Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is biblegod pro life?
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 1 of 59 (528176)
10-05-2009 3:36 AM


Is biblegod pro life?
Beginning.
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth...--Exodus 21:22-24
This sets the tone. Here the one causes miscarriage is penalised for harm to the woman, not for foeticide? By causing the miscarriage, is not a murder committed as the christians claim? As this law is "given by god", does not god condone foeticide or treats it as no offence at all?
I am at a loss how Christians can assume that abortion [even if recommended on sound medical advice] is wrong judging by these feeble verses when the Bible clearly has not defined it as a crime?
The Middle
Abortion:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course is comfortables by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally abortion, as the christian claim?
Numbers 31:17 (Moses commands) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.
In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is foeticide. Yet the biblegod condones it, rather ordains it, for not Moses the chosen one?
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the their women with child shall be ripped up. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be ripped open. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Who was this kook Menahem? Was he ever hauled up by god for foeticide? By Jesus, NO.
End
Does biblegod punish or even frown upon infanticide? That killing of the unknowing little ones? Those who died with a feeble cry, not even able to know what was happening?
1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children a few months old whom biblegod killed were still nursing.
Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.
Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be dashed upon the rocks.
If the christians have suddenly turned "pro life" it hypocrytic and a sham unless they expunge and repudiate and condemn such passages of bible.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 10-05-2009 9:21 AM RCS has not replied
 Message 4 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 9:36 AM RCS has not replied
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-26-2009 3:59 PM RCS has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 59 (528214)
10-05-2009 8:02 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is biblegod pro life? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 3 of 59 (528231)
10-05-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RCS
10-05-2009 3:36 AM


The God of the Bible
In reality the Bible reflects the practices of the culture in which it was written. Not all Christians are pro-life.
In my view, miscarriage is something the body does itself whether due to unintentional injury or the death of the fetus. Abortion is something that humans do on purpose whether for medical or personal reasons despite the viability of the fetus.
Exodus 21:22-24 is a law dealing with personal injury. This is not abortion. The majority of the translations say premature birth. The words used don't really state whether the child died or not. I think that is determined by the statement that "if there is no serious injury." If the child died, that would be considered serious injury.
"If men who are fighting 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.
quote:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.
Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course is comfortables by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally abortion, as the christian claim?
This takes place when the northern kingdom came to an end. In Hosea's time, when bad things happened it was attributed to God removing his protection. Casualties of war. This is not abortion.
quote:
Numbers 31:17 (Moses commands) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.
You said it. Moses commanded, not God. Again it was the way of war in those days. Not pretty and not abortion.
quote:
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be ripped open. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
Menahem did evil in the eyes of the Lord.
2 Kings 15:17-18
In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria ten years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD. During his entire reign he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit.
God doesn't stop people from doing evil. If he did, he wouldn't have had to "chastise" humans so often. This is not abortion.
quote:
1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children a few months old whom biblegod killed were still nursing.
Again it reflects the nature of humanity at the time when conquering other nations. This isn't abortion.
quote:
Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.
These are songs reflecting a foundational myth. In the story, God killed the first born of all. This is not abortion.
quote:
Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be dashed upon the rocks
This is a lament. God isn't talking. The writer is expressing his anger towards his enemies. This is not abortion.
The pro-life movement deals with abortion. Infantcide is not abortion. I don't see that what you have presented truly deals with abortion.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RCS, posted 10-05-2009 3:36 AM RCS has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 4 of 59 (528232)
10-05-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RCS
10-05-2009 3:36 AM


'"If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."' Ex 21:22-25 GNB
The concern here is not with murder, but with manslaughter, accidental death. A man who is fighting another, whose wife intervenes and receives a blow from him that kills a foetus, does not intend for the harmless foetus to die. There was economic loss in such cases (potentially, anyway- childbirth was hazardous before modern times), so reparation was necessary. However, if the man used sufficient force to kill the wife, the standard law of lex talionis applied, because it was reckonable as murder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RCS, posted 10-05-2009 3:36 AM RCS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:33 AM ochaye has replied
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 10-05-2009 12:08 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 5 of 59 (528257)
10-05-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ochaye
10-05-2009 9:36 AM


The point is...
I think the point with that specific passage from the Bible
quote:
'"If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."' Ex 21:22-25 GNB
is that apparently the law treats the fetus differently than the woman.
In that specific passage, you have a clear punishment for a man committing manslaughter (accidental death) of the woman. The man will be put to death. There is no ambiguity - the man took the life of the woman and so his own life will be taken.
The argument I often hear from pro-lifers is that life begins at conception. The assumption is that all life should be treated equally, that is, the taking of one human life is equal to the taking of some other human life. Now what follows will primarily affect religious pro-lifers.
In that particular passage, we can see that is not the case. We know the taking of the woman's life is punishable by death but causing a woman to miscarry is subject only to a fine. This leads to one of two conclusions:
1) The fetus is not considered a life. Life does not begin at conception.
B) If the fetus is considered life, then the life of the fetus is less than the life of the woman.
For religious pro-lifers, if either is true, then the primary argument for abortion falls through, especially if conclusion 1 is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 9:36 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 11:58 AM Izanagi has replied
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM Izanagi has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 6 of 59 (528261)
10-05-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:33 AM


Re: The point is...
quote:
a man committing manslaughter (accidental death) of the woman.
That would not be accidental, it would be murder, not manslaughter, therefore lex talionis would apply.
Now is this distinction too difficult for readers to comprehend? Or is it too difficult for skeptics to accept?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:33 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2009 12:04 PM ochaye has replied
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 10-05-2009 12:09 PM ochaye has not replied
 Message 10 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 12:26 PM ochaye has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 59 (528263)
10-05-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ochaye
10-05-2009 11:58 AM


Re: The point is...
That would not be accidental, it would be murder, not manslaughter, therefore lex talionis would apply.
Now is this distinction too difficult for readers to comprehend? Or is it too difficult for skeptics to accept?
But killing an unborn child under the same circumstances is not murder and lex talionis does not apply. Thus, the biblegod is not 'pro life'. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 11:58 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 12:45 PM Modulous has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 8 of 59 (528264)
10-05-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ochaye
10-05-2009 9:36 AM


The concern here is not with murder, but with manslaughter, accidental death. A man who is fighting another, whose wife intervenes and receives a blow from him that kills a foetus, does not intend for the harmless foetus to die. There was economic loss in such cases (potentially, anyway- childbirth was hazardous before modern times), so reparation was necessary. However, if the man used sufficient force to kill the wife, the standard law of lex talionis applied, because it was reckonable as murder.
Hmmm, not sure if I can see your "whose wife intervenes" in the text... and you seem to be claiming that the text only applies if the man deliberately attacks the woman, as opposed to her simply being caught in the melee (caught on the backswing, wayward sligshot, etc)
Can you justify these points?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 9:36 AM ochaye has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 9 of 59 (528265)
10-05-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ochaye
10-05-2009 11:58 AM


Re: The point is...
That would not be accidental, it would be murder, not manslaughter, therefore lex talionis would apply.
So catching the woman and killing her on the backsweep of my sword would be murder?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 11:58 AM ochaye has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 10 of 59 (528267)
10-05-2009 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ochaye
10-05-2009 11:58 AM


Re: The point is...
ochaye writes:
That would not be accidental, it would be murder, not manslaughter, therefore lex talionis would apply.
I'm sorry, but the legal definition of manslaughter is
quote:
The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.
as defined by http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Manslaughter. That means you murdered someone, but there was no forethought behind the murder (i.e. you didn't plan on it.) In fact, involuntary manslaughter could be stated as accidental murder (e.g. killing someone in a car accident would be charged as involuntary manslaughter.)
You yourself also used the term when you said in Message 4,
quote:
The concern here is not with murder, but with manslaughter, accidental death.
My assumption, which I suppose now was a mistaken one, was that since you referenced the term then I would also be able to reference the term. Rereading your post now, I can see I was mistaken. So I'll deal specifically with what you posted, which still holds up my argument.
ochaye writes:
The concern here is not with murder, but with manslaughter, accidental death. A man who is fighting another, whose wife intervenes and receives a blow from him that kills a foetus, does not intend for the harmless foetus to die. There was economic loss in such cases (potentially, anyway- childbirth was hazardous before modern times), so reparation was necessary.
In this statement you state that the accidental miscarriage of a fetus by a blow received by a man results in manslaughter. The punishment for said crime is a fine.
ochaye writes:
However, if the man used sufficient force to kill the wife, the standard law of lex talionis applied, because it was reckonable as murder.
In this statement you said that if the same man accidentally kills the wife, it is counted as murder. Lex talionis applies and the man will be put to death.
Your argument supports my second conclusion from Message 5 which stated that
Izanagi writes:
B) If the fetus is considered life, then the life of the fetus is less than the life of the woman.
This means not all life is treated equally. If all human life were treated equally, the punishment should have been the same regardless, but the punishment varied depending on the circumstance. Thus, abortion is not the dire sin that religious pro-lifers make it out to be.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 11:58 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 12:49 PM Izanagi has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 11 of 59 (528271)
10-05-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Modulous
10-05-2009 12:04 PM


Re: The point is...
quote:
But killing an unborn child under the same circumstances is not murder
If abortion takes place by accident, the same circumstances apply. But pre-meditated abortion is completely different, and some people think it is murder, unless there are good medical grounds for termination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2009 12:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2009 1:06 PM ochaye has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 12 of 59 (528272)
10-05-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 12:26 PM


Re: The point is...
quote:
I'm sorry
Is that the truth?
quote:
the legal definition of manslaughter is
manslaughter the slaying of a man: unlawful homicide without malice aforethought (law) Chambers Dict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 12:26 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 1:00 PM ochaye has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 13 of 59 (528275)
10-05-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ochaye
10-05-2009 12:49 PM


Re: The point is...
quote:
I'm sorry
Is that the truth?
Really? You're going to quotemine me? Really?!
ochaye writes:
manslaughter the slaying of a man: unlawful homicide without malice aforethought (law) Chambers Dict.
So... what? We agree on the definition of manslaughter...? I can agree that manslaughter is the slaying of a man without prior planning.
All this doesn't exactly address my point, which is that the Bible apparently treats the fetus differently than it does the woman carrying the fetus. How do you explain that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 12:49 PM ochaye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 10-05-2009 6:06 PM Izanagi has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 59 (528276)
10-05-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ochaye
10-05-2009 12:45 PM


Re: The point is...
If abortion takes place by accident, the same circumstances apply
No - if abortion takes place by accident, the punishment is a fine which is different than being put to death. By a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ochaye, posted 10-05-2009 12:45 PM ochaye has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 59 (528314)
10-05-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 1:00 PM


Born Early, Not Dead
quote:
All this doesn't exactly address my point, which is that the Bible apparently treats the fetus differently than it does the woman carrying the fetus. How do you explain that?
The text of Exodus 21:22-23 doesn't say the child was born dead. They had a word for abort or miscarriage and it wasn't used. ( Exodus 23:26)
and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.
What Exodus 21:22 Says About Abortion
The Hebrew noun translated child in this passage is yeled[4] (yeladim in the plural), and means child, son, boy, or youth.[5] It comes from the primary root word yalad,[6] meaning to bear, bring forth, or beget. In the NASB yalad is translated childbirth 10 times, some form of gave birth over 50 times, and either bore, born, or borne 180 times.
The verb yasa[7] is a primary, primitive root that means to go or come out. It is used over a thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures and has been translated 165 different ways in the NASB--escape, exported, go forth, proceed, take out, to name a few. This gives us a rich source for exegetical comparison. It’s translated with some form of coming out (e.g., comes out, came out, etc.) 103 times, and some form of going 445 times.
What’s most interesting is to see how frequently yasa refers to the emergence of a living thing:
If the child died from being born to early, that would have constituted injury. I don't see in the text that the child was thought of less than the mother.
They weren't dealing with a fetus. A fetus is unborn. Once she gave birth, whether the child lived or not, it was a child. This isn't abortion.
There is no point here for or against abortion.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 1:00 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:07 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024