Roe v Wade Overturned

Circling back around to this response. So, you are not arguing about manuscripts per say, but translations and interpretations. This line of critique is problematic on several levels. First, you do not apply the same standard to your own thinking. The idea that knowledge is unattainable if two people disagree on something is hogwash, and that is essentially what you are arguing here. This can be easily refuted as a logical fallacy by finding one instance in history where two people disagreed on something, and one of the two people was right because of factual analysis.

Half of Too Hot would become unhinged if we applied that kind of fallacious reasoning to DJT, racism, the Russian collusion hoax, and January 6th. So, yeah this type of reasoning can be dismissed as fallacious. The question then is when two people disagree who is correct? In the case where Elizabeth calls Mary "mother" early on in her pregnancy that is a clenching argument that proves one side right and the other side wrong with regards to the Bible's POV on the personhood of the unborn.

 

I guess that "but the child is innocent" nonsense you people pop off about only applies to pregnant women who are raped or are the victim of incest, but not ones who are unfaithful.

The point of the matter remains that the Bible contains no clear prohibition against abortion, but likely sets out a procedure to force one against the mother's will.

Don't you impose the death penalty when you avail yourself of our stand your ground laws and kill the person who has broken into your home and attacked one of your loved ones? (A hypothetical I genuinely hope you never have to deal with.)

I reject any interpretation of the Bible you make that it prohibits abortion, you are simply incorrect. I hasten to add, I'm fine with you not having one and OK with you discouraging your family members from having that procedure. I would never attempt to interfere with such an intensely private decision as it is simply none of my business. After that, however, and with all due respect, you can pretty much shut the (redacted)...

 

All people are appointed to die and face judgment because of their sin. All people deserve hell for rebellion against God. Anything you get that is less than eternity in hell is mercy. So, God is vindicated in all circumstances no matter what evil happens to any person. If the circumstance you are about to condemn God as evil for is better than eternity in hell, then God was actually merciful in that circumstance.

Those who condemn God for these types of things have never looked their own sinful wretched soul in the mirror and seen themselves for who they truly are. I believe some will awake in hell, and that is when they will understand it. But understanding these things after judgment does not do any good. You have to learn the lesson now for it to be of any benefit to you.

 

You are taking some ridiculous leaps in logic here

- Mary was the mother of Jesus, the son of God, so you can’t necessarily assume that the same status of personhood applies - because he was the son of God

- The fact that the word “mother” was used says nothing about whether said mother has no rights in determining the outcome of the pregnancy after the point of conception.

It’s annoying how fundamentalists (which I am assuming you are some variant of one) pick a particular preferred outcome and then contort scripture toward an argument that in their mind is definitive. I have more respect for those who study the Bible, and it’s orginins, extensively that have some degree of humility that whatever their good faith conclusions are, are based upon certain assumptions, which could inevitably be wrong.

 

This is unhinged and cult like, and IMO in line with Taliban sort of rhetoric.

What if you are wrong? What if God isn’t intentionally killing babies? Seems like your statements may border on blasphemy. Accusing god of intentionally killing babies may be quite offensive, and deserving of eternal damnation.

 

so if one doesn’t follow your version of the Bible, one could be eternally damned. But wouldn’t that go for any of the 660 odd commandments? Best not mix fabrics or cut your hair.

 

God killed King David's baby. That is clearly taught in the Bible. So, I am not wrong about this or misrepresenting what the Bible teaches on this subject. But King David also rejoiced that his baby was in the courts of heaven. So God was merciful towards the baby.

Also, the bit about my response being unhinged and cult like...all I can really do for you is pray that you would see your sin as God sees your sin, so that you can find in Christ the salvation your soul desperately needs.

 

There are really two ways to go, for those that are serious believers. The fundamentalists tend to take absolutist positions, and whatever they come up with and believe must be true and is devined by God. If anything is murky or may not be true, then the whole thing potentially unravels. Thus to discourage anybody pulling any threads, those who questioned are said to be sentenced to an eternity in Hell.

The other is a more philosophical and studious view, that doesn’t take things literally, and recognizes the Bible is writings of man, translated and interpreted many times. The result being the Bible is a framework and philosophical document that is subject to interpretation. But that is too squishy for many, as it calls the whole enterprise into question.

 

Then humans that are aborting “innocent” fetuses are being merciful because the “babies” are guaranteed to go to heaven.

 

I would disagree with your analysis of the motivations of parents who get abortions. I don't think mercy for the baby in eternity is why people are going to abortion mills. At the end of the day right and wrong come from God. God said murder is wrong. So, we should obey Him. Disobedience to God is what sin is. And the Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Abortion is always an act that is the complete inverse of faith. It is the absence of trusting obedience before God.

 

No, it does not assume all women are guilty. It’s the opposite. It assumes women are innocent until proven guilty. We know this from the passage because if the woman was innocent, nothing would happen from the procedure. Only if the woman was guilty would there be supernatural intervention to assess the punishment.

If you can compared the writings in the Bible to the surrounding cultures, you would see that the Bible treats women much better than the surrounding cultures. For example,
the historian Josephus said that women could not testify in court because they were inherently unreliable. On the other hand, the apostle Paul entrusted the letter to the Romans to a woman to deliver the letter and read it to the congregation in Rome.

 

I appreciate your kind words and your thoughtful response. Thinking on this issue, though, I’m coming to the conclusion that discussion of care for children after they’re born is a red herring, that is, a distraction from the real issue being discussed in this thread.

How we look after children after birth is a worthy discussion, but it is not related to abortion. People’s attitudes towards the child after birth are irrelevant to whether or not it is morally right or just to destroy the developing child.

An interesting thing in these discussions is no one seems to call into question the behavior of pro-choice people towards children after they are born. Pro-choice people are not inherently caring. There’s plenty of people who are in favor of abortion who couldn’t care less what happens to the children after they are born. Apparently, that’s OK as long as they don’t get in the way of abortions.

I believe you’ve said that an unwanted child would be better off destroyed than to grow up in poverty. Do you believe the same for the wanted child who has to grow up in poverty? Would that wanted child have been better off terminated?

I have no expectation of convincing anyone to modify their beliefs. I jumped into this thread because of the false idea so often propagated on TH that pro-life people stop caring after the child is born. This is simply not true.

The sad thing is there are other people on TH, not you, who cannot have a civil discussion but must resort to name-calling and wild exaggerations.

 

As a general rule, those who are anti abortion are typically more hostile to public assistance and investment for those same children. The point is the unlibertarian deep worry about saving zygotes at the expense of a woman choosing what happens in her body, is inexplicable compared to the more libertarian de-prioritization of caring for poor children in favor of the rights of individuals to keep more of their earned resources.

 

Oh I get it you think god actually did something supernatural and that it wasn’t raw ergotrate which was being used here. So you actually believe god intervened back in the day for pre literates but no longer does.

 

If he said that, yikes. What an elitist, yet dark position to take. Ask yourself if you'd rather die now or live in poverty for the rest of your life. If your answer is you'd rather die, you should probably seek professional help. And he's wanting to make that decision for unborn children?

 

Great points. Still, the over-arching argument that I am trying to make is not necessarily whether people care, it’s the governmental intervention. If the government is going to mandate that a woman carry the fetus to term, I think the government should ensure that child has fundamental needs met. To me, it feels like the States are just dipping their big toe into the private lives, with no plan to follow through.

 

I don’t have the luxury or privilege of being spoke to by a higher being, and I don’t know anyone who has.

Everything we know of Jesus, indeed everything from Abraham forward and all of the related beliefs, is something written by the hand of man, and with writings which are not contemporaneously documented.

And that is the whole concept of faith - you believe it in your heart because there is no competent evidence(as that term is used in law), in whole or in part, or you don’t. It is why, in my opinion, faith in whosever book you study, is so individualistic.

 

this would be a much shorter thread if god didn't think it was so hipster to be vague, subtle & ambiguous & of course, MIA

 

It’s the weaponization of faith.

 

Your 1st point is a point that at least deserves some thoughtful analysis. What do you think it means that Jesus is the Son of God? Are you saying that the Bible teaches Jesus is God when you say that Jesus is the Son of God? Are you saying that Jesus was therefore not fully human like we are?

John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh. That means that the Word became a full human being. Human beings are born in a womb by a mother. The obvious implications of the Son of God entering the world by the same means we did is to demonstrate His full humanity. Jesus lived the full scope of the human experience from beginning to end. That is essential to Christianity because Jesus has to be fully human to hold the office of priest for His people. If Jesus is not fully human, then how can he be our Prophet, our Priest, and our King? Jesus was not an alien or something that appeared to be human. He was fully human. That is clearly one of the major teachings of the New Testament and the gospels in particular.

Your second point also deserves thoughtful analysis. What do you mean by “right?” The word is used in a legal sense. In the legal sense it essentially refers to rules that have been laid out in documents that are legally binding on all people in a state or a nation. In that sense you could say slave ownership used to be a right in the United States. But you would condemn slave ownership, and rightfully so. So, abortion being a legal right in some places does not make it unassailable from intense criticism or shrine it in reality as some immovable moral good. We have seen from our ancestors that mankind is capable on quite a large scale of being cold in heart towards those we willfully choose not to care about when we perceive that there is great economic and personal gain from doing so. And then we have seen from our ancestors that we are capable of legally codifying into law a cancerous lovelessness in the heart towards other human beings when it is in our personal interest to do so.

Then the word "right" is used in something beyond a legal sense. It is used in a metaphysical sense that transcends the legal realm. I have never seen a convincing argument for abortion as a right in a metaphysical sense from the Bible. The earliest Christians, who had the earliest manuscripts of the Bible and were capable of reading it in their own language, strictly forbade abortion, as can be read in the Didache, a Christian document some have dated as early as 70 AD and as late as 300 AD.

As to your last paragraph...I am simply letting the Bible speak for itself. Mary was called a mother early on in pregnancy by someone who was speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit. God killed all the first born sons in Egypt, and that was a severe judgment. God killed David's son, and that was a severe judgment. These things happened. These are clear teachings of the Bible. These may not be easy things to accept, but these things are clearly taught in the Bible.

The one who goes to a passage like Numbers 5 and concludes God supports abortion on demand as a right...that is the person who fits the description of your last paragraph. That is a person who contorts the Bible to a predetermined outcome.

The one who reads Exodus 21:22-23 and concludes that it is a minor crime only worth a fine to strike a woman and kill her unborn child when in the next verse it says a life shall be paid for a life...that is the person who has come to the Bible with a vested interest in a political institution they desperately do not want to relinquish and is not willing to take the text at face value.

I understand if you have not studied the Bible you may not be sure of these things. That is OK. There are things in the Bible I do not fully understand. I do not come out of the gate accusing everyone of arrogance just because they disagree with me. I would caution you to limit other people to the constraints of your own current understanding. Humility could involve acknowledging that someone more studied in a subject matter excels in their understanding beyond the limits of your own current understanding. I will readily admit that other people excel in their understanding of a topic when they have labored harder to understand something than I have. I think we make a huge mistake when we accuse those who claim knowledge or understanding we have not attained to of being arrogant. I would turn the accusation back in your direction here, and say the arrogant one is the one who is unwilling to acknowledge the existence of others who surpass them in the attainment of knowledge in a domain where maybe the person is not particularly well studied to begin with.