Abortion - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-14-2007, 08:04 PM   #301
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
The entire bible was written by man. If this is true then why do you have faith in a higher being?
There's a difference between inspired by God and written by God.

Just like there are those today who say they speak for God, there were those that said the same thing back then...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:20 PM   #302
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 11:21 AM
While I appreciate that this always divisive topic has managed to stay (for the most part) civil, I think the thread is in danger of being derailed. Can we shift back from theological discussions on Biblical inspiration/inerrancy to the original topic? Much thanks.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 08:55 PM   #303
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest



I disagree. I think that the moment prochoice organizations collectively say that abortion is the taking of a human life, the criminalization of abortion is right around the corner, and that's why they can't do it.

Maybe. Maybe not. We all know that the death penalty takes human life and yet it hasn't been entirely banned or criminalized.

But again, I think the issue of "innocence" would definitely shade the issue making your scenario likely.

Which is unfortunate, because I think if we're going to have legalized abortion (which I think we should), we need to be honest about what we're doing. I understand your point though. Most people can't stomach the idea that we might be killing children, and perhaps it shouldn't be "stomached." (Which again proves that your typical pro-choice supporter is NOT a murderer).
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 09:02 PM   #304
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Butterscotch
Would there be some way that a man could prosecute a woman who had his child aborted against his will? Or would men have any rights? It's all so hypothetical.
This one, I get a little bit worked up about.

I totally totally oppose men being able to do this, but I admitt right up front that my reasons are largely, and deeply emotional and it's hard for me to approach it rationally.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 09:18 PM   #305
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I think we can pretty much know what Jesus thinks, even though he of course never mentioned the word "abortion".

He constantly speak of and exhibited his love for children.

Perhaps in the broad sense, yes I think we can say that Jesus would not think abortion a "wonderful" thing. Insisting that his stance would mirror exactly that of pro-lifers today is more dicey.

After all Jesus constantly demonstrated his love and respect for women as well in a time and place where extreme chauvinism is the rule of the day.

Everybody (at least if you're a believer) wants to co-opt Jesus for their side, and all I'm saying is that when Jesus was on earth He had a way of not allowing Himself to be co-opted by anyone. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the same could be said today.

And while, like you, I believe that all of the Bible is the word of God, using laws given by God to Old Testament Israel for running a society at a particular time and in a particular cultural setting does little to strengthen your position since we both know that many of the laws on either side of Exodus 21:22-23 you would quickly dismiss as no longer applicable. It becomes a case of convenient picking and choosing.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 10:38 PM   #306
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

And while, like you, I believe that all of the Bible is the word of God, using laws given by God to Old Testament Israel for running a society at a particular time and in a particular cultural setting does little to strengthen your position since we both know that many of the laws on either side of Exodus 21:22-23 you would quickly dismiss as no longer applicable. It becomes a case of convenient picking and choosing.
You're wrong; it's not a case of "convenient picking and choosing".

When Christ came to the earth and lived a completely sinless life, he fulfilled the law, and anyone who follows him is now under the covenant of Grace, not the law. But that doesn't mean that we just throw out everything in the Old Testament. So, how can a person decide which concepts we are still to live by? The concepts that are based on God's important moral standards, not on ritualism and cultural traditions.

For instance, when Christ walked the earth, he did away with several of the laws. He didn't make his disciples wash before eating, he healed on the Sabbath, etc. etc. But he did not do away with God's holy moral standards at all. And think about some of the other things that have changed; they are cultural things (such as women being able to cut their hair) and health-related ocncerns that do not exist anymore (being able to eat certain kinds of foods, because now we can safely prepare them).

Throughout the Old testament, God consistently stood in defense of the innocent, the weak the powerless. That did not change in the New Testament. That's because it's one of the standards that is part of God's very nature, who he is.

And that is why I think we can be assured that God's stance on protecting the unborn has not changed.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 10:54 PM   #307
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 12:51 PM
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 11:05 PM   #308
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:21 AM
Well it had a long run, maybe one of the longest abortion threads we've had...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 11:52 PM   #309
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
I think that the Biblical stance on abortion does not stray from the topic.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-14-2007, 11:54 PM   #310
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
according to Nathan1977 and 80s




God says to kill.



the scripture they are advocating and that they say are God'd words are from the NIV Bible

here is some more





It seems pretty obvious to me that these laws were written by men.
Deep, I'll answer this in a new thread, since Sicy asked us to get back on topic.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 12:43 AM   #311
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
I think that the Biblical stance on abortion does not stray from the topic.
Yeah, I think what sula meant was the straying into "written by God or by man?" stuff, which has nothing to do with abortion and might lead to an unrelated discussion about Biblical inerrancy.

Anyhow...without getting back into said who-"really"-wrote-the-Bible tangent, I wanted to toss in a comment on the Exodus verse, since that one always seems to come up in these discussions. If you couldn't care less about the Exodus verse, please feel free to skip this post altogether.

Ironically, in Jewish law Exodus 21:22-25 is the traditional source for our view that abortion is not murder. It's certainly strongly discouraged, because it means a human life that could've been never will be, and because traditionally in Judaism (and still among the Orthodox) it's just assumed that everyone intends to have children. Of course, at the time the Torah was compiled, most girls were married off at Bat Mitzvah age (12) and played no role in society except as wives and mothers, so it's unlikely these kinds of questions came up very often.

I'd translate verses 23-25 pretty much the same way whatever translation 80s quoted did, but not verse 22, so I'll go ahead and translate that one directly here:

וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים.
(vekhi yinatsu anashim vengafu ishah hara veyatse'u yeladeya velo yiyeh ason anosh y'anesh ka'asher yashith alav ba'al ha'ishah venatan biflilim)

Translating as literally as I can: "And if - they fight - men - and smite - woman - pregnant - and they make depart - her begotten - and not - he becomes - harming - to be fined - he shall be fined - such as - he will place - upon him - the husband of the woman - and he gives - according to the judgment."

Biblical Hebrew had no (known) term for an induced miscarriage. There is a verb shakol which usually means 'to be made childless' (as by war) but occasionally, in a context of invoking chronic fertility problems, seems to mean 'to spontaneously miscarry' (invariably implying stillbirth), as opposed to the normal verb for 'to give birth', yalad. And there's a noun for a stillborn baby, nephel (literally, 'fallen one') as opposed to an ordinary newborn, uhl--in fact, so far as I can think of this is how a spontaneous miscarriage outside the context of chronic fertility problems is always discussed, but it has no verb form and doesn't combine with yalad; you wouldn't say "She gave birth to a nephel". Anyhow, none of those words are used here; instead we have this awkward construction 'make depart her begotten'. Because nothing in the next three verses suggests that they refer to the 'begotten' (a newborn wouldn't have teeth or burns, and it's hard to imagine how any nonfatal injury to the mother could amputate its hand or foot) the Jewish understanding of this passage has always been that the 'begotten' 'departed' its mother dead, and the next three verses thus refer to any injury to the mother above and beyond the miscarriage. Therefore the fact that the penalty proposed by 21:22 is financial damages alone--which of course is not in keeping with standard Torah punishments for murder--is taken to mean that 'making depart the begotten' is not murder. For this reason you will not find any discussion, whether in the Talmud, Tosafot (medieval rabbinic writings) or the modern responsa literature, addressing the notion of abortion as murder. In fact the Talmud says of the fetus, 'lav nevesh hu'--it is not a person.

Speaking of murder, and since deep mentioned the Sixth Commandment, I'll also point out that what the Hebrew there reads is Lo tirtzakh--literally, "Murder not"--using the imperative form of ratzah, the verb for a malicious, unlawfull killing specifically; had it been meant as a blanket injunction against killing (which wouldn't make too much sense amidst all the Torah's blood and gore, anyhow) it would've been the completely different verb Lo taharoq.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 12:54 AM   #312
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I didn't find out about this until I was an adult, if I recall correctly and we've talked about it some since then. I especially wanted to know if she found that she was "haunted" by what happened or if it "damaged her for life" especially after I read this terribly written pro-life pamphlet-disguised-as-a-novel called The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers (an author who I normally admire very, very much) and the author insisted that all women who have abortions are damaged forever and ever because of what they did. So I asked my mom if that was true for her and she said, no it wasn't. She felt peace about what she did, and while I'm sure there will be those who say "she's lying. . .oh, she's haunted all right" I chose to take her word for it because I see the peace and joy she has in her life everyday and I know that's real.

Perhaps it's because of her that my view of the abortion issue is so "complicated."
I am very sorry to hear about your mother's situation. I truly am.

I am curious about something about Francine Rivers. Did her book make the point that women who have an abortion are damaged forever, or did she allow for God's forgiveness and healing, which would retsore the women?

Secondly, I am curious about your mother's response. Did she say she never regretted or was always at peace? Could it be that she has experienced God's forgiveness and healing, and that is why she feels at peace? I'm not making any arguments either way, I am just very curious as to what you think she would answer to those questions.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 01:04 AM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

I'd translate verses 23-25 pretty much the same way whatever translation 80s quoted did, but not verse 22, so I'll go ahead and translate that one directly here:

וְכִי-יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים, וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה, אָסוֹן--עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה, וְנָתַן, בִּפְלִלִים.
(vekhi yinatsu anashim vengafu ishah hara veyatse'u yeladeya velo yiyeh ason anosh y'anesh ka'asher yashith alav ba'al ha'ishah venatan biflilim)

Translating as literally as I can: "And if - they fight - men - and smite - woman - pregnant - and they make depart - her begotten - and not - he becomes - harming - to be fined - he shall be fined - such as - he will place - upon him - the husband of the woman - and he gives - according to the judgment."

Biblical Hebrew had no (known) term for an induced miscarriage. There is a verb shakol which usually means 'to be made childless' (as by war) but occasionally, in a context of invoking chronic fertility problems, seems to mean 'to spontaneously miscarry' (invariably implying stillbirth), as opposed to the normal verb for 'to give birth', yalad. And there's a noun for a stillborn baby, nephel (literally, 'fallen one') as opposed to an ordinary newborn, uhl--in fact, so far as I can think of this is how a spontaneous miscarriage outside the context of chronic fertility problems is always discussed, but it has no verb form and doesn't combine with yalad; you wouldn't say "She gave birth to a nephel". Anyhow, none of those words are used here; instead we have this awkward construction 'make depart her begotten'. Because nothing in the next three verses suggests that they refer to the 'begotten' (a newborn wouldn't have teeth or burns, and it's hard to imagine how any nonfatal injury to the mother could amputate its hand or foot) the Jewish understanding of this passage has always been that the 'begotten' 'departed' its mother dead, and the next three verses thus refer to any injury to the mother above and beyond the miscarriage. Therefore the fact that the penalty proposed by 21:22 is financial damages alone--which of course is not in keeping with standard Torah punishments for murder--is taken to mean that 'making depart the begotten' is not murder.
You are quite the scripture student. I can tell you put a lot of study and effort into that.

However, I do have a question. Could it be that "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.) is presented here as saying that the penalty should assess the concept of "eye for an eye" (equal payback), not the literal taking of an eye, tooth, etc.?

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
For this reason you will not find any discussion, whether in the Talmud, Tosafot (medieval rabbinic writings) or the modern responsa literature, addressing the notion of abortion as murder. In fact the Talmud says of the fetus, 'lav nevesh hu'--it is not a person.
The Talmud may not, but in the Old Testament, the life within the womb is never spoken of as a "fetus". It is always referred to as a person, using terms like "child", etc.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 02:28 AM   #314
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 03:21 AM
but do you see that for countless - we really could care less what it says in the bible or whatever - it means nothing utterly devoid of meaning and because i live in a state where church and state is seperated (oh thank allah for that!) i don't think anything pulled out of a book - that only a few place precident in should be used to make or unmake a law in the land.

"god" has nothing to do with my body and therefore should have no say in such a general weirdy twisty way from reading some passage in a book, over my body.

Done and done.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 02-15-2007, 02:39 AM   #315
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You're wrong; it's not a case of "convenient picking and choosing".

When Christ came to the earth and lived a completely sinless life, he fulfilled the law, and anyone who follows him is now under the covenant of Grace, not the law. But that doesn't mean that we just throw out everything in the Old Testament. So, how can a person decide which concepts we are still to live by? The concepts that are based on God's important moral standards, not on ritualism and cultural traditions.

For instance, when Christ walked the earth, he did away with several of the laws. He didn't make his disciples wash before eating, he healed on the Sabbath, etc. etc. But he did not do away with God's holy moral standards at all. And think about some of the other things that have changed; they are cultural things (such as women being able to cut their hair) and health-related ocncerns that do not exist anymore (being able to eat certain kinds of foods, because now we can safely prepare them).

Throughout the Old testament, God consistently stood in defense of the innocent, the weak the powerless. That did not change in the New Testament. That's because it's one of the standards that is part of God's very nature, who he is.

And that is why I think we can be assured that God's stance on protecting the unborn has not changed.
I agree with everything you say here, except for the last sentence. I do believe God desires to "protect the unborn" but I don't think that necessarily means that His stance mirrors the pro-life position today. That's really all I'm saying. To insist "This is God's stand" not taking into consideraton the complicated nature of the issue and without a clear Biblical stance (though granted one could infer a Biblical stance as you have done by quoting texts that indicate God knew us before we were born etc--of course God knew us before we were even conceived as well) I think it's dangerous to say "This is Jesus Stance."
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com