Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278282 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
This is why I brought up Numbers 5
I'm missing it, what one is number 5?
Where does the passage say that?
You got my commenting and the passage reversed. My comment on the passage is above the passage not below. In Exodus 21:22 the wording from Hebrew is word fro word premature, her fruit, is no. Now the NIV doesn't use the word miscarriage but some version do translate it as such and from the direct wording it does seem like it can be stated that way.
It seems that indirectly the women being killed would lose the chance at giving birth, but how can one be certain they are pregnant? And also not a direct command for abortion.
They are wiping out an entire population "some of those women had to have been pregnant at the time."
Reading the entire chapter, it comes across as a punishment for the sins of the people.
Don't really care what the reason is behind it. It's an example of God doing abortion in the Bible.
But,Isn't there a difference if God causes a miscarriage Himself as compared to a human doing it.
Double standards, where something is wrong unless God did it then suddenly even what is normally regarded as the worst atrocities are okay.
I still feel it's not a direct command for abortion. It would seem more like a complete killing of both woman and her fetus.
Which would result in the abortion of the fetus. "Maybe it's only Biblically okay to preform abortions when you kill the mother as well?"
Does that not, according to those passages and if they are about abortion, show abortion to be a bad thing, a form of punishment?
Someone tying you up and whipping your butt with a leather bullwhip is a bad thing and could be a form of punishment unless you wanted them to do it.
I'm missing it, what one is number 5?
I left that one out since Emperor already posted it.
Numbers 5:21-22 (NIV)
here the priest is to put the woman under this curse--"may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." "'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
I'm missing it, what one is number 5?
Lol, wow ! Who's on first?
Never mind I got it the book Numbers Chapter 5.
King James Bible:
Numbers 5:
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 aside 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 aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside 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 an 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, that, 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.
This passage has me scathing my head, but after some Google searches I have found the following, which might be helpful understanding said passage:
Thigh apparently means genitals when it is used here and in some other places in the Bible.
Source (albeit not the best):
Yahoo Answers
The passage is referencing uterine prolapse.
Here is a source commenting about how it was a typical condition (citation in line with the text)
Uterine prolapse is an ailment that has seemingly affected women for all of time. In fact, the problem of uterine prolapse and its potential treatment is described in the oldest documented medical literature, the Egyptian Papyri, where it is written, âof a woman whose posterior, belly, and branching of her thighs are painful, say thou as to it, it is the falling of the womb,â (Kahun papyrus ca. 1835 B.C.E.) [1]. The Ebers papyrus goes on to recommend âto correct a displaced womb: with oil of earth (petroleum) with fedder (manure) and honey; rub the body of the patient,â(Ebers papyrus ca. 1550 B.C.E.) [2].
As for the passage, I am finding many mixed opinions and I have yet to find a solid definite source as to what it is talking about. I found this from the Haydock Commentary of the Douy Rheims Bible
(It's Catholic so maybe Catholics will more readily except it, who knows what other Christian denominations think. Also I don't know how authoritative said commentary is within Catholic circles. And for any other religious or non-religious practices I suppose you would not be concerned with said passages at all.)
Here is a link to the entire commentary, It's long and I am having trouble copying and pasting it as a quote:
The Commentary on Numbers 5
Further, even if the passage is/was about abortion, it is still being done as a punishment and not by the free volition of the woman.
Further, even if the passage is/was about abortion, it is still being done as a punishment and not by the free volition of the woman.
And that's what makes it Biblically okay to do....
You got my commenting and the passage reversed. My comment on the passage is above the passage not below.
Sorry, I thought the first comment you had was a general comment for the whole post and then the remaining comments were below. My mistake.
Double standards, where something is wrong unless God did it then suddenly even what is normally regarded as the worst atrocities are okay.
[quote]Further, even if the passage is/was about abortion, it is still being done as a punishment and not by the free volition of the woman.
And that's what makes it Biblically okay to do....[/quote]
If a Christian believes God is all powerful, the creator of the universe, and the creator of humankind, then the standard for God should be different than the standard God sets for humans.
If Christians believe God is a being that is beyond human, than why would he have to be subject to human standards?
(All the following from the King James Version)
In Job 1:21
21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.
Job confessions that the Lord has the right to give and take away.
Mathew 7:1-2
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
This seems to show that humans are not allowed to judge, yet Christ can and will.
I could give the example that a parent will set a bedtime for there children, but do the parents also have to follow that standard? Must they go to bed at the same time as the children.
So for a Christian, they have God who is like the parent, yet even further removed, as God is a different being other than human. Also, a child can grow into a parent, were as a human cannot become God. Except for Jesus, yet according to the Bible, when on earth, did not condone murder (I believe the New Testament makes it clear He did not kill either.)
Mathew 5:38-39
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Also, if Christians believe in heaven and hell, these Old Testament passages do not tell the reader what happens to the souls of those who are killed in such a manner. It may be possible these people did end up in heaven after some sort of trial and then forgiveness after death, before Christ.
I suppose some Christians may see it as this, the Old Testament is more brutal because God needed to move a certain group of people from one area to another and preserve their lineage so that Jesus could be born. God being God, on occasion gave His people the right to kill the people who would stand in their way. The reader does not know if the souls of those people killed ended up in heaven or hell. Also, why the punishments and rewards in the Old Testament or mostly earthly.
Once, Jesus is born then God no longer needs to move His people or preserve their lineage, so that Jesus can be born. The old law passes away as Jesus fulfills it. God no longer gives anyone the right to kill (or however killing was accomplished in the Old Testament, perhaps by God himself?):
Matthew 5:21-22
King James Bible
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mathew 5:38-39
King James Bible
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And then punishment and reward for sin are now spiritual and only gained in the afterlife.
Mathew 6:19-21
King James Bible
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
I still feel it's not a direct command for abortion. It would seem more like a complete killing of both woman and her fetus. But it is a subtle distinction to make, so I don't know.
The full quote.
[quote]Does that not, according to those passages and if they are about abortion, show abortion to be a bad thing, a form of punishment?
Someone tying you up and whipping your butt with a leather bullwhip is a bad thing and could be a form of punishment unless you wanted them to do it.[/quote]
Yes, therefore if the women wanted to have abortion (and if the passages are/were referring to abortion) then abortion would not be a punishment. But it seems to be clear from the passage that it is a form of punishment and highly likely that these people did not want to suffer this consequence.
and again,
But, in all cases quoted, these deeds were being preformed against the will of the women/person and as a form of punishment.
Yet in today's society we are performing abortions not as punishment and on women who usually have the abortions of their own will.
Usually, not always and it is possible some women may feel the abortion as a form of punishment.
If Christians believe God is a being that is beyond human, than why would he have to be subject to human standards?
"Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't usually work out. When killing innocent babies becomes permissible [2 Sam 12:13-19], what "erfect" code of morals is God following? Is God not perfect? Should we not strive to be more like He? Follow in His footsteps? Why not?
on occasion gave His people the right to kill the people who would stand in their way.
If they all were truly evil and had to die, why not send plagues to kill them all instead? Why tell the people specifically "Love thy neighbor as thyself [Lev 19:18], Thou shalt not kill [Ex 20:13]", and then command them to kill every inhabitant of many cities?
and preserve their lineage so that Jesus could be born.
God's plan to keep certain people inbreeding is to kill thousands? Why not just make the bad guys infertile?
these Old Testament passages do not tell the reader what happens to the souls of those who are killed in such a manner. It may be possible these people did end up in heaven after some sort of trial and then forgiveness after death, before Christ.
The common view I've heard is that He judged them before killing. Thus, straight to hell.
"Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't usually work out. When killing innocent babies becomes permissible [2 Sam 12:13-19], what "erfect" code of morals is God following? Is God not perfect? Should we not strive to be more like He? Follow in His footsteps? Why not?
If God can create the humans why does He not have a right to destroy them?
A human can kill a pig and eat it. Humans have dominion over animals. Why cannot God have dominion over humans?
If they all were truly evil and had to die, why not send plagues to kill them all instead? Why tell the people specifically "Love thy neighbor as thyself [Lev 19:18], Thou shalt not kill [Ex 20:13]", and then command them to kill every inhabitant of many cities?
Possibly because God was giving those people every last chance to not be so obstinate, but they never turned their hearts, it could have been different.
Exodus 8:28-32
King James Bible
28 And Pharaoh said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the Lord your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: intreat for me.
29 And Moses said, Behold, I go out from thee, and I will intreat the Lord that the swarms of flies may depart from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people, to morrow: but let not Pharaoh deal deceitfully any more in not letting the people go to sacrifice to the Lord.
30 And Moses went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the Lord.
31 And the Lord did according to the word of Moses; and he removed the swarms of flies from Pharaoh, from his servants, and from his people; there remained not one.
32 And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go.
Pharaoh repeatedly allows Moses and his people freedom and then recants, on ten occasions. When Pharaoh granted Moses and his people freedom, god removed whatever plague was upon the Pharaoh and his land at that time. It was due to the Pharaoh's hardened heart that he suffers his punishment. It gets to a point were God steps in, and hardens the Pharaoh's heart for the last time so that Mose and his people can due as needed.
Exodus 11:10
King James Bible
10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.
And here is a passage that demonstrates that God can take a life if he so chooses and He has the right to judge, which is not a right granted to humans.
Exodus 12:12
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
God's plan to keep certain people inbreeding is to kill thousands? Why not just make the bad guys infertile?
The Israelites were many in number. I do believe we hear of a person in the Bible who marries his first cousin in the Old Testament (soucre: This Mental Floss video. ) and of course if Adam and Eve were the first two humans, how do you get the rest of humanity without uhhh, you know. But as for the Israelites I doubt they were inbreeding.
As for the making them infertile, I suppose we recently mentioned it:
Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.
The common view I've heard is that He judged them before killing. Thus, straight to hell.
According to most main stream Christian sects, before Jesus's death and resurrection the gates of Heaven were not open. So those who died before then went into some sort of limbo where they had to wait for Heaven.
If the humans were not entering heaven in the Old Testament, I cannot see why they would necessarily go to hell either, when dying from being punishment in the Old Testament. But 'm not certain of this one.
If a Christian believes God is all powerful, the creator of the universe, and the creator of humankind, then the standard for God should be different than the standard God sets for humans.
If Christians believe God is a being that is beyond human, than why would he have to be subject to human standards?
In such a case I would expect such a being to at the very least live up to such standards if not be far better rather than be below them.
Job confessions that the Lord has the right to give and take away.
I wouldn't really be any different than if I were to say that I have the right to punch you in the face because I say so.
I could give the example that a parent will set a bedtime for there children, but do the parents also have to follow that standard? Must they go to bed at the same time as the children.
That's not really a matter of standards though.
Also, if Christians believe in heaven and hell, these Old Testament passages do not tell the reader what happens to the souls of those who are killed in such a manner. It may be possible these people did end up in heaven after some sort of trial and then forgiveness after death, before Christ.
Which would put it in the realm of pure speculation and apologetic nonsense.
I suppose some Christians may see it as this, the Old Testament is more brutal because God needed to move a certain group of people from one area to another and preserve their lineage so that Jesus could be born.
i won't get into it here but there are numerous ways a supposed omnipotent being could have achieved such goals without any brutality involved.
Yes, therefore if the women wanted to have abortion (and if the passages are/were referring to abortion) then abortion would not be a punishment. But it seems to be clear from the passage that it is a form of punishment and highly likely that these people did not want to suffer this consequence.
And since it's what the woman wants it should be allowed to be done. The point was to show that the Bible does allow for the killing of fetuses. Though it would seem the Biblically approved version is worse given it's done non consensually and often involves also killing the mother.
In such a case I would expect such a being to at the very least live up to such standards if not be far better rather than be below them.
Yes, hence why God in human form as Jesus does live up to the standard perfectly.
I wouldn't really be any different than if I were to say that I have the right to punch you in the face because I say so.
Job confessions the power of God, in your example you are not confessing the ability of someone else but yourself. But does that make a difference?
I suppose in either case, your example and the Bible passage, the confessor could be lying. You could be lying about your right to punch me in the face. Job could be lying about the giving and taking away. But why, in this specific instance only, would you tell and write down the story of Job as a moral lessen and then have Job's expression be a lie at such a pivotal moment?
That's not really a matter of standards though.
What is it a matter of then?
A human can kill a pig and eat it. Humans have dominion over animals. Why cannot God have dominion over humans?
Should dogs be required to do homework and get jobs and live up to the standards of humans?
Which would put it in the realm of pure speculation and apologetic nonsense.
For the same reason, why should said passages given previously be interpreted to say they are condoning abortion?
We aren't even looking at the passages in their original language. I could call the entirety of the last two pages apologetic nonsense for both sides of the argument render them completely void. But then why bother to set out to show the Bible as condoning/not condoning abortion?
I won't get into it here but there are numerous ways a supposed omnipotent being could have achieved such goals without any brutality involved.
If I respond it will just be a separate topic on why are things the way they are and for those who believe in the Bible, why did the biblical events unfold in the specific manner they did and not some other way.
And since it's what the woman wants it should be allowed to be done. The point was to show that the Bible does allow for the killing of fetuses. Though it would seem the Biblically approved version is worse given it's done non consensually and often involves also killing the mother.
If those passage are referencing abortion. If they were, it is definitely worse, but as a means of punishment and not choice. At the least, if the passage is referencing abortion, the passage would be commenting on how abortion is used as a means of punishment (and only when connected with murder of the child bearer as well).
The passages would not be commenting on how right or wrong it is for someone to willing seek an abortion.
Yes, hence why God in human form as Jesus does live up to the standard perfectly.
Job confessions the power of God, in your example you are not confessing the ability of someone else but yourself. But does that make a difference?
I suppose in either case, your example and the Bible passage, the confessor could be lying. You could be lying about your right to punch me in the face. Job could be lying about the giving and taking away. But why, in this specific instance only, would you tell and write down the story of Job as a moral lessen and then have Job's expression be a lie at such a pivotal moment?
What is it a matter of then?
A human can kill a pig and eat it. Humans have dominion over animals. Why cannot God have dominion over humans?
Should dogs be required to do homework and get jobs and live up to the standards of humans?
I would like to reply on these points. Though maybe we can take it to another thread or maybe onto our profiles? Because it has been straying a bit far off topic.
For the same reason, why should said passages given previously be interpreted to say they are condoning abortion?
It really doesn't take interpretation to reason that there are going to be some pregnant women out of the non virgin women from an entire population of people.
We aren't even looking at the passages in their original language. I could call the entirety of the last two pages apologetic nonsense for both sides of the argument render them completely void.
Do you even know what apologetics means?
But then why bother to set out to show the Bible as condoning/not condoning abortion?
Because it's often the religious condoning abortion as a sin. By showing that there are places in the Bible that allow for unborn fetuses to be killed it can serve to take the steam out of that bull.
If those passage are referencing abortion.
Do you even know the definition of abortion?
The passages would not be commenting on how right or wrong it is for someone to willing seek an abortion.
It does show that such action of aborting a fetus is acceptable in the Bible.
Humans have dominion over animals.
-Africanized Honey Bee
-Poison Dart Frog
-Box Jellyfish
-Tse Tse Fly
-Brazilian Wandering Spider
-Blue Ringed Octopus
I would like to reply on these points. Though maybe we can take it to another thread or maybe onto our profiles? Because it has been straying a bit far off topic.
It is straying. We could but do we have too?
It really doesn't take interpretation to reason that there are going to be some pregnant women out of the non virgin women from an entire population of people.
Here is the rest of this passage:
Numbers 31
New International Version
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ"the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsâ"who returned from the battle.
15 âHave you allowed all the women to live?â he asked them. 16 âThey were the ones who followed Balaamâs advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lordâs people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 âAnyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.â
I suppose it's still a command to kill, but he's talking to soldiers. Don't many countries have laws against murder, but military troops that kill people. The women being killed I suppose were being punished for bringing a plague on their people.
Most of these passage are about murder, with the possibility that a woman might have child. They aren't saying to just kill the child and live the mother to live. In all the cases it's still a form of punishment, which would mean none of these women would seek out such a deed. Also, gathering from the passages, if said people who incurred these punishments did not turn away from the Lord, they would have never incurred them.
Hosea 13:16
The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Here, the passage is much more direct. But from further reading, this sounds like a prophecy of a war in which this things might happen.
(Apologetic nonsense maybe.)
Do you even know what apologetics means?
Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
The passage come down to interpretation, we are reading a translation of said passages. How fully can one understand the passage without knowing the context of the passages, customs of those ancient times, and the original language in which they are spoken?
I'll give it to you for the heaven and hell statement about the Old Testament, it's speculation and if you wish "apologetic nonsense". But I could dig deeper a get a source and then possibly a better source.
For Numbers 5, I did look into the passages. I went as far as the Haydock commentary of the Douy Rheims Bible and also read other forums on the passage, which had many people give many different views.
A passage that speaks of the belly swelling and the "thigh" falling away. This was Emp's passage, but it is an interpretation heavy passage. To claim it's definitely speaking about abortion, then no sources, could be classified as nonsense.
I could still claim all the interpretations you present as abortion as nonsense. The passages are quoted, and then you give us your commentary with no further source. But, I suppose you can find those sources, and I take that you have. I don't believe you are the only person holding that position.
But as I see it most of these passages are up to interpretation. Then it comes down to how reliable of an interpretation and source can be found. But if one party does not agree with a source, anything can be passed off as "apologetic nonsense"
I wouldn't really be any different than if I were to say that I have the right to punch you in the face because I say so.
Rhetorical nonsense?
Do you even know the definition of abortion?
As for the passages (aside from Hosea) none of them are direct comments on abortion, let alone what to do if a woman seeks an abortion. It's all killing as a form of punishment. I see enough of a distinction here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability.[note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy.
I still see the passages, at most, as the termination of a woman and indirectly and consequently the fetus. Not the induced abortion of human pregnancy. The passage (aside from Hosea) still don't ask or speak directly for the murder of a child within the womb while leaving the woman intact.
=======
=======
To be more concise. The passage come down to interpretation and I feel there is definite distinction between what the passages state and abortion.
Most of these passage are about murder, with the possibility that a woman might have child. They aren't saying to just kill the child and live the mother to live. In all the cases it's still a form of punishment, which would mean none of these women would seek out such a deed. Also, gathering from the passages, if said people who incurred these punishments did not turn away from the Lord, they would have never incurred them.
Exactly how does any of that matter as to weather an unborn fetus is aborted in the process or not? It seems to me no more special pleading as those on here who were saying how abortion is wrong but give exception in cases of rape. It's simply an internally inconsistent stance.
The passage come down to interpretation, we are reading a translation of said passages. How fully can one understand the passage without knowing the context of the passages, customs of those ancient times, and the original language in which they are spoken?
Translating a passage or taking from a translation isn't "defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information." I'm also not defending any doctrine here. So you're claim of "last two pages apologetic nonsense for both sides" is nonsense and indicated an lack of understand of what apologetics was.
I could still claim all the interpretations you present as abortion as nonsense. The passages are quoted, and then you give us your commentary with no further source. But, I suppose you can find those sources, and I take that you have. I don't believe you are the only person holding that position.
What the hell sources do you want?! The passages are from the New International version of the Bible, which I was up front about and the commentary were my own words. What do i have to cite myself now?!
But if one party does not agree with a source, anything can be passed off as "apologetic nonsense"
Umm, no. There is a huge difference between "here's the passage and what this translation is saying" and "well if we look at it from there cultural perspective with maybe this word means that instead we can have it say this."
I still see the passages, at most, as the termination of a woman and indirectly and consequently the fetus. Not the induced abortion of human pregnancy.
Killing the woman along with the fetus is going to result in the termination of the pregnancy. It seems you are trying to split hairs here.
Translating a passage or taking from a translation isn't "defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information." I'm also not defending any doctrine here. So you're claim of "last two pages apologetic nonsense for both sides" is nonsense and indicated an lack of understand of what apologetics was.
Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.
You initially presented a claim that "the Bible condones abortion."
I then countered your claim.
You than stood by your initial claim and defended your position that "the Bible condones abortion."
The information you present are the Bible passages you used.
You defended your position by using information.
It could be said you are just presenting a claim or information. But the return could be said for some of what I posted, presenting more information in terms of Bible passages and some times cases. In this circumstance no one is performing an at of apologetic as no one is defending a position, but just presenting information.
Or
This could be said as well.
If you define information as:
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
(Source)
and knowledge as:
2: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(Source)
By definition I defended a position with information (the communication of knowledge).
Seeing that knowledge can be classified as, "knowing something with familiarity through experience or association", it does not matter if my post sites a source or not, if the knowledge I presented came from self experience, it is information none the less.
By strict terms I it's is apologetics but not "apologetic nonsense". I still am within the definition of apologetics. That one particular thought I presented may have been weak as it was not backed by sources but it's still apologetics.
=========================================
Which would put it in the realm of pure speculation and apologetic nonsense.
Now this sentence predisposes that pure speculation is a prerequisite for apologetic nonsense. Also, I don't see how speculation is taken into account when using the following definition for apologetics.
[i]Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics
You said,
I'm also not defending any doctrine here
I don't see how defending doctrine is necessary in order to defend a position. Defending any position seems to fit within the realms of Apologetics, however the term is often used with religious positions.
============================================
I will admit I was wrong to say the pages could be written off as apologetic nonsense. But I should have said written off as pure speculation.
I will admit also that the interpretations of the passages do not help define what apologetics and apologetic nonsense, but rather I should have stated at what speculation is.
=============================================
[quote]I could still claim all the interpretations you present as abortion as nonsense. The passages are quoted, and then you give us your commentary with no further source. But, I suppose you can find those sources, and I take that you have. I don't believe you are the only person holding that position.
What the hell sources do you want?! The passages are from the New International version of the Bible, which I was up front about and the commentary were my own words. What do i have to cite myself now?! [/quote]
You present Bible passages with the assumption that there can only be one interpretation of the passages and that these passages are direct commentary on abortion. You then give commentary on what the passages mean without any sources and expect the reader to accept that this is the only way the passage can be interpreted.
The passage are not originally written in English, so nuances in the meaning may differ from translation. The subject of the passages are from a culture long ago and you also do not present your credentials on how well you know this subject matter.
Now, I personally don't feel the need that you would have to site sources and state your credentials. But if you are going to pull the speculation card on me I will say the same for you.
Your initial commentary, as it stands, no sources, and no credentials is pure speculation and total nonsense.
You must be logged in to post a reply!