🇳🇱
I find it pretty hilarious that #Christians claim to be #Prolife on christian grounds when the #bible explicity tells people that not only abortions are ok, but actively tells you that you SHOULD have abortions (under certain circumstances).
Dont take my word for it, the bible is pretty clear about this.
> If 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. -- Numbers 5:24-27
also not quite as direct but still pretty damn suggestive:
> Cursed be the day on which I was born! … Cursed be the man who … did not kill me in the womb. -- Jeremiah 20:14-17
and the penalty for violently hurting a woman causing a miscarriage is just a fine, but killing the woman is death, almost as if the lives arent equal...
> When people […] injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined […]. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-25
Nope those are the quotes... the first one rather explicitly stating that a woman who cheats on her husband should be given a drink that induces abortion.
How is that a joke when so very clearly stated?
> Nah I meant how you interpreted those passages. You're a pretty smart guy so the fact that you'd so poorly interpret this passages is pretty surprising.
How so? I mean i literally went back to the original hebrew and checked the words and meaning and context... did you even bother to go half as far before judging the interpretation? What specifically do you disagree with?
@realcaseyrollins you should know me well enough by now I almost always do a pretty deep dive before i assert anything strongly as a top level post.
@freemo
I know, which is why I was so surprised by this!
So as far as the first passage is concerned, that is part of an older covenant that is no longer relevant. Hebrews 8-9 explains why this is so, but in Acts 10:9-16 God more concretely declares that the old rules from the previous covenants no longer apply.
For the second passage, that's just some suicidal dude. It was the inclusion of a passage like that which really, even now, has me questioning that you read that and came to your conclusion through your own plain reading of the text.
For the third passage, it's pretty strange that you would argue that it's in favor of abortion, since it punishes someone for killing a fetus. 🤔
> So as far as the first passage is concerned, that is part of an older covenant that is no longer relevant. Hebrews 8-9 explains why this is so, but in Acts 10:9-16 God more concretely declares that the old rules from the previous covenants no longer apply.
You are missing the point,.. its not about "rules". It is very possible that before the new covenant god said "you must have an abortion if..." and under the new covenant since the rule is no longer applied it changes to "you no longer have to have an abortion if...." But thats not the point at all is it?
The point here is that god used to **require** and allow abortions... now those abortions are no longer required, but why would you assume that just because it isnt required it is no longer allowed?
What does the change in the covenant have to do with things that used to be allowed (not required).. nothing about the change in the covenant suggests that something previous **allowed** is now not allowed. So that is irrelevant.
> For the second passage, that's just some suicidal dude. It was the inclusion of a passage like that which really, even now, has me questioning that you read that and came to your conclusion through your own plain reading of the text.
Did I not say the second passage was weak evidence and only suggestive? Since I explicitly stated its own weakness in the argument why would that have you question my motives at all? If I was bias would I not express that point as strong evidence when it isnt?
> For the third passage, it's pretty strange that you would argue that it's in favor of abortion, since it punishes someone for killing a fetus.
I didnt say the third argument explicitly states its in favor of abortion.. I said that it clearly shows that killing a mother is a grievous act punishable by death, but killing just the fetus is punishable by a fine. Ergo it clearly shows that killing a fetus is considered a lesser evil than killing a person (after birth), ergo one can conclude that killing a fetus is not considered equivalent to murder at all, but rather a much lesser crime than murder.
Also note that it is about killing the fetus **against the mothers wishes**, so it is not suggestive at all that abortion is a crime, only that abortion is such a minor act that even inflicting it upon an innocent woman is only worthy of a financial penalty while killing the woman deserves death.
Does this not clearly show that killing a fetus is not remotely equivalent to murder?
You accuse me of seeing what I want to see, when those mental gymnastics you just did were quite absurd, I think its fair to say your the one seeing what you want to see and trying to manipulate the facts to suite your bias.
Ah, I see what you mean now. My bad, your original post was so long that I just read your preface and the passages you included.
While I can see how this makes the death of an infant seem less severe than the death of an infant or adult, I think it'd be a stretch to say that any of these passages condone abortions, as they're punishments for theocratic crimes. Punishments are generally speaking supposed to be bad things, otherwise they'd be no punishment at all.
Doubtless we both would agree that locking someone in a house is bad; however, we both also believe that jails should exist, and some people deserve to be in fail for even longer than that.
> Ah, I see what you mean now. My bad, your original post was so long that I just read your preface and the passages you included.
All good, but in the future, give me a little more benefit of the doubt. You know im not that sloppy :)
> While I can see how this makes the death of an infant seem less severe than the death of an infant or adult, I think it'd be a stretch to say that any of these passages condone abortions, as they're punishments for theocratic crimes. Punishments are generally speaking supposed to be bad things, otherwise they'd be no punishment at all.
punishment or not, in the first passage god is saying "perform an abortion if your wife gets pregnant by another man".. this is clearly explicit.
These are the **only** 3 times abortion is mentioned, all of them suggestive and supporting of abortion being an acceptable practice under some circumstances, in particular first.
So when the bible directly says "do an abortion when..." and never, not even once does it say "dont do an abortion"... then why would you conclude god wants abortions to be illegal.
> Doubtless we both would agree that locking someone in a house is bad; however, we both also believe that jails should exist, and some people deserve to be in fail for even longer than that.
so abortions are bad, but they should exist.. is that the analogy we are drawing, like the jails? If so then yes, that is my stance, abortions are bad, but they should exist.
> So when the bible directly says “do an abortion when…” and never, not even once does it say “dont do an abortion”… then why would you conclude god wants abortions to be illegal.
This is exactly why I don't understand it when Christians view abortion as a completely religious position 🤷🏾♂️
> so abortions are bad, but they should exist
That's not quite what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that endorsing an action as a form of punishment does not endorse that action outside of punishment. "God supports abortion" is a very inaccurate way to frame the theocratic law here.
> is that the analogy we are drawing, like the jails?
> If so then yes, that is my stance, abortions are bad, but they should exist.
If I take you too literally then I would presume that your only support abortion in the case of infidelity of the mother 😜
Nah I meant how you interpreted those passages. You're a pretty smart guy so the fact that you'd so poorly interpret this passages is pretty surprising.
You sure this isn't a point you copied from somewhere else and thought it was interesting? There's no way you just read these passages and came up with this conclusion on your own lol