Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

____no5 said:
@Diesel 11 Where exactly permits abortion, can you give references or (even better) copy /paste the text?
Click to expand...
Numbers 5:11-31. Here’s the NIV translation.

Basically from what I understand, if a woman cheats on her husband and gets pregnant, her husband is to take her in front of the priest, and the priest will curse her and give her a drink that forces her to miscarry. AKA the child is aborted.
 
Exodus 22:21-25 puts a fine on the death of an unborn child, not the eye-for-eye judgement which applies to other deaths. This could also be interpreted as the fee for an abortion service.

Of course, you could also just use human reasoning and skip all the Bible BS.
 
Just so we're clear about this, I'm 100% pro-choice and don't think that church or state have any business interfering with this.
 
Perun said:
Just so we're clear about this, I'm 100% pro-choice and don't think that church or state have any business interfering with this.
Click to expand...
Same. It's just weird that after growing up in a household and church community completely against abortion*, only now have I learned that there is a biblical use of it. Weird.

*Some American "lawmakers" (read: dipshits) are so against abortion that they want to ban it even in the case of ectopic pregnancies, which even my mom, who is otherwise pro-life, considers stupid.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Same. It's just weird that after growing up in a household and church community completely against abortion*, only now have I learned that there is a biblical use of it. Weird.
Click to expand...

Yes but that was a very specific case. It didn't cover the case of the woman that gets pregnant with her husband or she's unmarried.
This 2000+ years case could be related with special cases of today i.e. of rape that if I'm not wrong conservatives also recognise.
 
These texts are thousands of years old. The guys who wrote them lived in a completely different world. They didn't have the US justice system; patriarchy perhaps made sense on a basic survival level; and so on. If the bible has any value today, it has to be in context, can't be word by word. And certainly we don't want a religious justice system.
 
____no5 said:
Yes but that was a very specific case. It didn't cover the case of the woman that gets pregnant with her husband or she's unmarried.
Click to expand...
Hence why I said there's a biblical use. I fully recognize that it isn't a flat encouragement of abortion in every situation.

____no5 said:
This 2000+ years case could be related with special cases of today i.e. of rape that if I'm not wrong conservatives also recognise.
Click to expand...
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLL.... usually rape is dismissed by conservatives as being on "such a small scale" compared to the "vast majority of pregnancies" that it is a "red herring" and does not need mentioning. Abortion is still abortion in their minds.
 
I always thought that the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy were either written directly by Moses, or more likely, were based on earlier Moses' writings.
 
LooseCannon said:
I mean, the Bible isn't a coherent piece of doctrine. The earlier books were likely recorded from an oral tradition, and the New Testament is explicitly political.
Click to expand...
The discussion about pro-life/-choice and religion could perhaps be adapted to the story in the New Testament about adultery, with the quote “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” (first time I hear it in english, is the quote correct?).
I get from that story that Jesus wouldn’t say “abortions are good”, just as he didn’t say “adultery is good”... But he said “stand up, but don’t do it again” iirc.
Let’s say, in context of today, a woman who got pregnant because they didn’t pay attention, and underwent an abortion — is the interpretation “stand up, and pay attention next time” wrong? He’d probably say something like that, to both of them, but also, to the the religious hypocrites: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”.
I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
jazz from hell said:
The whole discussion about pro-life/-choice and religion could perhaps be solved by that story in the New Testament about adultery, with the famous quote “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” (first time I hear it in english, is the quote correct?).
I get from that story that Jesus wouldn’t say “abortions are good”, just as he didn’t say “adultery is good”... But he said “stand up, but don’t do it again” iirc.
Let’s say, in context of today, a woman who got pregnant because they didn’t pay attention, and underwent an abortion — is the interpretation “stand up, and pay attention next time” wrong? He’d probably say something like that, to both of them. But also, to the the religious hypocrites: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone”.
I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
One issue with the passage though: the story was not part of the original manuscripts so it’s probable it was just added in by a scribe later on. Whether it was based on an actual account of Jesus or not is up for debate.
 
I think Jesus being Jesus would say, make love when there is love. Love and conception are sacred, your choices are sacred. All is one.
My take: Abortions better were close to zero, but we must be absolutely free and entitled to choose, especially women.
Yes it's life, yes it's sacred but let's fix the world outside the womb first before calling it a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top