Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Peregrinus

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.

As Volchista by her own admission hasn't read the text, I'm not sure that we should take her points as being about the text. That might be unfair to her.

As for me taking it literally where I want to, and not where I don't, no. I think that misunderstands my position. I think we do have to accept that the text says what it says (and, therefore, we can dismiss the guff in Cabaal's link, which significantly misrepresents the text). But I also think we are entitled to read the text critically. Thus, we can't pretend that the text says something like "the priest is to administer poison to the woman", because it doesn't say anything like that. But we can legitimately point out that, when the text says that certain consequences will follow from drinking water, this is probably not correct. Drinking water, even dusty water, doesn't cause your belly to swell or your thigh to rot. We all know this from common experience.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Drinking water, even dusty water, doesn't cause your belly to swell or your thigh to rot. We all know this from common experience.

So why taint the water? Most probably ritualism, but plenty of scope for something else.

Peregrinus

It's definitely ritualism; the dust has to come from the floor of the tabernacle, which is of course a ritually pure place. That's hardly an arbitrary feature of the ritual.

I think that for the culture that produced this text, the addition of the tabernacle dust was seen to (ritually) purify the water, not to taint it. Our view would be the that the dust doesn't purify the water, but does nothing substantial to taint it either. On either view, the notion that the dusty water was intended to act as an abortifacient is a tendentious fantasy, which Cabaal and Volchitsa have uncritically accepted because it appeals to their preconceptions.

So, how did the is text operate, in the culture that produced it? The first point to note is that it probably didn't operate very much at all, in practice. It required a ritual involving a priest, and dust from the tabernacle floor. You could only perform such a ritual in Jerusalem; there were neither priests nor tabernacles anywhere else. The second point is that - unless you are going to assert that supernatural powers really were at work - performing the ritual would usually have no physical outcome at all; no swelling of belly, no rotting of thigh. And we have no reason to think that the Israelites would have been any slower to notice this than we would.

So why would the culture have retained, and preserved, and canonised, this text? What purpose did it serve? It seems to me that the purpose it served was to control and constrain jealous husbands who lacked evidence for their suspicions. If they wanted to act out their jealousy, they had to take themselves and their supposedly erring wives to Jerusalem, and have the ritual performed, and then - when no outcome resulted, which is what would happen in nearly all cases - accept that there had been no infidelity, and proceed accordingly. If they behaved differently, punishing the wife without going through the ritual, or refusing to accept the outcome of the ritual, this text provided an apparatus for condemning and controlling their behaviour. You can see why, in the interests of familial and societal stability, that's a pretty good outcome.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

So why taint the water? Most probably ritualism, but plenty of scope for something else.

To give credibility to the judges pronouncement? After all, if he has followed the proscribed formula then it's not as if he's made a potentially flawed judgment himself; the evident results show that the Lord himself has determined her innocence. You might argue with a priest, but you can't argue with God.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think that for the culture that produced this text, the addition of the tabernacle dust was seen to (ritually) purify the water, not to taint it

Yet from the same text we get "and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse" so apparently the dust made the water bitter as opposed to purifying it. Bitter water that causes a curse sounds tainted from where I'm sitting, That tabernacle dust doesn't exactly seem to be a purifying agent now does it?

Peregrinus

The tabernacle dust makes the water ritually pure, smacl. Not, um, chemically pure. As for making it "bitter", bitterness is a positive characteristic in the Israelite scheme of things. The paschal lamb is eaten with "bitter herbs", remember, and that's a celebratory meal. "Bitter" = savoury; "honey" = sweet; and the Hebrews appreciated both.

(And they're not alone. "Bitter" is still considered to be a desirable quality in, e.g., beer and spirits.)

What's going on here, I think, is a ritual in which we have a symbolic confrontation between possible adultery (ritually impure) and water-with-tabernacle-dust (ritually pure). Water, for the Israelites, also symbolises repentance. (That's where we get the use of water in baptism - a ritual purifying through symbolic washing.)

So, in this ritual, one of three things could happen. First, the woman might in fact be guiltless. (The husband only suspects her, remember; he has no evidence.) In that event there's no confrontation, no tension, between the woman's ritual state and the water she ingests. Secondly, the woman may be impure (i.e. guilty of adultery) but she repents and wishes to be purified, which is achieved in her ingestion of the ritually pure water. Thirdly, the woman is impure and does not repent, in which case there is a fundamentally irreconcilable tension between the ritual state of the women and the ritual state of the water, which can only end badly. This is exemplified by the "curse" of decay and corruption. (You can understand these images literally or figuratively; it doesn't change their meaning.)

Right. Hubby gets suspicious; drags wife off to the Temple; she does the water thing. What happens? Almost certainly, not the swelling-of-belly-and-rotting-of-thigh thing. What is hubby (and the rest of the world) supposed to conclude from this? Either:

(a) The wife was innocent all along.

(b) The wife was guilty, but has repented and been purified. Her guilt is now in the past. And we'll never really know that she was guilty.

(c) The wife was guilty and has not repented. In this case, if the swelling-of-belly-and-rotting-of-thigh thing has not transpired, obviously we are not to take it literally. But the continuing tension between her inner state and her outward behaviour will inevitably cause some kind of decay or disintegration in her life, for which the swelling-of-belly-and-rotting-of-thigh thing is an image or metaphor.

On any of these views, however, the matter is now out of the husband's hands, which comes back to the point I made earlier. The function of this ritual, and the value of it, is to contain and channel suspicions of infidelity in a way that will minimise the harm they do to families and to the wider society.

smacl

Interesting that in the Wikipedia entry for the ordeal of bitter water the bitter water is specifically stated as being a poison, and there are references to the ordeal being interpreted as a form of abortion. It would seem volchitsa is not alone in considering this to be an abortion reference. I'm also not convinced that 'bitter water' is considered fit for human consumption from a biblical standpoint, as the only other common reference to it is where Moses makes the bitter water of the Marah sweet, thus making it drinkable where it previously was not.

I think I'll take the notion that the bitter water was pure with a pinch of salt (and maybe just a dash of Angosturas)

robp

FISMA. wrote: »

It is sickening for a doctor, who took the Hippocratic Oath to describe where to crush an unborn child to death in order to save specific organs.

Its unsurprising that many doctors today don't take the Oath.

volchitsa

Hilarious that people are taking any writings in the bible literally in this day and age.

As for bitter being a quality based on the bitter herbs of the Paasover feast, well I may not have read the quote earlier, for the reason I gave, but I seem to know my bible rather better than some on here, so maybe I don't need to!

Because back in the day when I did RE, we learned that the bitter herbs of the Passover Feast were a deliberate reminder to the Jews of the bitterness of their time in slavery in Egypt. Not just a synonym for savoury. LOL

Giacomo McGubbin

volchitsa wrote: »

Hilarious that people are taking any writings in the bible literally in this day and age.

What's even funnier is that they are mostly atheists or americans.

Absolam

I'd suggest that the word used to describe the water is changed as the state of the water is changed in line with it's purpose.

Initially, it is described as 'holy' water, and having being altered it becomes the 'bitter' water that causes the curse, bitter describing the fact that it causes a curse (so bitter in an emotional rather than flavour sense). Later in the text it says 'the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter' so I think the terms bitter and become bitter describe the action/quality of the curse rather than the flavour of the water.

Maybe? As I said, there are posters who spend more time with Biblical texts than I do, so they may have a better perspective on it.

Realist Man

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

The vested Global Elites are now having their say in the Abortion referendum. George Soros is an egomaniac Liberal Billionaire, I won't go into his involvement in the refugee crisis, social unrest in United States, World War II etc, that stuff is all out there in the open for people to see and research themselves. Soros and these Globalist Elite Lobbyists and other vested Foreign interests are the biggest threat to democracy in modern times. George Soros' "Open Society Foundation" was recently found to be the least transparent think thank in the United States.

I ask how can we have claim to still have open democracy and sovereignty in Ireland, when it's increasingly becoming more apparent who is deciding our future and the law of this country and world wide? I know the Pro Choice crowd, will know doubt support this as it benefits their campaign massively having one of the most powerful Billionaire Elites worldwide pouring money in, but where does this all end?

Whether it would or would not pass without Soros money and influence remains to be seen, I imagine it will be a close run thing. But these Global Lobbyists are far too powerful and exert to much control in their push for the open borders One Nation World.

Timberrrrrrrr

Realist Man wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/billionaire-soros-funding-groups-fighting-to-repeal-irish-abortion-ban-34980624.html

The vested Global Elites are now having their say in the Abortion referendum. George Soros is an egomaniac Liberal Billionaire, I won't go into his involvement in the refugee crisis, social unrest in United States, World War II etc, that stuff is all out there in the open for people to see and research themselves. Soros and these Globalist Elite Lobbyists and other vested Foreign interests are the biggest threat to democracy in modern times. George Soros' "Open Society Foundation" was recently found to be the least transparent think thank in the United States.

I ask how can we have claim to still have open democracy and sovereignty in Ireland, when it's increasingly becoming more apparent who is deciding our future and the law of this country and world wide? I know the Pro Choice crowd, will know doubt support this as it benefits their campaign massively having one of the most powerful Billionaire Elites worldwide pouring money in, but where does this all end?

Whether it would or would not pass without Soros money and influence remains to be seen, I imagine it will be a close run thing. But these Global Lobbyists are far too powerful and exert to much control in their push for the open borders One Nation World.

How much have the pro life crowd recieved in funding from interests outside of Ireland?

Absolam

I'm afraid as soon as I hear the term 'Elite' I lose interest.

Realist Man

Absolam wrote: »

I'm afraid as soon as I hear the term 'Elite' I lose interest.

What else would you call one of the richest and powerful men in the world? Honestly if that's all it takes for you to look away then I'm not sure what your agenda is.

I'm quite frankly tired of anything to do with this topic, being written off as a conspiracy theory, and peoples legitimate views being dismissed as the tin foil hat brigade. I have been banging this drum for a while, even when there is legitimate evidence of George Soros funding the legalisation of Abortion in Ireland, in Irish media no less, it is still dismissed and ignored.

I'm not sure what else can be done but provide the factual evidence in such clear terms. Now if people don't care for whatever reason, are happy because it supports their own agenda, or are pro Choice so it supports their cause (this time), well then so be it. If they are happy about this I'm not sure there is much more can be done to sway them. But I will not have these dangerous people such as George Soros and their vested global agenda, written off as another conspiracy theory. Question this mans motives and you are written off as a tin foil hat wearer, which suits him down to the ground.

PopePalpatine

Let's ignore Tom Monaghan and his fantasy of returning Ireland to a time when this country was only democratic in the Iranian Ayatollah's sense of the word. :rolleyes:

tommy2bad

Anyone follow this today? https://twitter.com/hashtag/twowomentravel?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A767066166011502592

Details here.
http://www.thejournal.ie/twowomentravel-enda-kenny-2938717-Aug2016/
It's an interesting development in the repeal the 8th campaign.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's hard to see how this is informative or contributes to the debate in anyway other than as a stunt. On the other hand it is a way of reducing the argument back to what it is really about, real people in a situation they didn't seek and which is being made worse by our laws.

Realist Man

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyone follow this today? https://twitter.com/hashtag/twowomentravel?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A767066166011502592

Details here.
http://www.thejournal.ie/twowomentravel-enda-kenny-2938717-Aug2016/
It's an interesting development in the repeal the 8th campaign.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's hard to see how this is informative or contributes to the debate in anyway other than as a stunt. On the other hand it is a way of reducing the argument back to what it is really about, real people in a situation they didn't seek and which is being made worse by our laws.

Publicity stunt, most likely funded by the likes of Soros and Amnesty International, bought into by the pro abortion folk on twitter. Not even any evidence these people even exist. And if they do so what, I feel alot more sorry for the baby being aborted than some attention seeking feminist on Social media looking for followers.

Delirium

Realist Man wrote: »

Publicity stunt, most likely funded by the likes of Soros and Amnesty International, bought into by the pro abortion folk on twitter. Not even any evidence these people even exist. And if they do so what, I feel alot more sorry for the baby being aborted than some attention seeking feminist on Social media looking for followers.

Are you seriously suggesting Irish women don't travel to the UK for an abortion????

Realist Man

Delirium wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting Irish women don't travel to the UK for an abortion????

I'm not sure where you have deduced that from my post, I'm well aware of that fact.

I personally don't feel these 2 individuals, who it appears refused to even publicise their names, going to England to abort their unborn child is worthy of applause, back slapping or praise like many of the Liberals on twitter.

Timberrrrrrrr

Realist Man wrote: »

I'm not sure where you have deduced that from my post, I'm well aware of that fact.

I personally don't feel these 2 individuals, who it appears refused to even publicise their names, going to England to abort their unborn child is worthy of applause, back slapping or praise like many of the Liberals on twitter.

They shouldn't have to

Delirium

Realist Man wrote: »

I'm not sure where you have deduced that from my post, I'm well aware of that fact.

I personally don't feel these 2 individuals, who it appears refused to even publicise their names, going to England to abort their unborn child is worthy of applause, back slapping or praise like many of the Liberals on twitter.

Why should they publicise their name? You've only just suggested that the woman who travelled for an abortion was lying. Why would they invite the ire of the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum into their lives?

As for what was happening on Twitter, all I've seen is people applauding them for raising awareness of the situation in Ireland.

Other than that, I've seen people say that the women shouldn't be tweeting about it. A kind of 'we don't talk about it' attitude. No suggestions that this should be stopped, merely that it shouldn't be in the public sphere.

Delirium

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyone follow this today? https://twitter.com/hashtag/twowomentravel?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A767066166011502592

Details here.
http://www.thejournal.ie/twowomentravel-enda-kenny-2938717-Aug2016/
It's an interesting development in the repeal the 8th campaign.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's hard to see how this is informative or contributes to the debate in anyway other than as a stunt. On the other hand it is a way of reducing the argument back to what it is really about, real people in a situation they didn't seek and which is being made worse by our laws.

Two things that I hadn't considered about travelling to UK for abortion were highlighted today. 1 - that a woman may be sent to a second clinic as the first one may not be able to perform the abortion on the day. 2- That some women go without anaesthetic as they can't afford to stay the night after the abortion and need to return to Ireland on the same day.

volchitsa

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyone follow this today? https://twitter.com/hashtag/twowomentravel?src=tren&data_id=tweet%3A767066166011502592

Details here.
http://www.thejournal.ie/twowomentravel-enda-kenny-2938717-Aug2016/
It's an interesting development in the repeal the 8th campaign.
I'm not sure how I feel about it, it's hard to see how this is informative or contributes to the debate in anyway other than as a stunt. On the other hand it is a way of reducing the argument back to what it is really about, real people in a situation they didn't seek and which is being made worse by our laws.

I think it's crucial that women are no longer systematically intimidated or shamed into collaborating in the pretence that Irish women don't have abortions. For that reason alone it's not just a stunt. Iona and the rest absolutely have to keep it hypothetical to make their case - they can't cope with a real person describing her lived experience because all of a sudden it's no longer about an imagined evil baby killer, but an ordinary woman, one of your friends or family or workmates. The refusal of the poster above to believe that these women actually exist is part of that.

Realist Man

Delirium wrote: »

Why should they publicise their name? You've only just suggested that the woman who travelled for an abortion was lying. Why would they invite the ire of the extreme end of the anti-abortion spectrum into their lives?

As for what was happening on Twitter, all I've seen is people applauding them for raising awareness of the situation in Ireland.

Other than that, I've seen people say that the women shouldn't be tweeting about it. A kind of 'we don't talk about it' attitude. No suggestions that this
should be stopped, merely that it shouldn't be in the public sphere.

If they are prepared to discuss aborting a child on Twitter, why not prove they actually exist and publicise their names if they want such acclaim? So they just want the love no criticism? Well when you put yourself in the public sphere celebrating killing your own unborn child, I would say they deserve every bit of criticism.

There is no proof they exist in any case, the burden of proof is on them, all I'm suggesting is how ridiculous it is a random Twitter account with no genuine proof is generating so much publicity. Anyone would think it was all pre planned. It's great they are now celebrities for Liberals. Shame about the dead child, but I suppose thats beside the point as long as they get their 5 minutes of fame and a few retweets.

Realist Man

volchitsa wrote: »

I think it's crucial that women are no longer systematically intimidated or shamed into collaborating in the pretence that Irish women don't have abortions. For that reason alone it's not just a stunt. Iona and the rest absolutely have to keep it hypothetical to make their case - they can't cope with a real person describing her lived experience because all of a sudden it's no longer about an imagined evil baby killer, but an ordinary woman, one of your friends or family or workmates. The refusal of the poster above to believe that these women actually exist is part of that.

They have shown no proof that they are not fictional. Maybe they exist maybe they don't, it's just a shame they have killed their baby and he/she will never exist.

Delirium

Realist Man wrote: »

If they are prepared to discuss aborting a child on Twitter, why not prove they actually exist and publicise their names if they want such acclaim? So they just want the love no criticism? Well when you put yourself in the public sphere celebrating killing your own unborn child, I would say they deserve every bit of criticism.

There is no proof they exist in any case, the burden of proof is on them, all I'm suggesting is how ridiculous it is a random Twitter account with no genuine proof is generating so much publicity. Anyone would think it was all pre planned. It's great they are now celebrities for Liberals. Shame about the dead child, but I suppose thats beside the point as long as they get their 5 minutes of fame and a few retweets.

It's not about the women becoming famous. The whole point, which you clearly missed, is that the woman who had the abortion could be any Irish woman.

And once again, it's astonishing that you don't believe such scenarios happen daily to Irish women. The woman had to travel to get an abortion and you're problem is that anti-abortion people can't find her to personally harass her for having an abortion.

volchitsa

Delirium wrote: »

It's not about the women becoming famous. The whole point, which you clearly missed, is that the woman who had the abortion could be any Irish woman.

And once again, it's astonishing that you don't believe such scenarios happen daily to Irish women. The woman had to travel to get an abortion and you're problem is that anti-abortion people can't find her to personally harass her for having an abortion.

Or worse.
Anti-abortion violence

PopePalpatine

Between 2010 and 2014, the rate of deaths due to complications as a result of pregnancy have doubled in Texas. This dramatic rise in deaths due to pregnancy - which leaves Texas with a maternal mortality rate unseen elsewhere in the developed world - coincides with the 2011 slashing of the Texan family planning budget by 66%, along with drastically reducing the number of women's health clinics within its borders.

robp

Delirium wrote: »

Realist Man wrote: »

If they are prepared to discuss aborting a child on Twitter, why not prove they actually exist and publicise their names if they want such acclaim? So they just want the love no criticism? Well when you put yourself in the public sphere celebrating killing your own unborn child, I would say they deserve every bit of criticism.

There is no proof they exist in any case, the burden of proof is on them, all I'm suggesting is how ridiculous it is a random Twitter account with no genuine proof is generating so much publicity. Anyone would think it was all pre planned. It's great they are now celebrities for Liberals. Shame about the dead child, but I suppose thats beside the point as long as they get their 5 minutes of fame and a few retweets.

It's not about the women becoming famous. The whole point, which you clearly missed, is that the woman who had the abortion could be any Irish woman.

And once again, it's astonishing that you don't believe such scenarios happen daily to Irish women. The woman had to travel to get an abortion and you're problem is that anti-abortion people can't find her to personally harass her for having an abortion.

Its astonishing that you would use the "had to" for something you yourself would celebrate as a choice and purely elective. And then you accuse people of wanting to harass.