Abortion Discussion

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

Jameson is awfully bland, I always thought.

Well, that is true too. I prefer the kind of whiskey that would require me to mortgage my house for a shot, but can usually afford Jameson. Best of a bad lot in the cheap-ass range

Edit: Oh, wait....yes. Abortion, isn't it? My opinion is that human life is much more expendable than anyone likes to admit, and people keep searching for way of saying that a foetus isn't "life" as if life was sacred or something....
Why are we still pandering to people who believe in a human "spirit" for f*ck sake?

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

Is that the Jewish bible or Christian bible you have ?

Does it matter? This is the bible that condone incest, slavery, infanticide, murder, stoning and all manner of dark goings on.

mbiking123

old hippy wrote: »

Does it matter? This is the bible that condone incest, slavery, infanticide, murder, stoning and all manner of dark goings on.

yes, they are different

At least no abortions !

Delirium

mbiking123 wrote: »

yes, they are different

At least no abortions !

Global flood that killed all pregnant women ring any bells?

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

yes, they are different

At least no abortions !

Anyways, simply dying to ask - what does a load of old superstitious bobbins have to do with the topic in hand? Are you saying your made up prick of a deity has something to do with whether women have choice over their bodies or not? Because that vile misogynistic claptrap has no place in the modern world.

And yes, for the record, I suck satan's cock in hell.

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

yes, they are different

At least no abortions !

They are different because God changed His mind 2000 years ago, right?

Also, on the matter of souls:

1. Is it measurable?
2. How do you know it is attained at conception?

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

Interesting when women who are pregnant refer to the unborn as their baby, is my baby a boy or girl etc. never referred to as a clump of cells. Will my clump of cells be a boy or a girl, will the foetus be a boy or girl. A woman refers to it as her baby, that's what she calls it cause that's what it is

Something to think about

I imagine most women who say 'my baby' during their pregnancies are those who are not experiencing a crisis pregnancy and have already begun to think of themselves as mothers with born babies.

It doesn't mean 'baby' is the correct term in the context.

iwantmydinner

Genuine LOL at notion of 'spirit'

Next we'll be getting a lesson on souls. \o/

PopePalpatine

Sure, everyone knows souls come from a giant marshmallow being underneath Japan.[/otaku]

oldrnwisr

_rebelkid wrote: »

The Jewish Book is the Tanakh.

_rebelkid wrote: »

Some of the new material in the Christian one is different. The writers wanted a new flavour, to give the book that edge it had been missing...

mbiking123 wrote: »

yes, they are different

At least no abortions !

OK, just for clarification:

This is the list of the books in the Bible


Old Testament

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch

New Testament

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

OK, so the layout above is what is commonly referred to as the Protestant Bible. The Tanakh or Jewish bible is made up of two parts, the Torah (shaded in red) and the Nevi'im (shaded in green). As you can see the Tanakh is a subset of the Old Testament canon contained in modern bibles. On a related note, there is also something called the Catholic bible which is the same as the Protestant bible except for the addition of the books shaded in blue (as well as parts of Esther and Daniel).

So for the purposes of this argument there is no difference between the Jewish bible and the Christian bible. The only problem is that the scholars who translated the Hebrew bible into greek mistranslated the word for soul implying a degree of immortality not indicated in the original text.

old hippy

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Genuine LOL at notion of 'spirit'

Next we'll be getting a lesson on souls. \o/

Our souls?

mbiking123

old hippy wrote: »

And yes, for the record, I suck satan's cock in hell.

you said it !

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

you said it !

Er yes, I did. And you didn't answer my question. Quelle surprise.

Obliq

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The only problem is that the scholars who translated the Hebrew bible into greek mistranslated the word for soul implying a degree of immortality not indicated in the original text.

Didn't they also mistranslate the word "virgin", thereby giving rise to that lovely fairytale "The virgin birth"? I think I read that up here a while back (probably posted by your good self oldr )

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me it is when they become self aware.

'I' am hungry.
'I' am cold.
'I' am happy.
'I' am sad.

'I' am thinking.

Which incidentally enough doesn't occur until a number of months after birth.

Obliq

old hippy wrote: »

Our souls?

Was going to put this in "The funny side", but it seems topical to the mangled language theme we have here at the mo. As seen in small town NSW Oz last week:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/318686/280285.JPG

Brian Shanahan

Sarky wrote: »

Didn't mbiking123 do that a while ago? Something about AK-47s and acceptable sacrifices for the greater good...

Thanks for reminding us that mbiking has more of a problem with removing a clump of cells than murdering people.

This kind of view is prevalent throughout the anti-abortion camp.

Cabaal

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

This kind of view is prevalent throughout the anti-abortion camp.

Indeed it is,
Thats why its ok for them to murder doctors, nothing wrong with that in their eye's. Even if what the doctors are doing is perfectly legal in the country/state they are in.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Thanks for reminding us that mbiking has more of a problem with removing a clump of cells than murdering people.

This kind of view is prevalent throughout the anti-abortion camp.

See, hence my Southpark quote, over another persons head

That was the suggestion made to me so I gave a Southpark reply ! ha ha

http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_References

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Which incidentally enough doesn't occur until a number of months after birth.

Hmmmmm... it many have been coming on 3 decades ago but sonofmine was well able to express the I AM... before we even left the hospital.

As for Hermoine...a number of months (6 to be exact) after birth she was starting to walk - never mind expressing herself.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Something to think about

Nothing you've ever said in this thread is worthy of thought.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Their spirit, which you get at conception

So we can't have abortions because of something which doesn't exist, invented in less enlightened times to explain the fact of human consciousness?

Can this possibly get any more ridiculous?

Brian Shanahan

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The difference being?

The difference being that when in the Tanakh the lines are obviously wrong and sent by the devil to deceive good christians like mbiking, while the exact same words in the bible mean the opposite of what they say on the surface (remember kids, revelation can mean any old ****e you want it to mean), because god revealed it to him.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

At least no abortions !

Between 1591 and 1869 the catholic teaching was "abortions are a-ok until 16 1/2 weeks!". This idea of ensoulment at conception is only 150 years old.

Oh, and there is absolutely nothing in the christian section of the bible (gospels and new testament) which holds a position either way on abortion. So all christian teaching is a post facto interpretation of what god would have said if he had gotten up off his ass to say something.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

My opinion is that human life is much more expendable than anyone likes to admit, and people keep searching for way of saying that a foetus isn't "life" as if life was sacred or something....
Why are we still pandering to people who believe in a human "spirit" for f*ck sake?

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha155103.html#abBix3isrLutQSjQ.99

What I find interesting is how these perspectives have been around for so long. Yet, religion persists.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The concepts of soul and hell and basically a continuation of existence after death are not biblical concepts, they're Hellenist.

Well, christian ideas certainly derived from Hellenistic ideas, but I don't believe (without checking) whether they originated with the Greeks.

Plato's Myth of Er is notable for its similarity to, well, the christian ideas of heaven and hell and reward or otherwise after death.

It's been a while since I've read Gilgamesh, but I seem to recall that even it proposed a spiritual reward for the good, and damnation for the evil, though not life after death which was, so far as I recall, an intellectual invention that began to develop from perhaps the 5th-century BC onwards.

Morag

Thomas Aquinas stated that ensoulment happened at 40 days for a boy and 80/90 days for a girl, this is from his Commentary on the Book of Sentences, so it has changed and never been a dogma set from the bible.
Humanae Vitae was only made doctrine in 1968.

Indeed the bible references would go back to ensoulment happening at the moment the first breath is taken
inline with the Judaic tradition.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha155103.html#abBix3isrLutQSjQ.99

What I find interesting is how these perspectives have been around for so long. Yet, religion persists.

Religion makes us afraid to address the notion/actuality of ending a real human life and potential for life at a foetal stage. We have less problem justifying ending human life for a "greater" cause (such as battling evil) in a war because religion is onside with this cause.

I haven't contributed to this "when does human life begin" discussion because I think it's a red herring. We DO end a human life by aborting a foetus at whatever stage it's at - pre or post 12 weeks. Get over it, is my thought on the subject, and face the inevitable religious backlash with some moral points of our own. I won't run away from the fact that we're killing humans, albeit ones that are nonsentient.

Sarky

Morag wrote: »

Thomas Aquinas stated that ensoulment happened at 40 days for a boy and 80/90 days for a girl, this is from his Commentary on the Book of Sentences, so it has changed and never been a dogma set from the bible.
Humanae Vitae was only made doctrine in 1968.

Too close to Vatican II for it not to be related. Aren't the Youth Defence types always foaming about how nothing good came of Vatican II?

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Well, christian ideas certainly derived from Hellenistic ideas, but I don't believe (without checking) whether they originated with the Greeks.

Sorry Robin I should have stated that more clearly. I'm not saying that the idea originated with the greeks but rather that it was borrowed by the early christian authors from the greeks, rather than having originated as a de-novo concept within Christianity. It was phrased badly.

robindch wrote: »

It's been a while since I've read Gilgamesh, but I seem to recall that even it proposed a spiritual reward for the good, and damnation for the evil, though not life after death which was, so far as I recall, an intellectual invention that began to develop from perhaps the 5th-century BC onwards.

Indeed Gilgamesh and many other sources which the authors of the OT borrowed from had well developed concepts of an afterlife. One of the early books of the OT, Job, despite taking its core metaphor from Sumerian myth, stands in marked contrast to these earlier traditions.

"As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so one who goes down to the grave does not return."

The word grave in this verse comes from the Hebrew sheol which is about as close to an afterlife as you get in the OT. However the word is almost always rendered as grave. This passage in Job suggests that death is final as does the passage in my earlier post from Ecclesiastes. The development of Sheol as an afterlife comes in the intertestamental period known as Second Temple, particularly with the books 2 Esdras and The Assumption of Moses. Here we see Sheol redesigned with four sections, one for the virtuous, one for the moderately good, one for the moderately bad and one for the really wicked. Later on, as we move closer to the NT, this last section gets a new name, Gehenna (itself borrowed from the OT). This is what Jesus refers to in the gospels as a place of torment.

I think that the idea evolved as many others did through the exposure of Jewish ideas to other cultures.