Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

Still dishonestly misrepresenting the positions of other posters?

I agree with abortion being carried out where it is necessary to save the mother's life.

And where her life is at risk by suicide?

Maybe you could get around to telling me what would happen if all abortion was banned, as you want. And why you picked down syndrome and claimed it was a "common" reason for abortion.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

And where her life is at risk by suicide?
Maybe you could get around to telling me what would happen if all abortion was banned, as you want. And why you picked down syndrome and claimed it was a "common" reason for abortion.

Wait a sec... he literally just said "I agree with abortion being carried out where it is necessary to save the mother's life". How do you resolve that statement with your assertion that he wants to ban all abortion?

Are you entirely intent on ignoring everything said in the posts in this thread just so you can look like you've something to say?

Nick Park

Absolam wrote: »

Wait a sec... he literally just said "I agree with abortion being carried out where it is necessary to save the mother's life". How do you resolve that statement with your assertion that he wants to ban all abortion?

Are you entirely intent on ignoring everything said in the posts in this thread just so you can look like you've something to say?

It's hard to engage in discussion if someone consistently lies about others.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

It's hard to engage in discussion if someone consistently lies about others.

I thought you didn't agree with abortion on grounds of suicide? Or have you changed your mind?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I thought you didn't agree with abortion on grounds of suicide? Or have you changed your mind?

That's not the same thing as wanting to ban all abortion.........

Delirium

lazygal wrote: »

And where her life is at risk by suicide?

Maybe you could get around to telling me what would happen if all abortion was banned, as you want. And why you picked down syndrome and claimed it was a "common" reason for abortion.

MOD NOTE

It would be appreciated if you didn't deliberately misrepresent the views of the other posters. Especially considering you quoted Nicks post which stated:

I agree with abortion being carried out where it is necessary to save the mother's life.

Thanks for your attention.

Cabaal

Curious people's viewpoints on this

Seems messed up,

I'm guessing I'll be told that its being taken out of context,

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/abletochoose/files/2016/08/awkward_bible_abortion.jpg

frag420

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious people's viewpoints on this

Seems messed up,

I'm guessing I'll be told that its being taken out of context,

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/abletochoose/files/2016/08/awkward_bible_abortion.jpg

If a man suspects....

The woman is forced to take....

Her unborn will die inside her...

i especially love this part...If you have committed no sin then this potion will do you no harm. But if you have sinned against your husband and drink this water YOUR BABY WILL
DIE INSIDE YOU! You will never be able
to have children ever again. And the Lord will curse you so that others will speak evil of you?

Now is this God giving a roundabout way of procuring an abortion, cheat and lie about it and we will magically abort your unborn even if your husband only suspects you cheated...

Or is this just the ramblings of a God who really doesn't give a crap about his people and is just in it for the fame and prayers/magic?

PopePalpatine

That sounds like a rather extreme Bizarro World version of Todd Akin's infamous hypothesis that in the case of a "legitimate rape", any resulting fertilised egg would be expelled from the body.

Absolam

The actual KJV text if it's what people are interested in discussing:

11 And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying,
12 “Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them: ‘If any man’s wife go astray and commit a trespass against him,
13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband and be kept secret, and she be defiled and there be no witness against her, neither be she taken in the act,
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—
15 then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest. And he shall bring her offering for her, a 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.
16 “‘And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord.
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.
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.
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 astray to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse.
20 But if thou hast gone astray to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled and some man have lain with thee besides thine husband”—
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.
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.”
23 “‘And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water;
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.
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.
26 And the priest shall take a handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, 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.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive seed.
29 “‘This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband and is defiled,
30 or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him and he is jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.’”

My own opinion is that the text revolves around infidelity rather than abortion, but there are posters who spend more time with Biblical texts than I do, so they may have a better perspective on it.

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm guessing I'll be told that its being taken out of context,

"Deliberately distorted" is the phrase I think you're groping for, Cabaal, if the text quoted by Absolam is anything to go by. You probably should stop giving credence to whatever site you found this stuff on.

Ab thinks this has more to do with infidelity than abortion; I think it may have more to do with jealousy.

What we have her is a (fairly bizarre, admittedly) dispute resolution procedure. The husband suspects his wife of infidelity. What is he to do about it? Divorce her? Cast her out? Beat seven kinds of snot out of her until she confesses? Go out and have a punishment fling himself to even up the score?

None of the above, is the answer. He's to take her to the priests, where there's a prescribed ritual to be observed, involving the drinking of water, which will put the matter to rest, one way or another. On the whole, this is probably less awful than what would ensue if there were no such ritual. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets beaten. Nobody gets abandoned, even. The husband has his jealous suspicions acknowledged and responded to; at the same time he is reminded that they are iniquitous. And, if a child is born, he's required to accept it as his.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the whole, this is probably less awful than what would ensue if there were no such ritual. Nobody gets killed. Nobody gets beaten. Nobody gets abandoned, even. The husband has his jealous suspicions acknowledged and responded to; at the same time he is reminded that they are iniquitous. And, if a child is born, he's required to accept it as his.

Swollen belly, thigh rot, and being a general curse to all and sundry. Hmmm, if I was that woman, not so sure if I'd be drinking that cursed water after having a fling, all sounds a bit terminal. Of course that's only if she's defiled, though as ceremonies involving women and water go, it brings to mind how to check if someones a witch.

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.

Peregrinus

Except none of that will actually happen, will it?

Farmer Ed

I would like to think I am a Christian and my own personal believe is that I don't like the idea of abortion. But honestly I think there is nothing more that turns people in to non believers that us trying to force our views on others. Jesus led by example not by force. By hope and not by fear. Only the scribes and the phrasiesies led by fear and ultimately they were the one who crucified Jesus. If we are not careful we could be considered modern day scribes and phrasiesies.its a very fine line.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except none of that will actually happen, will it?

You don't know that. Doesn't it depend on what the priest has put in the "water" she has to drink?

Lots of plants were known to be abortifacients, and it's very likely that faith in God meant that the priest would use one or more of these in his brew, "knowing" that an "innocent" woman would of course be immune.

Not to mention that consuming ashes doesn't sound too healthy either. What happens if the woman falls ill but doesn't immediately abort, especially if something subsequently goes wrong with the baby, a miscarriage weeks or months later? Can someone be a little bit guilty of adultery?

The point of these faith-based "tests" (witchcraft etc) was that they had to have a failure rate or they would no longer be believable. Some women had to fall ill much as described or it wasn't a test was it?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except none of that will actually happen, will it?

Why? On that basis should much of what goes beyond the mundane in the bible be taken with a grain of salt?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't know that. Doesn't it depend on what the priest has put in the "water" she has to drink?

Lots of plants were known to be abortifacients, and it's very likely that faith in God meant that the priest would use one or more of these in his brew, "knowing" that an "innocent" woman would of course be immune.

This makes no sense on several levels.

Why would a priest use abortifacients in his brew when the actual Bible text doesn't even mention pregnancy, abortion or miscarriages? (Important note to atheists: If you're going to argue about the Bible then try to find out what the Bible actually actually says rather than cutting and pasting a 'summarised' version from another atheist source).

Secondly, even if the passage was about pregnancy and miscarriages (which it isn't), why would faith in God cause a priest to disobey the instructions in the Bible and to make an entirely different concotion? The Old Testament actually warns leaders repeatedly to follow God's instructions to the letter, with dire consequences if they added their own spin.

Thirdly, what the heck has any of this got to do with the current abortion debate in Ireland?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

This makes no sense on several levels.

Why would a priest use abortifacients in his brew when the actual Bible text doesn't even mention pregnancy, abortion or miscarriages? (Important note to atheists: If you're going to argue about the Bible then try to find out what the Bible actually actually says rather than cutting and pasting a 'summarised' version from another atheist source).

Secondly, even if the passage was about pregnancy and miscarriages (which it isn't), why would faith in God cause a priest to disobey the instructions in the Bible and to make an entirely different concotion? The Old Testament actually warns leaders repeatedly to follow God's instructions to the letter, with dire consequences if they added their own spin.

Thirdly, what the heck has any of this got to do with the current abortion debate in Ireland?

You're right that I was going by what was posted here, and since I'm not going to start checking out the bible, I'll grant you most of that, at least by default. I didn't bring the quote up, so I've no idea how relevant it is, and again, don't care enough to check back on it.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't know that. Doesn't it depend on what the priest has put in the "water" she has to drink?

We know what he has put in the water (why the inverted commas, by the way?) - dust from the floor of the tabernacle.

volchitsa wrote: »

Lots of plants were known to be abortifacients, and it's very likely that faith in God meant that the priest would use one or more of these in his brew, "knowing" that an "innocent" woman would of course be immune.

You're either a biblical literalist or you're not, Vol. Make up your mind. If you're going to criticise this text to any effect, you have to deal with what the text actually says, and not with some tendentious fantasy of your own about what the priest would "very likely" do.

volchitsa wrote: »

The point of these faith-based "tests" (witchcraft etc) was that they had to have a failure rate or they would no longer be believable. Some women had to fall ill much as described or it wasn't a test was it?

But it's your choice to assume that this is a faith based test that needs a failure rate. I'm suggesting that the real function is a conflict-defusing mechanism, to avert jealousy-inspired violence. Rather than consider that possiblity, you're simply fantasising about priests ignoring the text and making up their own rules in order to produce the outcomes that your preconceptions require them to want.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Why? On that basis should much of what goes beyond the mundane in the bible be taken with a grain of salt?

If by "taken with a grain of salt" you mean "not take to be literally true in a fundamentalist biblical way" then, yes, it should.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

You're right that I was going by what was posted here, and since I'm not going to start checking out the bible, I'll grant you most of that, at least by default. I didn't bring the quote up, so I've no idea how relevant it is, and again, don't care enough to check back on it.

The biblical text has been posted here, by Absolam, in post 3461. You managed to click through on the link in Cabaal's post, but you failed to spot the text set out directly by Ab just three posts later?

It does rather give the impression that you're only prepared to read stuff if you expect to agree with it, I'm afraid.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If by "taken with a grain of salt" you mean "not take to be literally true in a fundamentalist biblical way" then, yes, it should.

Careful now...

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

The biblical text has been posted here, by Absolam, in post 3461. You managed to click through on the link in Cabaal's post, but you failed to spot the text set out directly by Ab just three posts later?

It does rather give the impression that you're only prepared to read stuff if you expect to agree with it, I'm afraid.

I've had Absolam on ignore for I don't know how long.

(Not because of whether or not I agree with him, in case that is your interpretation of it - there are plenty of others I reply to despite never agreeing with them.)

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

We know what he has put in the water (why the inverted commas, by the way?) - dust from the floor of the tabernacle.


You're either a biblical literalist or you're not, Vol. Make up your mind. If you're going to criticise this text to any effect, you have to deal with what the text actually says, and not with some tendentious fantasy of your own about what the priest would "very likely" do.


But it's your choice to assume that this is a faith based test that needs a failure rate. I'm suggesting that the real function is a conflict-defusing mechanism, to avert jealousy-inspired violence. Rather than consider that possiblity, you're simply fantasising about priests ignoring the text and making up their own rules in order to produce the outcomes that your preconceptions require them to want.

Because once you've put an active ingredient into the water, still calling it water is a misnomer. Even poisons are just water otherwise.

Your speculation is worth no more than mine, mine was based on the fact that there were faith "tests" in the bible and in history, yours on the notion of God calling people's bluff. Whatever.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I've had Absolam on ignore for I don't know how long. (Not because of whether or not I agree with him, in case that is your interpretation of it - there are plenty of others I reply to despite never agreeing with them.)

I think it's true,I have noticed, Volchitsa does often disagree with me to be fair.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I've had Absolam on ignore for I don't know how long.

I've never put anyone on ignore - and now you can see why. It puts you at, e.g., the risk of appearing to accept credulously some nonsense which has already been comprehensively debunked in the very thread you are participating in.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Because once you've put an active ingredient into the water, still calling it water is a misnomer. Even poisons are just water otherwise.

Again, Vol, this is what comes of your choice to read only part of the discussion. The biblical text doesn't call for an "active ingredient" to be added to the water. The ingredient specified ("dust") is pretty inert, and is commonly found in water considered to be of drinking quality even today.

volchitsa wrote: »

Your speculation is worth no more than mine, mine was based on the fact that there were faith "tests" in the bible and in history, yours on the notion of God calling people's bluff. Whatever.

Except that my speculation is based on the words of the text, whereas your speculations crucially depends on not having read the text that you are speculating about. Your speculation is that the priest will do something other than what the text requires, to which I can only respond (a) you have no reason for speculating this, other than that it produces the answer you want, and (b) if the priest does ignore the text and do something completely different, you can hardly denounce the text on that basis.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The biblical text doesn't call for an "active ingredient" to be added to the water. The ingredient specified ("dust") is pretty inert, and is commonly found in water considered to be of drinking quality even today.

With respect, you seem to be treating biblical text very literally indeed where it supports your arguments to do so, and yet suggest we should not take the text too literally where it does not. Given that one apparent result of drinking this tainted water is swollen belly and thigh rot, I don't believe Volchista's point cannot be so easily dismissed.

Cabaal

smacl wrote: »

With respect, you seem to be treating biblical text very literally indeed where it supports your arguments to do so, and yet suggest we should not take the text too literally where it does not. Given that one apparent result of drinking this tainted water is swollen belly and thigh rot, I don't believe Volchista's point cannot be so easily dismissed.

We're clearly taking it out of context....
:rolleyes:

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, Vol, this is what comes of your choice to read only part of the discussion. The biblical text doesn't call for an "active ingredient" to be added to the water. The ingredient specified ("dust") is pretty inert, and is commonly found in water considered to be of drinking quality even today.


Except that my speculation is based on the words of the text, whereas your speculations crucially depends on not having read the text that you are speculating about. Your speculation is that the priest will do something other than what the text requires, to which I can only respond (a) you have no reason for speculating this, other than that it produces the answer you want, and (b) if the priest does ignore the text and do something completely different, you can hardly denounce the text on that basis.

LOL. You do realize the bible and historical fact have at best a passing acquaintance, right?

As for choosing not to read certain posters (I think there's only one) don't worry, the occasional gap in the discussion is a price well worth paying IMO. It is very occasional, partly because posters requote when replying.

And if you read my first post on this, you'll see that when the poster objected to my reply, I immediately granted him the biblical parts because I didn't care enough to look it up myself. The same is even truer of the idea of ploughing through Absolam's incessant evasions of standing up his own views - missing a biblical quote is a price well worth paying.