Abortion is Biblically Moral

How abortion is ordained by god.

God ordains the governments of nations (especially here in the USA) God instructs us to follow the laws of the land and to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Romans 13:1 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

So when the government passes a law it is ordained of god and we have no fundamental right to fight that law on religious grounds—It is our duty to comply. We clearly have the government god selected. They have clearly and repeatedly said Trump is gods guy. That made Obama gods guy. Nixon and the Supreme Court of his time ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that a woman’s right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.—which came from Gods anointed and appointed. He is in control.

Legal abortion is a god-ordained law of the land—Jesus Christ!

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

238 thoughts on “Abortion is Biblically Moral”

  1. Dude, If BS were currency you’d be a billionaire! Somehow you have reasoned in your mind that God is totally in favor of giving women the choice to slaughter their unborn children? Wow…..

    Like

    1. Does god choose our leaders that make our laws? The Bible is a contradictory rag. If you believe the Bible to be true, you must support your leaders.
      Nobody really believes in god anyway. They’ll do in private with god watching, things they would never do or say in the the presence of mere mortals. Proof nobody really believes any of it. It’s called illusory truth syndrome. I never said I supported abortion. The exercise is in the futility of scripture.

      Like

            1. Because if you believed god was watching and with you at all times you’d act like it. Imagine the old and vengeful god sitting in the room with your porn and masturbation. Or lying. Would you lie if you believed in god, watching your every move? Funny, but no one really believes any of it. They only believe everyone else does. (Illusory truth syndrome) The herd is a powerful thing.
              Moral regulation is simply not god. It is simply complying in public because of what other men or women would think about you.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] boast in the hope of the glory of God.” – Romans 5

              Like

            3. That’s rubbish. Your belief contradicts your actions. If you really believed god was watching you every minute you would be acting like it it private. Mere men keep you in alignment. Nothing more

              Like

            4. I just provided you with a biblical verse that clearly states we have been justified by faith through Christ. That translates to mean “I have been eternally forgiven of every sin because of the righteous death of Christ on my behalf!” Who made you the judge?

              Like

            5. I don’t have to judge to identify the hypocrisy of faith and pretended belief. You are avoiding straight up reality. Nobody but a fundamental cruel and oppressive religious society do we see believers enforcing and living the religious creed like they believe it. You are pretending to believe in god. Nobody really does. Quoting scripture that excuses you’re bad behavior has nothing to do with it. Grace by faith is an excuse to get brownie points for doing nothing but shortchange accountability. Illusory truth syndrome is your belief.

              Like

  2. Incorrect.

    Obey the laws of the land but Gods law is always sovereign. The Bible tells us to obey the laws of the land but never tells us to violate Gods law. This is cleared up in the following verse.

    (Acts 5:29) – “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, We must obey God rather than men.”

    As for abortion I’m going to do this wild crazy thing and instead of talking about a very small group of tragic cases like rape and incest, I’m going to head at the other 98% of cases and focus the baby.

    1. Are you ok with cutting up a child with no anaesthetic for convenience?

    2. If you claim that it’s not a life despite having a heartbeat, brain, nervous system and arms that wriggle and fight when the the aborting happens then what is it? If you say a clump of cells then define how a human is more than this?

    3. If like the abortion doctors and heads at Planned Parenthood take the view that YES, it’s a life, YES it feels pain, YES it will fight for its life just like you would if a giant set of scissors chopped you up until you passed out from the pain and panic or something vital like your head came off, is it possible to morally square ending that life for convenience?

    4. Do you think that if the questions above were asked instead of using the strange moral framework of only addressing a tiny percentage and turning it back on the mother that the view of abortion might not be so open close?

    5. If any point in the questions above you are prepared to believe that it’s a baby and therefore life then is it not IN the womans body instead of THE womans body which makes the “Womans right to choose” actually a choice for ending a second life therefore legally somewhat different?

    6. Using the same steps as the rape and incest defence, can we look at accidental death and misadventure cases where no motive or criminality has seen as a reasonable catalyst for legalising all murder?

    7. If you are to point to the baby (it’s a baby when wanted, a fetus when not so I’m choosing the former) and say “That’s not human life”, is that wise when you consider that the two largest human atrrocities in recent history both were made possible by that exact same distinction? Hitler describing Jews as “Life not worthy of living” and the slave traders pointing to an African adult and stating, “That’s not a human”.

    8. If you find the above parallels offensive as many do and use it as an exit door via false indignation then why not tell me how it differs because those are the actual legal positions that were taken and not flippant use of troubling definitions.

    I am not being arrogant in any way and I respect you not answering, I simply take the postion that the debate is strangled and the ACTUAL abortion is avoided for very good reasons.

    Peace.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. No one even had a nibble at the 8 questions? You could pitch a case the other way by answering those, they are just intended to get the debate where it should be and not where the mainstream media tell us. Abortion discussions about the abortion procedure.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The decision to abort (other opinions notwithstanding) is and will always remain with the WOMAN. No offered argument (or religious belief) will ever take the place of a woman’s choice/decision/prerogative as to whether or not she will carry the zygote to term.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It is our duty to comply (with governing authorities).

    Well yes, but only if you think strictly deontologically. And you shouldn’t always think strictly deontologically, especially when discussing complicated matters such as abortion. Christians are also told not to lie, but I would be the last to tell a Nazi the truth if I were harbouring Jews in my basement.

    It’s also our duty to comply with what God says before what humans say (Acts 5: 27-29).

    Like

    1. So morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules? Who’s rules? Religions? We’ve seen what theocracy does to people. We had a thousand years enough of that torture.
      Not only would most people hide Jews in their basement, Christians are also pretty famous at embellishing to get a conversion. And outright lying. Belief is heralded as some type of intellect when it’s actually completely baseless. Belief is protected by law because it can’t stand on its own merits. Belief is nothing more than an idea of hope through conviction. It only makes it less true. You see, if something actually exists you cant have faith. Belief is only needed for things that don’t exist.

      Like

      1. Not what I was suggesting at all. My point was that Christians are supposed to, and need to, think about things in deontological terms as well as consequential terms. Religion doesn’t provide enough rules to cover every situation.

        Not entirely sure what you’re on about in the latter half of your reply… do you think belief and faith are completely useless?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Almost worthless. Belief and faith worth defending? I haven’t heard of one worth dying or killing for. But that is the nature of faith. Even the most unusual beliefs are treated like a badge of honor and intellect, and it’s a divisive ploy that has never produced the bliss it promises. You?

          Like

          1. Well – I entertain faith quite a bit in my own life, or I at least observe it in others lives quite frequently. Getting married is an act of faith, one that I’ve seen produce bliss many times over (although I can’t ignore the many times it doesn’t of course). That being said, every time we believe something someone says on a whim we exercise faith in some capacity. It may be that that’s unreasonable faith, or faith without justification, but we’re all guilty of it because we all learn from others.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Faith and hope your marriage works is quite different from supernatural, which is what I’m referring to.

              Like

            2. Oh, I see. I thought you were discounting it entirely.

              All the same, you say that belief is only needed for things that don’t exist. I take it you believe there is nothing for you after death… but does nothing exist? Can it exist? It’s hard to fathom nothing, and it’s almost equally difficult to fathom eternity, but at least eternity permits consciousness.

              Having this belief isn’t supernatural, but it’s equal to having one that’s supernatural. The truth is, no one knows what happens after death.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I am discounting faith as a destination or achievement. As a temporary state to prove a point, sure, we may exhibit a bit of faith, but not really in the sense that Christianity demands. More like curiosity. And faith in marriage? Doesn’t really matter if you do or don’t. One partner is going to leave the other half the time no matter what belief you adhere to.
              Your comment about there never being nothing is a good one. I don’t believe there was ever nothing. The universe is most likely a brute fact and our energies may go on in another form. But that’s a guess. Whether I believe it or not doesn’t change it.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. You’re right about that. Christianity certainly does demand a lot of faith. It’s quite frustrating, really. Although, I don’t know that guessing that there is a God is much more preposterous than guessing that our energies go on in another form. It’s much more specific, yes, but I think there’s enough speculation and evidence out there to back it up, maybe even to a reasonable degree.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Well, as far as energy goes it makes sense scientifically that could be the next step. As far as evolving into a higher being (through god and resurrection that could make sense too in evolutionary terms) . But that just doesn’t ring any bells for me.
              There is too much evidence this whole god thing is a contrivance of the curious man and his hormones. We’re pressured to believe but raised in a society of liars and biases. It’s an interesting quandary to have this much brainpower with neurotic misfires and anchoring biases that never go away, depending on where you were born.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I was pressured not to believe, socially and institutionally. I’ve seen both sides of the coin (not to say that I’m free of anchoring biases of course). I’ve found enough evidence that this whole god thing isn’t just a contrivance of the curious man, not enough to fully satisfy my skepticism yet, but enough to continue my search, and enough to see that there’s no harm in it.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Seeking if fine, but you’d be hard pressed to find fundamentalism that leads to any type of unity outside the group. And a group that will embrace you over such beliefs will betray you over non belief. And that is my story.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. I don’t believe that the whole world could be united under one belief. Whether I’d like to see that or not, it’s just not possible. Not sure I follow what you mean after that.

              Like

            9. What I mean is history is rife with examples of thought conviction (belief) leads to atrocities. The conversion of Europe and Latin America is unimaginable without the sword. Unfettered religious conviction produces oppression. Period. Whether it was meant to or not…if it was, shame on them. If it wasn’t, “god” or his prophets should’ve known better. It’s the same with politics. We’re forced into choosing sides of two wrong ideologies, and through belief we remain divided. I’ve written a lot about this so if you peruse the site you’ll kind of see what I’m relating too. They’re all short and to the point. Then as always I appreciate your opinion. I’m open to better ideas. What we have has not worked for a long long time.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. Just to cut in on that, Christians aren’t to go in for any supernatural meddling be it divination, fortune telling or whatever else. Some denominations do but it’s not in scripture. I personally just stick only with the Bible and meet a couple of guys at one of our houses and that’s it. Buildings that look like spaceships full of huge chess pieces arent in the bible either.

              God doesn’t make a claim to be supernatural, instead says “I AM” and asks a believer to trust Him, be honest about your sins and unless contrary to scripture, follow the laws of the land.

              Basically Ned Flanders.

              Like

            11. The only place HE AM, is in the imagination and people pretending to actually believe the tripe. No “signs greater than these” are anywhere to be found. Proof of the error of the red words in the Bible. There are no believers. Only pretenders. You know it doesn’t work or you wouldn’t have to defend it.

              Like

            12. I was a Catholic and then a rather strong atheist who knew all the the Chris Hitchens and Dawkins lines. Catholicism remains a type of Christianity is don’t recognise.

              I then took the time to look at the Bible (something Catholics don’t do) and I was somewhat amazed since there is stuff there that isn’t easily explained within the structure unless you place the Jews as having 200 IQs and plotting the whole thing that 66 books never intended to go together would end as it has 3000 years later with a structure that references itself over through people who never met.

              I had a a real problem trying to explain that and kinda worked out that I had been massively wrong for years (but right that Catholicism is empty man work).

              Like

            13. I could split hairs and handwave the contradictions as well as anyone. No more though. Prayer is one (you know, where you answer your own prayers and reason with yourself under your breath) There are plenty of edits in the Bible to suggest differently. What ever happened to Moses’ horns? 700 years of Christianity believed he had them because it was written (you know, Jerome and the vulgate Bible?) That one point is only one of hundreds. Too bad there was no exodus and turns out the entire modes story was a regional myth. Lots of cultures had the similar myth.
              As far as the IQ, it only would take one with that IQ who was keen on the foibles of human psychology to pull off a duping on an entire culture. Paul the temporal lobe epileptic.

              Like

            14. Moses Horns was the byproduct of the Florentine Renaissance and the influence it had. What Christians fail to grasp is that none of those artists had good intentions with their paintings. Leonardo Davinci was subtly feminising Jesus from Cesar Borgia to Bee Gee to ugly woman along with Boticelli and the rest painting him as a baby and suggesting Mary was the one to pray for, something the Catholics brought hook line and sinker.

              Christians by way of spending time creating huge structures with the temple building Masons (that they apparently don’t like anymore) and got duped into a bunch of stuff.

              I have the Hebrew OT. Its a funny language. They use the same word for nose as angry because you flair your nostrils. Moses didn’t have horns. Michael Angelo gave him them off the back of a dodgy translation. It means ray of light apparently which is why the horns are painted almost as rays of light in a few pics.

              The Florentine renaissance made the catholics look wallies.

              Like

            15. Oddly enough, there is one genius in the Old testement. Soloman. His legacy isn’t good though and what isn’t obvious is that his final book Eclesiasties is finished in the third person as he was busy fooling with alchemy (science we dont understand) with his Egyptian wife setting up Freemasonry and all manner of things.

              There are two accounts of Adam being created in the Bible. Once in Genesis 1 and again in Genesis 2. Soloman explains why because above all he loved Wisdom and decided that he would write stuff in stone to preserve it if things ever kicked off. It kinda became His God along with having over 1000 wives, many of whom were pagans. Women!

              Like

      2. But isn’t it easier to just look directly at the abortion and saying, is that act morally sound by the set of values you yourself hold (I assume you don’t gun people down and think that wrong so you have a code) and work it from that point?

        Is it ok to chop a baby to pieces?

        Like

        1. It’s not a call that should be legislated. What they do is not really your concern. You have chosen your battle when there are more important things to to, like feeding already the unfed living.
          It does show a lack of faith on your part trampling the freewill that is supposedly offered by religion. I, for one, cannot put myself in their shoes. Is forcing a woman to carry to term more fair than nipping the process before it adds even more woe to a traumatized and incapable parent?

          Like

  4. Moreso on the topic, it’s strange how many believers are so against abortion…huh..they clearly have not done their homework. And to insert personal opinions into a private matter that doesn’t concern anyone who isn’t directly involved, it is pretty controlling if ya ask me.. Are people educating themselves on how many children are in foster care, as well as how many children are mistreated in foster care? I’ll tell you, A LOT!! I have an idea, stop focusing on early abortions and start focusing on the kids who are here right now, being neglected, sexual abused, etc. There’s no need to ban abortion only to have hundreds of thousands more children thrown into the system. I have experience in social work and I’m telling ya, the system ain’t pretty. When will people back the F off and stop pushing their bias’s on others. Sorry Jim, I have built up anger. Lol

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Forcing more unwanteds into the system is the rest of the story. And if you want to talk about mental anguish and abortion, how about the anguish of having a child you cannot care for and abandon to a system wrought with millions of horrors and have to contemplate every day what you’ve done, or how they are doing. Not to mention the adoptions that go well and the kids are still traumatized simply because they were adopted. “Disorders assessed over the lifetime of the adoptees included oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder, major depressive disorder, and separation anxiety disorder” which is far above the national average.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Therein lies the paradox of the religious/conservative agenda and underscores the specious nature of conservatism. They want to literally force women to have children they can not afford, can not care for, etc., but they are the first to cut federal and state programs for children and single mothers! School programs, SNAP, healthcare, day care, you name it, they want to kill it. The so-called “ideology” of conservatism is nothing more than nonsense spouted by people that do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. They want government “off their backs” but don’t mind it in their bedrooms or in women’s clinics.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Difficulty in the decision also has to lay some of the blame on the overall economic/family dynamic and system. Caring for a child is a full time endeavor. Few today can take years off work to nurture them. Daycare is expensive and those without support systems are in a true quandary.
          In ancient times we had the household, the tribe, and the clan and generations of family to support the “honor” of raising a child. Most people today are on their own. It’s a big challenge even for the well to do.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Just a brief nod to your comment — Not to mention the adoptions that go well and the kids are still traumatized simply because they were adopted.

        I was adopted. And yes, even in “good” adoptions, there are repercussions. That’s all I’m going to say for now (although you’ve given me an idea for a post).

        Liked by 1 person

      3. You’re absolutely right(not that you need me to tell you)lol.. I’m not sure why people haven’t shifted their focus. I feel like It’s really about Red and Blue now. People are stubborn and ignorant. They want to dictate when they know nothing about the situation at hand…If that makes sense. It’s weird.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Perfectly said Jim! I’ve actually heard that Divine Intervention has gotten us where we are “politically” as a country….I was thinking what divine intervention is that??!? And how easy it is to turn scripture against current Christianity’s beliefs!! Lol I couldn’t agree more with everything you’ve said here!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Divine intervention, divine command too? When Obama was president god was punishing us. Now that Trump is president, he’s blessing us. Yuk. More like now he’s torturing the other half. If that makes sense to you…see a doctor. Haha

      Liked by 1 person

  6. The passage reads “…But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” .

    He makes your womb miscarry.

    As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s not hard at all to see this. But with some professional Christian breathing down your neck to tell you what it all REALLY means, it gets a little muddy. It’s pretty clear what it says.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. The whole thing is fucked up… and that’s before we even get to the commands to rip the bellies of pregnant women open. And of course, there’s this: In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Once again … a discussion on abortion is being dominated by MEN (not sure about RaPaR or Anima Monday). Sorry folks, but it really doesn’t matter whether it’s mentioned, condemned, or approved in the bible or anywhere else. The final decision will always (unless the male anatomy changes) be up to the woman.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I whole-heartedly agree, Nan! As a male I have come to understand first hand how society-at-large (certainly, male society-at-large) undervalue our women and how exasperating it must be to listen to the men of society discussing (and, even worse, legislating!) women’s issues. Yes, it is a women’s decision to make about the state of her own body.

      Liked by 3 people

          1. That comment posted double. Mine to you was I just hoped you know I am on your side completely. I am a bit befuddled how someone could defend the actions of that scripture. Unbelievable what faith can do.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. That’s a very dicey doctrine that the media have sown. That men can’t even have an opinion on the matter. Women have crazy magical bodies that create children but we are still human beings and fathers. I am not sure when the whole “Men shouldnt have a say” crept in but when you look at the length of a humans life against the nine month period to birth the child it’s incredibly disproportionate and wrong to say he cant even have a voice on this matter.

      Also, isn’t the first property put into use technically his if we are to take it that horrible real estate sounding route?

      Like

      1. Can a man have a vasectomy without his wife’s consent? Aah, yes. Of course she has no say. But that’s ok only in the mind of faith

        Like

          1. But your Bible disagrees, and even spilling your seed on the ground was punished by death (Onan). Some contradictions your defending? It all carries the same potential.

            Like

            1. He wasn’t slayed for jizzing on the floor, it was disobedience.

              I don’t really hold a positon on jizzing on the floor. I just said a man shouldn’t deceive a woman like that. If they then try for a baby for years when he knows he can’t and says nothing that’s arguably rape.

              Like

            2. Then where’s the legislation? Men would never allow a woman to dictate what they can do with their body.

              Like

            3. It would be taking by deception I believe which is then statutory rape of some description.

              It’s a false equivocation though because the issue raised with abortion isn’t that it’s HER body. Its what is IN her at that point which can be argued is a separate life because a woman doesn’t have 2 nervous systems, brain and heartbeat and a seperate future thats detachable and looks like a human at any other time.

              Like

      2. No, it’s not “dicey.” The male is NOT the one carrying the fetus. He is NOT the one who suffers through childbirth. Technically, the ONLY role he plays is proving the sperm. Certainly in a true relationship, he can offer his thoughts and opinions, but in the end, the final decision is — and always has been — the WOMAN’S.

        Further, in cases of rape — especially a 12-year-old as has been recently publicized — the domineering male can show up after the birth and claim “fatherly” rights. How utterly sickening. Not to mention, by the time the “baby” reaches school age, this mother won’t even yet be considered an “adult.”

        No, there is absolutely NO justifiable reason for a forced birth. Abortion is never a pleasant decision to make for any woman. They are well aware of what they are doing. But once again … it is and always should be HER decision.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. There is actually which is why custody battles happen, childcare payments are due in the case of a divorce and he is expected to be 50% of the parentship after that initial 9 month period.

          Since he donates material to what is in HER, the baby which smiles on ulstrasounds and scrambles to get away when either hoovered out in bits of chopped up alive.

          It’s disproportionate cherry picking to dismiss the man from the process simply because we aren’t like seahorse men who carry the babies to birth.

          Like

          1. At the point when the male body is capable of carrying a child to birth, we will dispassionately discuss your reasons for being anti-abortion. Until then, you are simply parroting an opinion that has no merit, contrary to your religious beliefs.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. These are not his beliefs, but his mind has been hijacked by the party line. We’ve all been there spouting the ideas of another.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. So basically you’re saying that my easily quantifiable position that factors in contributions dictated by laws that protect women who then become single parents is a religious one? My position on abortion I held as an atheist too, I have seen the videos and pictures of what happens. A living thing in pain trying to get away from a large pair of scissors.

              I’m clearly not parroting because I have very unpopular views that most people won’t voice. I am rather pugnacious so do

              You didn’t actually address my last point and instead mislabeled it so without a single prayer, halo or amen I ask you this…

              Is it ok to cut up that baby/fetus when it feels pain, has a brain and organs, arms to move frantically when the process starts?

              Firstly, are you ok with that and if so does the convenience requirements of a person justify the pain being experienced?

              Like

            3. Doesn’t really matter if I like it or not. It isn’t my position to inflict my beliefs on another. What your asking someone to do is based on a “belief” contrary to science. The same science that leans on the side of safety at 26 weeks—before bilateral synchronization of the brain. So, just like a brain dead man is legally dead, a fetus prior to 23 weeks is not alive either. And they don’t run from big scissors. That is an exaggerated knee jerk propaganda.

              Like

            4. No, it’s science actually. There is no “belief”. Infact, it’s settled science. Yes, it feels pain in the first trimester, yes, it will fight to get away and yes, its human DNA.

              The scissors are from the testimony of abortion doctors themselves in court. Check youtube. These are guys under oath. That’s the brutal truth of abortion.

              Propoganda is subversion of truth by various means so wouldn’t moving discourse to a comfortable rape and incest debate constitute that since it takes 98% of cases are then avoided as the the 2% serves as a smokescreen to any empathy that might go to the child who gets cut up alive?

              Just to confirm, almost everyone I debate with on this topic isn’t actually aware of what it looks like or how it’s done. If you think that scissors are propoganda then prepare a sickbowl. It’s way worse than just that. One of the reasons I am so anti is because just once I saw the footage and that was all it took to destroy any fragile moral framework that’s applied to what is a holocaust in womens wombs.

              Watch it. Know what’s happening. Why do you think most doctors refuser to participate? It’s not because they are squeamish. I will send you a clip if you have the stomach to know what’s going on in this process.

              Like

            5. Yes, it feels pain in the first trimester,

              No, it doesn’t.

              yes, it will fight to get away

              No, it can’t.

              and yes, its human DNA.]

              DNA is a map. It is no more a human being than an architect’s sketch is a functional building.

              Liked by 2 people

            6. OK … so it’s an ongoing perspective for you. I assumed from your blog name it was related to your beliefs. In any case, your perception of A living thing in pain trying to get away from a large pair of scissors is NOT the common abortion procedure. In fact, I HIGHLY doubt any licensed practitioner would be agreeable to such methods. Generally, it’s done by an abortion pill or suction (vacuum aspiration, up to 15 weeks, or dilation and evacuation, 15-24 weeks). In either case, the unborn at either stage is incapable of “trying to get away.”

              But let’s take this a step further. If abortions are outlawed (as they have been in the past), there are women who will still have reasons for not wanting a child … and will take/do whatever steps are necessary to end the pregnancy. Such efforts have resulted in serious problems for the woman … even death.

              One last thing and then I’m done. If anti-abortionists would be willing to adopt and/or care for the unwanted child after it’s born, there might be a joining of the minds. But as it is now, all they want is for the woman to have the child no matter what. And this isn’t and never will be acceptable to the woman who needs (for whatever reason) to have an abortion.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. Easily quantifiable? LOL. You’re drowning in misinformation and pure nonsense.

              For starters, you don’t seem to have the faintest idea about foetal brain development. You said the foetus feels pain. No, it doesn’t.

              Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. (Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence, JAMA. 2005;294(8):947-954)

              Before week 28 (the beginning of bilateral synchronisation) there is not even the capacity for consciousness.

              Liked by 2 people

            8. I’m not a neurological surgeon or scientist, you’re correct. But neither are you and the info is clearly very politicised (how can it not be) so scanning a few places I’m going to suggest not definitive since the brain and nervous system is still something of a mystery to us and development can vary baby to baby.

              So, It not being settled science I guess that makes it a maybe. So is a maybe will feel pain conscionable? Not for I. Dismemberment is a procedure where I would be eternally grateful that every care was taken that I didn’t have to feel my limbs being chopped off and I’m fairly confident you would also.

              The area as a whole is weirdly elastic. It’s seldom debated with frothy mouthed faux indignation and offence at the ready as trapdoors. Hollywood has a rabid unified position that’s not unusual (actors, who else to save the world?) but more aggressive than usual with actresses (and Robert Downey Jr) coming forward with ghastly stories that sound more like pro-life material. You then have the rhetorical pendulum swinging between “baby” and “fetus” depending on whether they are keeping it.

              Like

            9. No, there is no mystery. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Studies are done on premature babies. The stages of foetal brain development is established science.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. As one non neurosurgeon to another armed only with the power of Google I’m of the mind that you’re probably about as convinced as I am not. I’m sure we can agree on that.

              Would you take the risk? Let’s say…if a 10% chance existed?

              Like

            11. You have gathered that near dogmatic view of me already?

              I think we both know that I could go to google and drag up counterpoints that you will most likely content are from anti-abortion sources. An old fashioned google off like in the old days. What exactly is to be gained from that?

              Strikes me that as equals in the field of not being neuro scientists that you seem put out for reasons I can’t place. You can’t be this condescending and short because we don’t agree?

              What if you’re wrong? Not about spaghetti monsters and unicorns (cute, I did laugh) but the potential pain inflicted upon a human.

              Unless I am mistaken (and I will apologise if I am and haven’t read the question posed properly) I haven’t actually mentioned any term in regard to feeling pain. Where did you get the 20 weeks from? I kinda answered without considering that when you made your arrival.

              Like

            12. I think we both know that I could go to google and drag up counterpoints that you will most likely content are from anti-abortion sources.

              No, you couldn’t. None that are based on actual studies. By the nonsense you’ve been throwing out here, I’m sure, however, you can paste something from a *source* of yours saying they have evidence a foetus can sing.

              What if you’re wrong? Not about spaghetti monsters and unicorns (cute, I did laugh) but the potential pain inflicted upon a human.

              Well, considering the physical structures to experience pain are not even in existence until 28+ weeks I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong.

              in. Where did you get the 20 weeks from?

              Post 28 weeks, to be accurate. Try reading comments. I posted a segment from a JAMA papwer, 2005: Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence.

              Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. (Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence, JAMA. 2005;294(8):947-954)

              Before week 28 (the beginning of bilateral synchronisation) there is not even the capacity for consciousness.

              Liked by 1 person

            13. You’re a lively one aren’t you 🙂

              Oh, ok. So those were your comments and you answered a question about 28 weeks? Who asked that question? I’m confused. Was it me?

              Like

            14. Oh, I have seen something to this effect and numerous abortion doctors describe the procedure as testimony so that would be under oath.

              Trying to get away could imply they had a destination so I guess that’s technically speaking an error. Flailing about panicking is probably more apt.

              Appreciate the heads up, I won’t use that wording again.

              Like

            15. Always suspicious of facts within science. I recently read a book by Thomas Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Great book, it explained to me at least why science texbooks are updated so regularly and that Scientific fact due to the not always obvious shifting approaches to enquiry required…well, a level of faith.

              Like

            16. Feel free to dissect the brains of thousands of premature babies (dead, naturally) and correlate the physical findings from similar studies across the planet… then get back to me if you find some error.

              Liked by 1 person

            17. I have come across you before, I held very aggressive agnostic views and hated William Lane Craig ruining that great thinker Chris Hitchens. In hindsight Hitch was gracious and complimentary in defeat and Craig isn’t actually using the Bible so whats the point? He has an agile mind and can create persuasive complex philosophical arguments at will which is impressive but he’s not speaking as a theologian.

              Although I wrote a bunch of papers, ran a website and could easily tie knots in the average well meaning theist I held back. It wasn’t because I had doubts, I thought all religion through the spectrum had more holes than swiss cheese. They just seemed happy enough with their delusion. What’s to be gained by stealing a placebo. Who hands out the comfort blankets?

              I looked through some of your articles a few years back when I was of a similar mind. It’s a small world after all…

              Liked by 1 person

            18. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe unicorns live in your shoes for all I care. It’s none of my business. It becomes my business, however, when you misrepresent science and spread nonsense.

              Liked by 1 person

            19. This I think is an important self-assessment time. You held “views” and this is where we have the great intellectual division. Your “views” are beliefs. Your beliefs in this conversation use information that falls in line with those beliefs. Beliefs that don’t hold any authenticity or truth. This is religion in a nutshell. Beliefs are the biggest, most worthless, divisive problem in the world today. Belief—a thought conviction that holds no evidence or truth whatsoever, but we are supposed to respect it? You have drawn your information in this topic from a poisoned well.

              Liked by 2 people

            20. Forgive me, that’s a false assumption on account of my name maybe? My pro-life stance isn’t anything to do with my beliefs. I don’t even attend a church, I just study scripture so there isn’t activism generated that way. I don’t really do religion. Infact, I took a strong pro-life view as an atheist. I’m sure you agree that not all morals and decisions have to come from scripture?

              I saw a video, it was grusome, I took the position that what I saw was something I would always speak up on since they couldn’t.

              I get why you would asume that though and in 99% of cases you would correct but I simply saw a video.

              Just out of interest, you mention views and then state that they don’t hold any authenticity or truth. What brings you to that? It’s not through belief that I am pro-life as it pre-existed me studying scripture, I’m just interested in what views you mean that are false. Not looking for a theological debate(they are daft), just interested in your view.

              Like

            21. but I simply saw a video … You saw a video. One video? And that one video convinced you? Did you watch other videos? Perhaps videos that showed the accepted procedures used by licensed practitioners?

              I trust you know that videos can be edited, altered, modified?

              Liked by 1 person

            22. Yes, I researched it further. That was the turning point for me though. That would be like basing a movie opinion on the trailer. I have a good knowledge on the topic, especially the areas that are kept out of the public eye. I often forget that I have seen stuff that really lays it bare and that makes the discussion uneven as one vantage is very sanitised and the other is grizzly. I take a blunt tone on it because in many cases the person you’re discussing it with is under the media driven misapprehensions. Take the rape and incest cases. That’s a media driven coupling of two rare cases that sound even worse together. They are never mentioned alone and because they dominate the debate it’s important to remember that they are a small percentage. Look to the norm, look at the procedures and then you’re dealing with what matters. Most cases and most woman and not small exceptions that simply stifle progress in the debate.

              I fimished up running a foriegn DVD webstore and review movies for a couple of mags part time and write essays on the different Hollywood studios approaches and agendas. One might say I’m dorky that way.

              Like

            23. FYI, I can email on videos I have on the topic that are clinical and without production values. Just what goes on. I always warn every though, it’s very troubling truths. A guy I know passed out viewing it. It’s an overload.

              Like

            24. Just to clarify, the two conversations that we had running in parallel weren’t related outside of it being me and you participating in them. Whenever I’m told that there is a contradiction in the Bible I ask the question because its almost always the expanded writing of a sect or denomination or as we found out earlier, those sneaky Florentine Renaissance artists.

              Like

            25. That was how I ended up stopping by as it goes. The statement you made that abortion was legal because God says obey the laws of the land. I can see how you arrived there but there is a clearly stated caveat that Gods law is sovereign.

              As for what I said about abortion, that’s just the conscience in me speaking in the place of those who’s voices are ignored. I don’t need the Bible to speak up for the weak. As well as being greedy, selfish and wicked can at times call upon their compassion without an angel telling us to do it, I’m sure you agree.

              Like

        2. FYI – using the rape and incest rationale I could make a case for murder to be made legal because it’s not quite as clear in cases or death by misadventure with a third party involved or tragic accidents that cause death. Pointing to those cases which make up about 2% of abortions is done to take the focus of empathy from the baby being chopped to pieces alive and onto a very tragic situation that has befallen a woman.

          The other 98% where convenience is often the deciding factor which allows the baby a voice. It’s the largest group and actually looking at the ABORTION itself and what happens there that people on both sides both agree is utterly vile not only important, it’s the very apex of the debate. This isn’t to discount rape and incest but legisaltion should be decided at the widest level before rare tragic substrata is brought in, not rare cases incorrectly dictating the debate of what is the largest group. That’s very important.

          A baby gets chopped to bits alive and if over a certain size will have scissors stuck through the back of its neck and opened in the brain which is amazingly the merciful end after being chopped up beforehand.

          How the above is subverted time and time again is beyond me. Abortion debates not actually talking about abortion.

          Like

            1. Wouldn’t stand up in a court of law because there is no intent from the rapist and the abortion would also involve a choice being. No forced abortions are made in the USA, right?

              Using the same conditonal logic I could commit suicide and then pin that murder on someone.

              Like

            2. Your hairsplitting. People are charged for killing unborn. It is intent here that is key. It’s HER choice

              Like

            3. Lacis law wouldnt apply because the direct action to end the life would be the decision of the woman and then action of the Dr.

              Laci and Connor Peterson died by direct action of Scott Peterson hence dbl murder and the protection of the unborn law being applied.

              That’s how the law is interpreted. I’m not splitting hairs, that’s criterion use.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Right, I have to say toodlepip and thamks for the polite and levelheaded debate. If only everyone could converse like this.

              Enjoy the rest of your weekend and may the correct course be found in this abortion thing.

              J

              Liked by 1 person

  8. Numbers 5:16
    The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.
    19Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse d among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22May 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.”

    23“ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial e offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

    29“ ‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. That’s a good point to raise but it’s Mosaic law that is replace by the new covenant. Most of the laws that deal with the Jews were specific to them only which is why you have the Ark with what was to be preserved of the law into that new covenant which then made the law complete.

      That’s why Jews do stuff like not mixing cloth and have ringlets. These were laws for the time they were in the wilderness and were quite unique to them. It’s by not accepting the NT that they are left doing these things.

      Just as an example of that Mosaic law, Jews are told not to mix blood because they are so often under persecution. It was the same then as it was in the Holocaust. God said maintain your lines, they are always under attack. Gentiles were not handed this command.

      Like

      1. This is a ridiculous argument. Gods chosen people were permitted to do this. It shows again the absolute diplopic morality if the unchanging god.

        Like

        1. Not quite, the Bible is a single narrative, infact almost every story is the same when you break it down a little. Gods dealing with the Jews was different from the gentiles but consider that the command to keep blood pure has turned out to be the best advise they were ever given since they are without doubt the most persecuted people on the earth and have been ejected from more countries than anyone else by some margin while on what you might call their second Exodus back to their land. If not for that then their might be no Jews today.

          It’s also practiced by Germans although not spoken of since WW2. When they did speak of it they called it racial hygiene. Not nice. Jews aren’t so strict but wish only 18 million to their number they might want to be.

          Glad to be a gentile if Ian honest.

          Like

          1. You make it sound like you think this is a good thing. The key to understanding the wrongness of this entire thing is unbelief. Really. What causes persecution is setting yourself up to be “chosen” above all others. It’s not rocket science, but quite distasteful (Jim Crow laws) This single narrative you speak of is so full of contradictions and approved immorality it’s in volumes, not quotes.

            Like

            1. Give me a contradiction and I will look into it.

              The persecution of the Jews wasn’t and never has been normal and baffles scholars to this day both theist and non believer. Keep in mind that they moaned the entire time that they were in that period where the Mosiac law counted and were bratty and ungrateful whining to be taken back to Egypt and into slavery. Since then they have been ejected from over 100 countries over history when any number of them settled. Why? Not sure but they were warned that would happen. Did that warning then make it so? I would say not since they are usually considered a good thing (the song birds of fortune) as they appear to do business when an economy is improving.

              As I said, the persecution of the Jews is a topic debated to this day. It’s most asuredly a thing and they are alive in that small number because they listened to the advice.

              Like

            2. Oh, the single narrative in the Bible is substitutionary atonement. Animal is killed and skins thrown on Adam and Eve in Eden, a demonstration of sacrifice to atone, Kane was annoyed that God accepted his blood offering by not his fruit and veg, again blood covers sin and is acceptable. The passover lamb, Jonah and Joseph are christophanies etc. Same story, it was preperation so that they understood it.

              Like

            3. So it’s a blood cult that celebrates human sacrifice as the pinnacle. I get it. So the Aztecs were cool, right.

              Like

            4. The Aztecs and Myans were looking to change the weather and then summon their own Gods with rather advanced rivers of mercury and all manner of unexplainable stuff that suggests they were far more advanced than we thought. Since we don’t know where large numbers went in what appears very sudden events you might wander what they did summon.

              I would also look at Cern because the scientists there aren’t behaving like Scientists any more with their shamanic dances and statues from the Hindu Indian government. Even Atheist Stephen Hawking told them that from what he had seen they needed to stop and this wasn’t about black holes. These things aren’t as unreasonable as you might think.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. The blood and burnt offerings were a lesson. The wages of sin and that things committed must be paid for and it can be substitution. They were offing animals for doing bad things and it being expensive demonstrated that sin indeed has wage, something societies practice to this day with a penal system and courts.

              Like

            6. The blood and burnt offering were blood and burnt offerings. If anyone else on the planet did it, you wouldn’t sugarcoat and excuse it. Only by faith can man be so unreasoned.

              Like

            7. They weren’t seeking an earthly gain like the Myans and Aztecs. It was a penance so that they would learn of consequence. That’s made clear.

              Passover lamb was slightly diffrerent in that it had to be perfect and innocent so demonstrate that a perfect sacrifice if accepted would mean salvation. Blood of the lamb above the door meant death passed over them when they were in captivity in Egypt. Lamb of God, perfect etc. That was the representation of Christ coming and taking the sin of all through his death. perfect sacrifice = salvation.

              Its actually foretold in Genesis 3:15. Its the entire bible in one single verse.

              To Satan…

              And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel

              The bite is the sin that has to be taken on the cross and then crushed head is when he returns to throw him down.

              That’s why Moses puts up a staff of Bronze when the snakes come near in the wilderness and tells them to go before it and they will be saved. It’s a crucifix with a snake on it. Satan is on it ready to bite but they didn’t know what it meant at that point and why they did it.

              Like

            8. That’s all fine if Moses were a real character. Funny thing about the Bible and faith. It demands there be no evidence. Faith can only thrive in the absence of truth. Moses is a myth. 2 million people at Kadesh for forty years and not a trace. Not even a pottery shard. That, btw, is a settlement the size of Houston Texas. The Jews have abandoned the tale as well. This isn’t new. Jesus quotes Moses as well. He should’ve known better.
              I really wish some evidence would be found. Religion wouldn’t die but faith would—that keen ability to justify immoral beliefs

              Like

            9. See, that’s why reading the Bible helps. I felt exactly the same and was attmepting to make it look worse after being raised by men in dresses as Catholic and I didn’t expect to come out a Christian.

              Ref Biblical accuracy, there was a flood. That’s confirmed by atheists. Christians aren’t seeking evidence, the Bible is sufficient. I know how that sounds and I would have scoffed but there it is.

              Like

            10. When was this global flood anyway that atheist teach? (The one that multiple civilizations lived through in the americas and China).

              Like

            11. That pyramid expert blathers on about it along with others. There are alot more pyramids the world over, its just that sand blows away easily.

              he also does DMT which is kinda wild. he has met hindu fo sho

              Like

    1. Aah, this is one of those allegorical parts. Why didn’t I see that? It’s not the first time I’ve made the sign of the cross whispering “Steve”. Probably not the last either. Lol

      Liked by 1 person

    2. The Bible when handled correctly answers every questions perfectly. The problem is that not reading the Bible for 6 days and then getting a tiny slice of it for 30 inutes on a sunday is considered enough to speak for it. It isn’t, it takes study because it’s an incredibly complex book but anything that can do what it does would be.

      Like

      1. That’s bs. The simplicity of the gospel can be dismantled pretty easily over coffee. You guys muddy the water to make it seem deep, then cover it with more excuses than can be covered in a lifetime. The Bible was withheld from the common people for centuries—It should’ve been withheld from the priests as well. The only reason it could be viewed as good is the presupposition of the believer. It’s a violent rag with waffling morality that suits those in control of it—and its people.

        Like

        1. I disagree but obviously I would. I’m not in any way bragging or making any presupposition that I know more than you or any other Christian but I do study scripture daily as I really enjoy it.

          Fire a few at me, maybe I have this wrong. If you can take the time obviously.

          Like

          1. Since the tip of the sword is no longer an acceptable conversion tactic, confusion is king. 750,000 new catalogued publications a year in the USA alone prove to be the case—and your religion has still not produced any peace, in spite of a near monopoly for over a thousand years. Really. There is nothing to be found. I did my fifty years. Not one point is as it is purported. How long should anything with such outrageous claims, be given to reach its objectives?

            Like

            1. It would produce peace if its rules were followed. Infact, there would be peace if the gurdwara was followed. The rules are to turn the other cheek, be a peacemaker and not a peacekeeper etc. The problem is men not following them, not the rules themselves but also this is the very essence of the Bible. Men will always fail because we have dark hearts and need a fix from above. Its about accepting that you need fixing, not confessing to a man in a dress in a box.

              Bible translations are indeed becoming worse and the new ones remove all reference to God and insert self reliance as the key to it all. The KJV is a good version but unlike almost every other sacred text on the planet the Bible is constantly being rewritten and abused. The Quran is largely a rewritten Bible, Book of Mormon is an extended version and the JW version is changed in very cunning areas.

              Most Christians who know about this stuff stick with the KJV.

              Like

  9. There are plenty of references to terminating pregnancies in the bible and even one instruction of how in Numbers — through using “the bitter water that causeth the curse.” Pregnancies and sex were not sentimental things in those times. Women were considered to be pretty much livestock whose primary purpose was to breed. Rape was condoned but not extramarital affairs. Children were not people to love necessarily but a form of wealth. Seriously, this is not a vision that respects life in any way. When fundamentalist Christians chose to use this text as a way to guide their lives, I can only cringe.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Ah yes. I’d forgotten the “the bitter water that causeth the curse”. That’s some shamanistic undertones there. Somehow I knew you or Neptune would come through.

      Like

        1. Actually, the “bitter water that brings the curse” is not a prescription for an abortion, per se, but a way to determine if a woman has even been with another man. It was a test of sorts so that after drinking the water (which is really just water with dirt from the ground/dust of the tabernacle,) had she been unfaithful, her body parts would swell; her stomach and thighs, she’d get sick and, if she were also pregnant, she would (hopefully) lose the pregnancy. However, it was not – by a long shot – a prescription for an abortion. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there isn’t really much at all on the act of aborting an unborn fetus and there is certainly no mention of a method or process for executing an abortion.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. It’s really hard to say, Jim, the word abortion doesn’t even really show up anywhere. (I’m not even sure of there is a word for it in Biblical Hebrew.) Terminating a pregnancy is only mentioned once (that I am aware of) in Job and, even here, he is railing against his misery, saying it would have been better if his mother had killed him in the womb. He doesn’t even use the word abortion.

              Liked by 1 person

    2. The priest would give the unfaithful woman the bitter water. If she in not pregnant nothing happens. But if she is..the butter curse will enter her and cleanse her and make her miscarry. Numbers 5

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Interesting overlapping of topics, Jim. For me, the question has always been about when life begins. After reading this, I must now ask when it ends. Most religious claim it never ends. Next week we shall justify slavery. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The idea that the god or the Bible could be the source of morality is pretty weak once you read his stuff. But like any other topic, the men of words—we’ll take it from here and tell you what it was all supposed to mean.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. As I’ve pointed out before, this line of reasoning fails to satisfy the moral objections raised against terminating the life of another human being. Theists (and a fair number of non-theists) hold that human life begins to exist when a new individual bearing the combined traits of its mother and father is created at fertilization, and consider the termination of that human life a violation of personal autonomy — i.e. murder. So the issue at hand is the beginning of person-hood, not origins of life per se.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. And as previously pointed out, that position is medically/biologically/scientifically/legally illiterate.

          And you’re right, personhood (the beginning of a complete human being) is the issue, and that matter is settled. The earliest possible marker is full bilateral synchronisation.

          Liked by 3 people

            1. I agree. But again, that’s not the issue. Biology only informs us of the stages of development between conception and a fully-developed infant. The decision as to which state of development confers a legal right of protection under the law is informed by ethics.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Yes, their medical illiteracy is the issue. Their argument is not grounded in reality. It’s pure fantasy. The heart is a muscle. It is not a human being. Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment. And if they want to talk pure biology, then metabolically speaking, it is only after birth the baby becomes a unique individual. Until birth (36hrs after, to be more precise), the foetus’s metabolic rate is the same as the mother, which is to say, the same as a mammal the size of the mother. A mammal the size of a foetus has a metabolic rate equal to that of, say, a possum. While in the womb, the foetus behaves as an organ, a part of a larger whole, NOT an individual.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. I contest your definition of unique individual.

              unique: being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else

              individual: a single member of a class

              The fetus is a clearly identifiable and distinct human entity even if it’s unconsciousness and dependent on its mother for continued sustenance. If you can’t convince me — someone who is unopposed to abortion — to adopt your arguments, how do you expect to convince those who disagree entirely?

              Liked by 2 people

            4. I said in the womb it *behaves* as an organ, a part of a larger whole. And I said if you want to look at pure biology (which is not the principle argument), then metabolically, it only becomes a demonstrably unique individual—with its own speed of life—after birth. And who gives a flying fuck if they disagree entirely? I can’t dumb-down the facts any more than I already have. The fact that pro-forced-birthers can’t present an argument that has any relation at all to reality is a reflection on their ineptitude, not mine. If they wish to remain staggeringly (deliberately) ignorant, then so be it. If your country votes in equally ignorant politicians who then stack the courts with equally ignorant judges, then so be it. If that is the way, then every death, and every severely disabled child born, and every grain of suffering resulting from their uninformed (morally reprehensible) actions is on their hands. There is no debate. There are no alternative facts. If states like Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama etc. proceed down this path then the statistics will quickly reflect the misery and death they have wrought.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. I agree that dumbing it down is a mistake. My old professor was asked to explain because the words he was using were hard to understand. He said not a chance. “The bar must be here” and he drew a line high on the chalk board. “You better reach for it” he said. If one can’t understand the terms they will never get past their emotional argument from belief from a poisoned well.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. Well I can’t really rely on their judgement. It was also a sin to spill seed, sometimes punished by death. If cumrags were outlawed there would be male genocide on the planet.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. lol

            According to the text, the Lord was displeased that Onan refused to fulfill his familial duty to raise up an heir to his brother as per the instructions given by Moses in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. But for some strange reason this tiny subtlety got missed by the anti-masturbation crowd.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. Slavery has some unfortunate parallels with abortion as they use the same definitions to justify the action. No-one was ever compelled to own slaves or participate in the institution of chattel slavery. Judge Taney settled the slavery issue conclusively in 1857 by denying the inherent non-personhood of African peoples (“Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States”) in the Dredd Scott case.

      A non-person can be used for whatever purpose his owner sees fit, of course. Where life starts is where the abortion debate should begin and end. Convenience levied against human life is what had slave owners ignore their conscience in order to avoid hardship.

      Like

  11. I think it Bertrand Russell who said a god who drowned his children cannot tell him how to raise his. Given the many crimes the bible god commits, I think he should be the last to be referred to in an abortion debate

    Liked by 4 people

    1. True. Did you know that in Sims 4 you can now drown your game characters in the pool? . You can also starve them and torture them—very godlike.

      Like

  12. The fact of the matter is the Bible is amazing quiet on the subject of abortion; there is virtually no word of it anywhere. What does that mean? Did they not think anything of it? Or, perhaps, was it not done in any numbers that warranted mention? I believe that only Job makes mention of it, in the context that it would have been better had his mother killed him in the womb, but there doesn’t seem to be any great controversy over it.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. You know the Catholic church allowed abortions for much of its history, right? They adopted the Aristotelian concept of fetus animatus/inanimatus, which essentially meant abortion was permitted in the first (approx.) 3 months

    Liked by 5 people

      1. The standard was essentially when they “believed” the fetus got a soul (aka ensoulment or quickening). Girls obviously got their souls later than boys, as they were less deserving or perhaps just generally slower. I don’t know, maybe the process involved parking 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

        1. In elementary school (back in the dark ages of the ’50s) abortion was never mentioned. But I was taught that they would choose the baby over the mother.

          Liked by 2 people

    1. I did not know that. Would explain the “illegal” coat hangar scar I have on my head. Mom told me it was a birth mark. Lol. No wonder I’m so good at jousting.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In a non-related matter, have you ever written about consent? I was (misguidedly) having a discussion with Branyan yesterday and was somewhat surprised how confused by the concept some Christians (like him) seem to be.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The closest I’ve come is writing about submitting your will, then using force on your children to take their freewill away. Good idea. I’ll ponder on it. I may have something to learn here too.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. It wasn’t an issue with evangelicals until 1979, when they only became interested in the subject for political reasons (defeating Carter to protect segregated schools).

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

      From the article:

      Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Don’t you love it when the bible is occasionally found to be right? But there is a problem. In some states it is legal to shoot others for quite spurious reasons. Your quote makes that okay too!

    Liked by 2 people

      1. For an omniscient god, he is certainly very vague about things. A true omniscient god would know what he wants to say, say it once, and be done with it. There would be no room for interpretation.
        But if you want a good quiet laugh, go to https://wordartbyrawgod.wordpress.com and choose “I, Ozymandias.” It isn’t a belly-laugh, just an exercise in irony, I guess.
        This is a piece of flash fiction I wrote this morning for a literary blog battle. I don’t normally tell anyone about this blog, but I figure if anyone appreciates this story, it will be you.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. You mean you have bible verses that support the opposite point of view? Then you will start to understand the self-contradictory nature of the bible which is one of its biggest problems. I mean I can produce a verse that says life doesn’t begin until a baby has its first breath, and then you will produce the verse that God new us before we were born, it’s a fun game that never stops.

      Also dude…it’s “troll” not trowel. I read your last post and it is so full of spelling errors, I hope it’s okay if we don’t take your interpretation of the bible as gospel. You have lots of questions that you try to answer, and don’t seem to realize that the reason you struggle to answer those questions is that you assume God exists and that the bible is true. This is purely based on faith, and you have no evidence of such. If there is no God, the answers become surprisingly simple to work out. In fact Buddhism worked out answers to your questions with much more clarity. You should consider starting from the default position that there is no God, just like the default position that there are no unicorns, and find physical evidence that goes beyond the personal experience of others. Only then can you then start wondering why God did this or that. Until you do that, your reasoning will remain flawed.

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Haha…but since he is trowling Jim, it sounds like it could be one of the Edgar Allen Poe, Cask of Amontillado type situations. Jim needs to be careful, or else he’ll find himself chained behind a brick wall!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. THE thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged….

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I’ve read quite a few of Dave’s posts. He has some pretty interesting ways of defining his religion. Spelling is definitely not his strong point, but I think he’s a good guy.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Can’t comment at all on whether he is a good guy or not, but given that it takes scholars who know multiple languages (most of them dead) to actually interpret the bible, his own language skills make me question how well he can interpret it. Especially given that he made no attempt to justify his criticism, just laid criticism.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. We had long run-in before. It is difficult to get the gist of it when key words are grossly erred. Maybe he is a bible translator? What you want it to be… Interesting with all the leeway scribes had to “fix” things in the Bible, they left in the gross embarrassments because they were just acceptable for the times they lived in. They didn’t know right from wrong.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Thanks jim we disagree completely, but I think your a good guy to. I’m getting the spelling fixt (hopfaly) as well as the content. If you have any writing advice I would appreciate it.

              Liked by 1 person

      1. Tis true. The key to understanding nearly everything is unbelief. That is how you enter into true inquiry. Every believer should experience unbelief, just for a moment and see what a difference it makes. You can always go back to it…or can you? Bwahahaha!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes I’m dyslexic so I’m getting the spelling fixt, you should check out my posts next week. They should be a lot better! Both in spelling and in content, I’ve learned a lot about writting sense starting, but any advice would be appreciated (I still suck at it).
        I did start at that default position, I haven’t always been a Christian.
        However my study led me into deism and from there Christianity.
        Also, I hope you don’t use proof texting as you method for disproveing the Bible. Because its a terrible way to go about it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m sorry you have dyslexia. It is brave of you to write to practice. Most students who I have had that had dyslexia hate writing as a result.

          I certainly wouldn’t use proof texting as a method for disproving the Bible, just that understanding the intent of the authors requires a great deal of knowledge of language, and as I said especially dead languages since the Bible was originally written at a time when the range of vocabulary was far less and in languages that don’t exist anymore. It is difficult to verify many of the authors authentically let alone guess what their intent was. One of the better ways is to look at the practices of that time and what practices were condoned by the Church. Certainly Jesus never said anything against abortion, and the bible is full of contradictory statement about what constitutes life, and when an infant is actually infant. What we do know is that Christianity for much of its history did not seem to prohibit abortion specifically, and certainly did not make it unlawful or see it as murder. You can find many websites trying to say there is biblical justification for saying abortion is wrong and other saying the bible doesn’t prohibit it. One website I found point to quotes prohibiting the harming of innocents, and yet God killed innocents all the time, and commanded the kill of children. So it’s hard to get a consistent message from Yahweh.

          I would be interested to learn what evidence you have found for God’s existence. I researched the evidence fairly thoroughly myself and asked many theist and thus far no evidence has been presented to me.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Thank you for the understanding, since you teach dyslexics, if you have any advice, that would help my writing, I would appreciate it.
            Not to be nitpicky, but your argument agenst the websites argument, was a proof text, you might do it more than you think. No “got you”, just sayin.

            So I find it really odd, that you have found no evidence so far. Before I answer, I want to ask a question, if its ok with you. What do you consider would qualifie as evidence?

            Like

            1. Dave,
              Just to be clear, I’m educator but I’m not an educator of dyslexic, just saying I’ve had dyslexic students in the field I teach in.

              From my understanding of what proof texting is I’m not sure I understand the difference between the way you use selected passages in the bible to support your point of view in your blog posts, as opposed to somebody else doing the same thing to let’s say make a counter argument. In my experience Christians proof text constantly to support their stances on various societal issues. Abortion being just one example.

              If we go beyond the proof texting that goes beyond both sides, the problem becomes even more difficult because as I said to determine the intention of the writers, not even being able to verify who the authors of all the books in the Bible even are, we also do not find consensus. Abortion and infanticide have been part of human history since we were hunter-gatherers and we do not see it being wildly outlawed as soon as Christianity comes along. So how does one make the case for abortion being made illegal, or abortion being murdered based on the history of practices by even Christians and the disagreement among different denominations about the issue.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Thanks for the reply, sorry it took me so long to get back there was a lot there, and I wanted to go through what you sent me.

              First, proof texting.
              here’s Webster on proof texting(“a Scriptural passage adduced as proof for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle”)

              In Christianity, the term is more specific. Here is one by wiki that captures how we see it.
              (“proof-texting” or “proof texting”) is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis (introducing one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases)

              The definishion that I use is, (proof texting, is using a verse as an argument from authority, without knowing the historical or scriptural context of the verse.)
              Even if you disagree with how I define it, hopfaly you see were I’m coming from.

              In light of that, I don’t make a biblical references, unless I’m sure the verse  means what I’m claiming it means. I’m open to people showing me, that I’m wrong about the meaning. But, I dont just point to a pasige which I have never studied and say, “see god says abortion is ok” (quoting jim not you)(I’ve studied numbers 5 a lot, that’s why I put my 2 sents in).
              When it comes to what you sent me.
              I think its important to note that Brent Landau didn’t say in that post, that they were wrong. He provided other options or explanations for the evadence. Which if you watch debates between Habermas and other scholars who stand by those explanation, they don’t usaly hold up very well. I think its also important to note that the arguments for the resurrection, which Brent Landau just brushed off, without exsplaining them in detail. Have changed the idea of the resurrection in scholarship, from something that was a literal joke, in to a lagitamenty debated topic. I would suggest you look at their stuff and come to your own conclusion based of their work.  (Also josh McDowells book, more then a carpenter, is great and cheap, he backs his points up with secularly exsepted facts. as does Habermas, who’s stuff is free on his website).

              I think I told you that I went from Athisom Deism to Christanity. I didn’t make that decision lightly, or without studying many other religions in-depth. One of the big reason I picked christanity was because it has, by far, the best abilaty to defend its supernatural claims. unlike supernatural claims from the majority of religions, as more evidence is brought to light the claims of christanity have gotten more likely. Over the last 50 years the miraculous claims in the bible, went from verifiably impossible, to possible (and it’s only getting better), no other religion can say that.

              So there’s a lot of bs out there about Habermas.
              He is actually a big fan of craig keener’s book, miracles, (which is a 3 volume collection, of eye witness, video recorded, and medically documented miracles.) Craig has very strict requirements for what he allowed in the book. Habermas also deals with miraculous claim skeptically, so yes he discretes a lot of claim, but he does believe in many of them.

              Ok so abortion, I’m had a little trouble understanding what your looking for. So one point at a time.
              I’m afraid that for the church history, and history history, part I simply don’t know enough. Now that you bring it up ill probably look into that and ill let you know what I find, if your interested.
              However I do know that we have some second security Christian apoigests who wrote agenst it. Christianity did not start getting political power for about 400 years, so that’s probably why it took so long to out law it (again take that with a grain of salt). Sorry I don’t realy have an answer for the history part.

              But I do for, why denominations disagree. christanity allows you to come to your own conclusions about most things (aside from a few things) and still be apart of it. So it doesn’t surprise me if you know of Christians who are pro choice. Im not one of them, i have 2 answers for why I believe it’s murder, one from the bible and one without it (I don’t hate people how have gotten them). The reason there is some disagreement in the Christian community is because we won’t kik people out for not agreeing with the majority (aside from a few things).

              And if your asking why christanity made abortion illegal in the USA (I don’t think you were, but it sounded like it). It didn’t, the people living at that time were agents it, their opinion. The church can’t make laws. Separation of church and state.

              So ye I don’t realy want to get into an abortion conversation, because we are going to have some misunderstandings. I would be down to hear your reasons why you don’t belive, if you are down.

              If you have read all this, your a boss. Sorry for the errors and thanks for the understanding. Hope your doing well today!

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Thank you for your detailed response. I am not sure I can respond entirely to your points in one message, but will probably require several replies.

              My definition of proof texting was the same as yours. Let’s deal with this issue first, there are several things you are presuming here:

              1) That those who quote passages haven’t also considered the context but simply have different interpretations of that context. For instance you say you have studied Numbers 5 a lot, but his quote is actually from Romans. It’s also at the beginning of the chapter. There is nothing that comes before or after that seems to indicate that it is not conveying the meaning that Jim interprets it. The fact that even historical context might be interpreted in multiples ways does not mean one interpretation is correct and all other interpretations are wrong. You will naturally tend to think the research you’ve done that supports what you think on the matter is going to be correct. But others have not done necessarily any less research. The fact that denominations disagree on the issue of abortion confirms that there is debate on the biblical stance when studying things in historical context, not just through proof texting. You say the bible informs your stance, but other Christians might say the same in their pro-choice stance. And I said, what is also clear is that even for Catholics, who are staunchly against abortion today and call it murder, this was not always the interpretation of the Catholic Church. At least not for the first 1000 years of existence. That’s a long time to interpret it in correctly, and this was back when there was no separation of church and state, where they could have easily made it law. I’ve read historical context for Leviticus 20:13 concerning men laying together and there are interpretations of that context that say it isn’t prohibiting homosexuality at all, but rather temple prostitution with young boys which was common in that region at the time. Nearly all of Leviticus is a hygeine guide so in that context it makes sense that laws might be made to prevent sleeping with anybody that has slept with a lot of other people due to the transmission of disease.

              2) Context doesn’t always matter. Let take 1 Samuel 15:3 as an example:

              Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys

              Can you explain the historical context that makes it justifiable to kill children and infants of a group of people you are at war with. Not to mention all their animals. I mean what did the animals do. The animals would have been a resource for the victors of a war. So do you not see this as an inconsistent message with regards to innocents. Either infants are innocent and should not be killed or they aren’t. If a soldier today just went into a village and started shooting children and babies even if we were at war with that nation, I don’t think many would think that this was a moral action. If I killed a baby, could I stand in court and say, wait no no, its not murder because I haven’t explained the context yet. There are plenty of example where God kills, or orders the killing of innocents and yet we are also supposed to believe that he has a big problem with abortion? It really doesn’t make sense.

              When I have more time I’ll address more about resurrection and what kind of evidence constitutes proof of a miracle.

              Liked by 3 people

            4. Ye this is where misunderstanding starts. I was only talking about the numbers 5 conversation. Not Romans. But that’s unimportant, just clarifying.
              There is one thing that you said, which I think our conversation hinges on. You said that “the fact that even historical context might be interpreted in multiple ways does not mean one interpretation is correct and all other interpretations are wrong”.
              I completely disagree. When it comes to an argument from authority misrepresenting the belief or thought of the one quoted. cancels your argument.
              I’m happy to go into 1 Samuel (the context does matter), but before that. You eather insinuated that god is not real because of a controdicion, loving god and killing god. or that the god in the bible is evil and kills for an undefined reason, so he is not real because a god would not do that, or he is real and we should not be followed because he is evil. If you could put a point on that, I would apreasheat it.
              Thanks for reading that log reply I sent you, you realy are a boss!

              Like

            5. I completely disagree. When it comes to an argument from authority misrepresenting the belief or thought of the one quoted. cancels your argument.

              You’re right that this is an important point. If you think historical evidence from 2000 years ago can be proved something as true beyond all doubt then we aren’t going to make much progress here. Moreover, I am not sure how you can disagree with my statement about historical context. Historians debate the context all the time and the further back you go in history the less we can prove the rightness or wrongness of any particular context. You might choose to believe one authority over another, but to say that context can be determined accurately for events so long ago seems an impossible position to take and simply without evidence given the amount of debate in the scholarly community surrounding any historical event. There are so many historical facts surrounding Jesus that are debatable, to the point where we cannot even be 100% that Jesus even existed. Nevermind miracles, which require a substantial amount of evidence to support. Evidence we just don’t have. Given the unreliability of eye witness testimony, this simply isn’t enough to demonstrate that the natural laws of the universe have been violated to re-animate dead tissue.

              Regarding 1 Samuel. I also don’t know if we will make much progress if you think the ordering of killing children and babies by a God is a fine thing to do when put in context. But I am greatly curious how you plan to pull this off. This example has no bearing on whether or not I think God exists. The contradiction does however make one question the value of the bible as a source for promoting good morals. The bible promotes contradictory moral behavior and while we are certainly free to choose the morals from the bible that we agree with, and ignore the rest, the bible clearly doesn’t represent any standard of morality, nor does it represent any novel moral concepts that were not in practice before the time of the Bible in other societies. Thus using the Bible as a means for condemning certain behavior as immoral is simply not valid because we can find no moral consistency in Yahweh as portrayed by the Bible.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. Hey how is it going. I apologize for taking so long to respond. I hope your doing well and that we can keep this conversation going, I am enjoying it, you have very good points.
              One of them being, that evidence from 2000 years ago is not 100 percent reliable.
              No story from history is. I’m not saying your making it, but I don’t like the argument, that because its not 100 percent provable we shouldn’t take the claim seriously, if we follow that logic then we shouldn’t take any historical person, or claim, seriously.

              To be clear, The reason I have a worldview where god exists is not based on history.
              I think that the evidence found in history, gives us a narrative which fits that worldview quite well, and so compliments my belief. Also Christianity provides more reasonable and cohesive evidence for its claims about the creator and what he’s been up to, than any other religion. so that’s why I picked it over the rest.
              When it comes to 1 Samuel, I have 2 reason why I belive its ok for god to kill humans.
              1. He is not human.
              2. He is our creator.
              3. He had a reason.
              (This explanation assumes that the biblical narrative is acurate history)
              1. He’s not a human, not only is he not human but he is a being that is greater than us. Its no more wrong for god to kill a human than it is for a human to poison a nest of ants.

              2. As our creator, he has lordship over us. So he is incharge of humanity and if he decides that some of us need to leave earth, he has the right to make that decision, its his job.
              3. According to the biblical narrative, the people who he sent israil to wipe out, had a culture were the would through children on burning metal slabs, until they burned to death. That was part of the nations culture. They also had a history with God and chose to keep doing what they were doing.
              So as lord of his creation god had the killed.
              It was not only his right as creator is his job to control am

              Like

            7. Sorry, lol I hit send to soon. But I think you get what I’m trying to say. I’m interested in hearing what you think. Have a good mothers day!

              Like

    2. It’s a Bible quote in context. How else does it apply? Is this another case where the experts can tell us all what it really means? Again.

      Like

      1. Ah, Zande, the true intellectual, pretending he doesn’t know what a common hand tool is. Reminds me of the advice C.S. Lewis gave J.R.R. Tolkien when he arrived at Oxford (“You know, old boy, being handy about the house is the bane of the scholar.” … again, working from memory so the quote may not be quite right SR).

        Liked by 2 people

    3. Just for you Dave. Numbers 5 has the priest giving the woman bitter water to miscarry. A way to purify the camp from unwanted pregnancy. It’s all quite clear.

      Like

        1. The priest gives an abortion because A the husband is suspicious and jealous, B ?? Demeaning her in front of the priest to solve his own inadequacy? It’s absolutely about thinning the herd in the womb over circumstances

          Like

          1. Ok this is how I’m looking at it. There is no OT law that says children out of wedlock are bad (king David was likely born out of wedlock). there are laws that say adultery is punished with death (for both). Numbers 5 is a way to determine if someone broke the law. So my point is, that because there is nothing to show that children born out of wedlock were considered bad, to say that this was about the child, is jumping to conclusions.
            Also in the NT its very clearly stated that we are to follow the government until it tells us to disobey God.
            god does place governments into power but, that doesn’t mean he agree with what they do, like how he made us but doesn’t always agree with what we do. That’s how I see it.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. But it’s ok to abort if the test for guilt is positive. Got it. Interesting defense. Kill the pregnancy because of chastity but if the woman chooses it, no bueno. Makes Christian sense.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. Ok, again, the point of the “cursed water” test is NOT to initiate an abortion. It is simply to determine of the woman was unfaithful to her husband or prospective husband. Had she cheated, her body parts would have swelled, showing her to be guilty of infidelity. Again, it was just plain water with dirt from the ground in it; not some alchemy concoction to induce an abortion.

            Like

            1. Her belly “swells” and she passes the foetus *because* of the poison which is forced into the woman. No poison, no termination of the pregnancy. It’s really not complicated.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Yes killing the mother does end the pregnancy. But saying that this verse is a biblical example of modern abortion, is a little much. If anything, the best you can honestly get from this, is that the Bible condones the ending of a pregnancy, if the mother is to be executed. Because that was the penalty for adultery, both her and the man.
            ( Its also important to note that according to OT law people could not be executed just because. they confessed to braking the law. There had to be a at least 2 credible witnesses in order for the death penalty to be considered. There’s not a lot of stuff recorded about this verse but what is recorded usaly talks about the woman drinking and being proven not guilty, Or confessing before. Agin she would not be killed after admitting it. I have never read any literature of this actually killing the one drinking it, there is some speculation in the jewish rabbinic literature about it. But ye just some history stuff.) The point is that this verse can’t be used to support abortion, as practiced in the USA today.

            Like

            1. Regardless of how you want to justify it, if I were to tell you a modern tale of this nature you’d be all over it yelling bad form. But if it’s in the Bible you find a defense for it. You have a stronger stomach for archaic cruelty than I. Aah, the blessings of bias faith.

              Like

            2. So you agree with the Bible verse and it’s techniques. Interesting. And if a woman was called out in public and humiliated by the husband and priest because if his jealousy, you would in fact support it her drinking the poison to prove or disprove her sexual guilt. That would make you an asshole. I misread you.

              Like

            3. Dang so much hostility. If you don’t want me to comment, then just say it, your blog your rules.
              Also poison is not the right word, there was nothing poisones in it. It was bringing the matter before God, to revile the truth. If she was guilty he gave the penalty. If she wasn’t then there would be no question. ( you probably won’t like this, but it was probably there as a safeguard for women at that time)

              Like

            4. Lol. Yes. Protect her from the mental anguish of infidelity by creating misery and anguish on her. Good point. And I don’t have any rules here. An intelligent amount of reason would be nice. Can you apply your acceptance of this behavior to any other facet of life? Just wow man. Ruthless. No amount of sweet explanation can justify this behavior.

              Like

          1. Ron he is actually justifying the English interpretation of this which is; ok to drug the mother to cause miscarriage. His comment suggests it will kill the mother too, all justified because she strayed outside marriage. How can their need for this surpass modern need?

            Like

            1. How so? From the link:

              “. . . the Torah awards the power of decision to the woman rather than to the man who must share her fate. She is not forced to drink the bitter waters at all. She can admit to adultery and accept a divorce. The truth is she doesn’t even have to admit to anything. She just has to refuse to drink the bitter waters on any grounds at all. She can say she has too much anxiety; she can say she would rather lose money than cause the holy name of God to be rubbed out; she can say she can’t live with such a suspicious husband anyway etc. All she loses if she chooses not to drink is her ketubah, her marriage settlement, merely a monetary loss. She is free to marry anyone, and walk away from the entire mess totally unencumbered.”

              And further down it states:

              According to Jewish law (Sulchan Aruch, Even Hoezer Ch. 77) every Jewish woman has the right to force her husband to give her a divorce. If she comes to court and declares that she can no longer endure cohabitation with her husband for no reason whatsoever other than the simple fact that she simply doesn’t like him any more, and she is willing to forego her ketubah, he must give her a divorce.

              If he refuses to give her a divorce, the court makes him give it to her by force.

              In such a situation the woman takes her dowry and all the property she brought into the marriage with her, and only foregoes alimony payments, the lump sum of 200 zuz, plus whatever the husband has undertaken voluntarily to pay her in their prenuptial agreement in the eventuality of divorce.

              Aside from the drinking of the bitter waters ceremony, this seems a fairly equitable method of resolving marital breakdowns in ancient times.

              Like

            2. I was referring to Dave defending the English version. I got my wires a little crossed today with cell service in the mountains. The description you sent is more reasonable. Doesn’t seem to be what the scripture says at all. More like an addendum or revision. Why is that not in the ultimate book of Christianity. Thanks Ron. Interesting to note, Dave is condoning the English version as it stands. I can’t imagine why.

              Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s