• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gee, they were right, the bible does talk about abortion, about performing one

VySky said:
Doesn’t say that.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. It's quite clear. Like someone else noted, you can't read it over and over until the words change into what you want them to mean.

(22-25) A personal injury peculiar to women—a hurt producing miscarriage—is here considered. The miscarriage might cost the woman her life, in which case the man who caused it was to suffer death (Exodus 21:23); or it might have no further ill result than the loss of the child. In this latter case the penalty was to be a fine, assessed by the husband with the consent of the judge (Exodus 21:22). The death penalty, where the woman died, is clearly excessive, and probably belongs to the pre-Mosaic legislation, which required “life for life” in every case.

22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child.—It is assumed that this hurt would probably take place through the interference of a pregnant wife in some strife wherein her husband was engaged. It would almost certainly be accidental.

And yet no mischief follow—i.e., no further mischief—nothing beyond the loss of the child.

(22, 23) Life for life, eye for eye.—It is a reasonable conjecture that the law of retaliation was much older than Moses, and accepted by him as tolerable rather than devised as rightful. The law itself was very widely spread. Traces of it are found in India, in Egypt, among the Greeks, and in the laws of the Twelve Tables. Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans approved it, and that it was believed to be the rule by which Rhadamanthus administered justice in the other world. There is, primâ facie, a semblance of exact rectitude and equality about it which captivates rude minds, and causes the adoption of the rule generally in an early condition of society. Theoretically, retaliation is the exactest and strictest justice; but in practice difficulties arise. How is the force of a blow to be measured? How are exactly similar burns and wounds to be inflicted? Is eye to be given for eye when the injurer is a one-eyed man? And, again, is it expedient for law to multiply the number of mutilated citizens in a community? Considerations of these kinds cause the rule to be discarded as soon as civilisation reaches a certain point, and tend generally to the substitution of a money compensation, to be paid to the injured party by the injurer. The present passage sanctioned the law of retaliation in principle, but authorised its enforcement in a single case only. In a later part of the Mosaic code the application was made universal (Leviticus 24:17-21; Deuteronomy 19:21).

 
Last edited:
VySky said:
Sure they are. That’s why CA charges a double murder when pregnant mom on way to get abortion is murdered at the taco stand.
Click to expand...
No, that is because an abortion without consent is murder. When a woman wants a child then it is correct to refer to her carrying a baby. And that baby has every right to be treated as if its life mattered. But when a woman decides she does not want to be pregnant she has every right to terminate that pregnancy.

It is unfortunate that most anti abortionists will be dishonest enough to claim every fetus is a baby because to them a woman's opinion is worth nothing.
 
independentusa said:
Numbers 5 11 31, is an interesting part of the bible. It tells how abortions were to be performed on women who cheated on their husbands and had gotten pregnant. Apparently a little holy water and dirt from the floor of the church put into the woman would do the trick. In other parts of the bible you can find that if a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and she loses the baby, he is only punished for hurting the woman. It seems that little thought is given in the bible to fetuses, only to children after leaving the womb. Just so you know that personally I do not approve of abortion, but that is my personal morale position, but Why should my or anyone's opinion rule other people's lives?
Click to expand...
V 13: "neither she be taken with the manner."

So the child is born already when she takes the magic truth serum holy water.

It didn't look like the father so it came into question.
 
Schism said:
I don't need the Bible to tell me that killing babies is immoral.
Click to expand...
Not babies.

Of course you know that, but Cognitive Dissonance.

BTW, your god aborts more babies than people ever did.
 
Crovax said:
You should actually read it instead of getting all you info from anti-religon zealots. The verse actually says that God will curse a woman with a miscarriage if she cheats
Click to expand...
Your God is such a dick!
 
beefheart said:
Not babies.

Of course you know that, but Cognitive Dissonance.

BTW, your god aborts more babies than people ever did.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised by your bigoted anti-semitic hate speech.

But I support your freedom to spout such vulgar religious insults.
 
Schism said:
I'm not surprised by your bigoted anti-semitic hate speech.

But I support your freedom to spout such vulgar religious insults.
Click to expand...
Exactly what was I wrong about?

Your god miscarries so many babies.

And, he was big on killing the first born child, was he not?

Anti semitic? Wow, you really are making stupid claims, and personal attacks...
 
independentusa said:
Numbers 5 11 31, is an interesting part of the bible. It tells how abortions were to be performed on women who cheated on their husbands and had gotten pregnant. Apparently a little holy water and dirt from the floor of the church put into the woman would do the trick. In other parts of the bible you can find that if a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and she loses the baby, he is only punished for hurting the woman. It seems that little thought is given in the bible to fetuses, only to children after leaving the womb. Just so you know that personally I do not approve of abortion, but that is my personal morale position, but Why should my or anyone's opinion rule other people's lives?
Click to expand...
Psalms says it is good to smash an infant against a rock. So there's that.

Even women are property in the bible. The core of this story is that the woman is the property of the man
 
beefheart said:
Exactly what was I wrong about?

Your god miscarries so many babies.

And, he was big on killing the first born child, was he not?

Anti semitic? Wow, you really are making stupid claims, and personal attacks...
Click to expand...

Anti semitism is the claim they make when they have nothing else.
 
Indlib said:
Yes. You are correct.

About a week ago your contention was that since the Bible said "stomach" instead of "womb" that obviously it wasn't in reference to a pregnancy.

I then pointed out that the word "womb" wasn't even a word until the 8th century. Below is the same link I used in that thread.

etymologeek.com

Etymology of Womb

English word womb comes from Proto-Indo-European *wamp-, and later Proto-Germanic *wambō (Belly, stomach, abdomen. Womb.)
etymologeek.com etymologeek.com

You didn't respond to me in that thread.

So here we are.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't respond for what I thought would have been a patently obvious reason.

You're right - the word "womb" doesn't appear in the English language until the 8th century - which, as it happens, corresponds roughly to origin of the English language itself.

The word could've appeared the same week as that passage was translated by scholars; it doesn't matter. The "age" of a modern English word used to translate ancient Hebrew words is irrelevant.

Unless it's your contention that the words we use to translate ancient Hebrew - or any ancient language for that matter, need to be at least as old as those languages?
 
ChrisIsLeft said:
Psalms says it is good to smash an infant against a rock. So there's that.

Even women are property in the bible. The core of this story is that the woman is the property of the man
Click to expand...
Is there no depth to which you will sink in mockery of things about which you have no knowledge?

Psalm 137 does NOT say "it is good to smash an infant against a rock."

Here's the passage:

7 Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom​
The day of Jerusalem,​
Who said, “Raze it, raze it​
To its very foundation.”​
8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,​
How blessed will be the one who repays you​
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.​
9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones​
Against the rock.​

You're taking verse 9 completely out of context. This is a psalm, a song, a LAMENT over what happened to Jerusalem at the hands of the Edomites in which the author ends with a cry of vengeance against them for what they did to them.

To ascribe this to the bible saying it is good to smash an infant against a rock is malicious ignorance.
 
independentusa said:
Numbers 5 11 31, is an interesting part of the bible. It tells how abortions were to be performed on women who cheated on their husbands and had gotten pregnant. Apparently a little holy water and dirt from the floor of the church put into the woman would do the trick. In other parts of the bible you can find that if a man hurts a woman who is pregnant and she loses the baby, he is only punished for hurting the woman. It seems that little thought is given in the bible to fetuses, only to children after leaving the womb. Just so you know that personally I do not approve of abortion, but that is my personal morale position, but Why should my or anyone's opinion rule other people's lives?
Click to expand...
What happened to the husbands who cheated? Yeah, that sounds like the male dominated society of the middle east of 2,000 to 5,000 years ago (and today!), and the radical right's hoped for future of the U.S., and that's all it sounds like.
 
element94 said:
What happened to the husbands who cheated? Yeah, that sounds like the male dominated society of the middle east of 2,000 to 5,000 years ago (and today!), and the radical right's hoped for future of the U.S., and that's all it sounds like.
Click to expand...
‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:10
 
americanwoman said:
I find it kind of blasphemous to call God immoral but you do you.
Click to expand...
AW - how is him saying he doesn't need the bible to tell him killing babies is immoral calling God immoral? :unsure:
 
If men could get pregnant, there would be abortion kiosks at Walmart..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom