
---

"God is the ultimate authority on morality because his nature and the edicts therein set the standard, but also he can do things on a circumstantial basis and those are not part of the standard we should abide by."
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

"God is the ultimate authority on morality because his nature and the edicts therein set the standard, but also he can do things on a circumstantial basis and those are not part of the standard we should abide by."

Nice strawman. Literally no one argued that in this topic. We haven't even established the basic facts regarding what happened in the passage, let alone trying to promulgate a teaching from it.
---

Callixtus posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

"God is the ultimate authority on morality because his nature and the edicts therein set the standard, but also he can do things on a circumstantial basis and those are not part of the standard we should abide by."

Nice strawman. Literally no one argued that in this topic. We haven't even established the basic facts regarding what happened in the passage, let alone trying to promulgate a teaching from it.

That's not a strawman, but the inevitable position in the event that this passage does, indeed, talk about a miscarriage.

Not that this is the only place such a rationalization is necessary, of course. Not by a long shot.
---

By TC's logic assuming it was an abortion (which it obviously wasn't) we should bring back public stonings for women who cheat on their husbands, because that was a provision of the law.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Callixtus posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

"God is the ultimate authority on morality because his nature and the edicts therein set the standard, but also he can do things on a circumstantial basis and those are not part of the standard we should abide by."

Nice strawman. Literally no one argued that in this topic. We haven't even established the basic facts regarding what happened in the passage, let alone trying to promulgate a teaching from it.

That's not a strawman, but the inevitable position in the event that this passage does, indeed, talk about a miscarriage.

Not that this is the only place such a rationalization is necessary, of course. Not by a long shot.

Well we are talking about this place, not some other one.

And in this place, there is no need to jump to a next step idle speculation, because no one has established what the text actually means. It's just a poor attempt to criticize a Christian worldview in this instance without having actually substantiated the premises for that criticism.
---

The best post ITT has to be when TC is dismissed as a troll because he didn't write God with capital G. That's some sick trolling.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

God personally aborts pregnant israeli women as punishment for violation of faith:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea+9

Wouldn't this fit with the Pro-life belief that only God can create or destroy life?
---

America's current stance on abortion is actually due to a political ploy back in the 80s, I believe. Before then, evangelicals didn't really care for abortion and even allowed it to happen. It was due to politicization of it on Bible colleges that it's a politicized issue now. Back then they looked on politics with disdain and usually functioned within their local churches only. Here's a segment on it on Samantha Bee:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPsderlzd6c

Moreover 'sanctity of life' also includes dignity (of life), so the argument isn't so strong.