Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is biblegod pro life?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 16 of 59 (528362)
10-05-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:33 AM


Re: The point is...
Izanaqi writes:
In that particular passage, we can see that is not the case. We know the taking of the woman's life is punishable by death but causing a woman to miscarry is subject only to a fine. This leads to one of two conclusions:
1) The fetus is not considered a life. Life does not begin at conception.
B) If the fetus is considered life, then the life of the fetus is less than the life of the woman.
I dont believe that verse is only speaking about the woman. This problem is one of translation and not of the law in question.
The literal interlinear reading shows that the Hebrew does not limit the application of injury (fatal accident) to just the mother. You have to read this right to left, but if you take special notice of the first and final bolded line, it shows that it is speaking about injury to the baby... 'and goes forth her child' is speaking about the baby being bornn without injury, then the man was to be fined anyway...however the final line says 'and if injury is' then the man was to pay with his life.
quote:
pregnant woman a strike they and , men contend when And
injury is not child her forth goes and
fined be shall he surely
woman the of husband the him upon put may as
judges the with give shall he and
soul for soul give shalt thou ,is injury if And
quote:
Exodus 21:22And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices.
23But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:33 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:17 PM Peg has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 17 of 59 (528370)
10-05-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by purpledawn
10-05-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
First, let's define a miscarriage. According to http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/miscarriage
quote:
Miscarriage means loss of an embryo or fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. Most miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.
So a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Can we agree on this definition or do you have another definition? If we agree on this definition, then let's move on.
KJV of the bible has it written "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow..." (Exodus 21:22). Now, Fruit depart from seems suspiciously like a miscarriage. It doesn't talk about birthing prematurely. It talks about the woman losing the fetus. This makes sense as I'm sure people back in those days would have known that a blow with sufficient force could cause a woman to lose the fetus.
Even the New American Standard Bible, which you linked to, says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury..." (Exodus 21:22). Once again, the passage talks about the woman miscarrying, not giving birth prematurely.
As you can see, in both versions of the Bible, there is a statement of a woman losing the fetus because of blow from a man forceful enough to cause a miscarriage.
Now, to address your point that
purpledawn writes:
If the child died from being born to early, that would have constituted injury. I don't see in the text that the child was thought of less than the mother.
Nowhere in those two versions of Exodus 21:22 does it talk about a child being born prematurely. The issue of premature birth is moot because it isn't even being discussed in that particular passage.
purpledawn writes:
They weren't dealing with a fetus. A fetus is unborn. Once she gave birth, whether the child lived or not, it was a child. This isn't abortion.
But they were dealing with a fetus. The blow didn't cause her to go into labor and give birth to a stillborn child. The blow is what caused her to miscarry. It says so in two versions of the same passage. It even says miscarriage in the NASB!
A miscarriage is the loss of the fetus. A man causes a woman to miscarriage just means the man causes the woman to lose the fetus. Get it, a man causes the woman to lose the fetus! Obfuscating the issue by talking about children or prematurely stillborn birth does not change the fact that the Bible treats the fetus as less than the woman. Why? Because causing a miscarriage (i.e. the loss of the fetus) results in a fine as determined by the judges but killing the woman results in death. Do you see the difference? If the Bible treated the fetus as equal to the woman, then causing a miscarriage should also have resulted in death for the offender.
So how do you address this issue? Why does the Bible proscribe a less severe punishment for causing a miscarriage than for killing a woman if not because the fetus is less than the woman?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 10-05-2009 6:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 10-06-2009 7:03 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 18 of 59 (528371)
10-05-2009 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peg
10-05-2009 10:39 PM


Re: The point is...
Peg writes:
pregnant woman a strike they and , men contend when And
injury is not child her forth goes and
fined be shall he surely
woman the of husband the him upon put may as
judges the with give shall he and
soul for soul give shalt thou ,is injury if And
You're joking right? The grammar is so horrific, I can't make heads or tails out of it. It's like Yoda-speak, but worse. Show me the site that actually has it written like this or prove to me that you know how to read Hebrew.
Otherwise, I can't even begin to consider your point if all you did was rearrange words around to fit your point. Even I can do that, but I don't because that would be dishonest and I like to have honest debates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 10:39 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 2:35 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 59 (528420)
10-06-2009 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:17 PM


Re: The point is...
Izanaqi writes:
You're joking right? The grammar is so horrific, I can't make heads or tails out of it. It's like Yoda-speak, but worse. Show me the site that actually has it written like this or prove to me that you know how to read Hebrew.
Otherwise, I can't even begin to consider your point if all you did was rearrange words around to fit your point. Even I can do that, but I don't because that would be dishonest and I like to have honest debates.
that is the hebrew 'literal' rendering from an interlinear
i cant give you a link because it didnt come from the interweb
I did say that you need to read it from RIGHT TO LEFT as this is how Hebrew is written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:17 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:01 AM Peg has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 20 of 59 (528422)
10-06-2009 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Peg
10-06-2009 2:35 AM


Re: The point is...
Peg writes:
that is the hebrew 'literal' rendering from an interlinear
i cant give you a link because it didnt come from the interweb
I did say that you need to read it from RIGHT TO LEFT as this is how Hebrew is written.
You're right, you read HEBREW from right to left (assuming that is how it is read.) The text, however, is TRANSLATED into English, and ENGLISH is read from left to right. You don't read the translated version using the same method as the original. You read the translated version in the manner the language it is translated to is read.
It'd be like me translating something into English that was written in Japanese and telling you to read the English translation the way you would read something in Japanese. It doesn't make sense. Understand?
I don't know if you are multilingual, but my experience has taught me that a literal translation often produces sentences that either do not make sense or are grammatically incorrect. When you translate anything, you want to convert the meaning from one language into another without losing the meaning or producing a result that is incomprehensible to a native speaker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 2:35 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:57 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 21 of 59 (528440)
10-06-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 3:01 AM


Re: The point is...
lets get over the semantics and look at the original reading
the hebrew verese does not imply that it is speaking only of damage to the woman for the reason that the penalty was not to be applied until after the birth of the child
only this way would they know for sure if any damage had been done to the baby
If it was only damage to the woman, why wait until the birth of the child before the penalty is applied?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 3:01 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 6:31 AM Peg has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 22 of 59 (528444)
10-06-2009 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Peg
10-06-2009 5:57 AM


Re: The point is...
Ok, let's look again at what two versions of the same passage say.
King James Version (Exodus 21:22):
quote:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
New American Standard Bible (Exodus 21:22):
quote:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
In both versions, two men are struggling with each other and one man strikes a woman. In the KJV, it states so that her fruit depart from her which is a metaphorical way of saying miscarriage. In the NASB, it actually says miscarriage.
You said:
Peg writes:
the hebrew verese does not imply that it is speaking only of damage to the woman for the reason that the penalty was not to be applied until after the birth of the child
only this way would they know for sure if any damage had been done to the baby
Where in those two versions does it state to wait to see what damage was done to the fetus. I challenge you to find in Exodus 21:22 the exact sequence of words that states to wait until birth to see what damage is done to the fetus and then to apply the fine.
Peg writes:
If it was only damage to the woman, why wait until the birth of the child before the penalty is applied?
But that's the point. They were only concerned if the man caused the woman to miscarry or if the woman received physical damage. If the woman miscarried but was otherwise unhurt, then the penalty would be a fine. But if the woman was injured in any way, then lex talionis applies.
In other words, according to the Bible, the loss of the fetus by a man striking a pregnant woman would only result in a fine if the woman was uninjured. The injuries to a woman by the man striking the pregnant woman would result in a punishment as severe as the injury. I challenge you to show me how you could interpret that passage in any other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Peg, posted 10-06-2009 5:57 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Peg, posted 10-07-2009 5:00 AM Izanagi has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 59 (528450)
10-06-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Izanagi
10-05-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
quote:
So a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Can we agree on this definition or do you have another definition? If we agree on this definition, then let's move on.
Agreed. Miscarriage is a natural abortion of a fetus.
quote:
As you can see, in both versions of the Bible, there is a statement of a woman losing the fetus because of blow from a man forceful enough to cause a miscarriage.
And I provided an article that shows the word used does not refer to miscarriage but live birth. They had a word for miscarriage. Several translations say, born prematurely. The text does not say how premature the birth is.
quote:
Nowhere in those two versions of Exodus 21:22 does it talk about a child being born prematurely. The issue of premature birth is moot because it isn't even being discussed in that particular passage.
Being born premature means the child was born before it was supposed to be born. Sometimes that happens naturally. IOW, the blow induced the labor, not the readiness of the baby.
quote:
A miscarriage is the loss of the fetus. A man causes a woman to miscarriage just means the man causes the woman to lose the fetus. Get it, a man causes the woman to lose the fetus! Obfuscating the issue by talking about children or prematurely stillborn birth does not change the fact that the Bible treats the fetus as less than the woman. Why? Because causing a miscarriage (i.e. the loss of the fetus) results in a fine as determined by the judges but killing the woman results in death. Do you see the difference? If the Bible treated the fetus as equal to the woman, then causing a miscarriage should also have resulted in death for the offender.
No, the text does not treat the child different than the parent. Show me that the hebrew word translated in some translations as miscarriage actually means miscarriage. I showed the word that does mean miscarriage.
But again, this text does not support the position that God allows the type of abortion that the pro-life people are against. It deals with personal injury.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Izanagi, posted 10-05-2009 11:07 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 9:07 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 24 of 59 (528470)
10-06-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by purpledawn
10-06-2009 7:03 AM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
purpledawn writes:
And I provided an article that shows the word used does not refer to miscarriage but live birth. They had a word for miscarriage. Several translations say, born prematurely. The text does not say how premature the birth is.
The fault is mine for not looking at your argument clearly enough. However it does beg the question as to which translation should be used. If some say miscarriage, some say fruit depart, and some say premature birth, it becomes a matter of picking and choosing which translation suits your needs the best.
Disregarding that, my next step should be to do some research to verify what you have said regarding the two Hebrew words and to look at the Hebraic version of the Old Testament. Until then, I will concede that you did make an excellent point and that the meaning of that passage in Hebrew might not have come through to the translations.
However, to continue with this topic, I have always thought of God as being pro-choice. Assuming the doctrine of free will and the idea that God is willing to let us believe in hom or not, I would think that God would let people have the choice of getting an abortion. Just like it is our choice to believe, it is a woman's choice to have an abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 10-06-2009 7:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 11:34 AM Izanagi has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 25 of 59 (528532)
10-06-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 9:07 AM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
However, to continue with this topic, I have always thought of God as being pro-choice. Assuming the doctrine of free will and the idea that God is willing to let us believe in hom or not, I would think that God would let people have the choice of getting an abortion. Just like it is our choice to believe, it is a woman's choice to have an abortion.
According to the Bible, while God may allow and even need/want free will, he is not above punishing people for choosing something he doesn't like. As you say, he is willing to let us not believe in him, but he punishes us pretty severely if we choose thusly. So, arguing that God allows free will doesn't necessarily mean he condones the choices we make with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 9:07 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 11:47 AM Perdition has replied
 Message 29 by ochaye, posted 10-06-2009 1:02 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 26 of 59 (528538)
10-06-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Perdition
10-06-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
Perdition writes:
...arguing that God allows free will doesn't necessarily mean he condones the choices we make with it.
True. Putting aside the debate on the existence of God, God punishing a person for making a "wrong" choice is akin to a person snorting cocaine and later dealing with the effects of doing so.
I think that's why God, assuming the existence of God, doesn't really interfere in humanity - God let's us make our own choices. If we choose to do drugs, it is our choice and the consequences of that choice are ours to deal with (which can be quite severe.) On the same token, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is her choice and she will have to deal with the outcome of that choice. Making our own choices and dealing with the consequences of our choices are why I believe that God would be pro-choice even if God felt that abortion is wrong.
Note: I would also like to add that pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. A person can be pro-choice but would also never choose to have an abortion. Pro-choice just means allowing people the option if they so desire it.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 11:34 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 12:23 PM Izanagi has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 27 of 59 (528551)
10-06-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
God punishing a person for making a "wrong" choice is akin to a person snorting cocaine and later dealing with the effects of doing so.
I disagree. The effects of snorting cocaine are a natural by product of human neuro-chemistry and the chemicals in the drug interracting. God's punishment is a choice on his part, making a statement of belief as to the "goodness" of the choice.
Being pro-choice then punishing someone for making a choice is contradictory. It is possible to be pro-choice and then disagree with the choice made, but to actually punish someone for making the choice seems preclude being pro-choice.
Note: I would also like to add that pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. A person can be pro-choice but would also never choose to have an abortion. Pro-choice just means allowing people the option if they so desire it
I understand that being pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. I fall mostly into that category myself. However, think of this scenario:
The police punish you for driving faster than the speed limit. They also do nothing to make it actually impossible to drive faster than the speed limit. Does that mean they are pro-choice of speeding? No, the punishment is supposed to sway your choice, thus making them pro one side or the other, not pro-choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 11:47 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 12:47 PM Perdition has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 28 of 59 (528558)
10-06-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Perdition
10-06-2009 12:23 PM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
Perdition writes:
The police punish you for driving faster than the speed limit. They also do nothing to make it actually impossible to drive faster than the speed limit. Does that mean they are pro-choice of speeding? No, the punishment is supposed to sway your choice, thus making them pro one side or the other, not pro-choice.
I actually like your analogy better. Using your analogy, the police would prefer that you didn't speed; however, you still have the option to speed if you want to. The police are not going to stop you until you start speeding and a few minutes after you start, even if they know that you have had a history of speeding (at least, not in most societies.) However, if they catch you, they will punish you for breaking the law.
Similarly, God would prefer you didn't get an abortion, but God won't stand in your way of getting one. But God will punish you for breaking the law if you are caught (and apparently everyone who breaks the law is caught under God's watch.) So God is like the ultimate police officer.
The police are pro-don't-want-you-to-do-anything-stupid in the same manner that God is pro-don't-want-you-to-do-anything-stupid. Despite that, the police let you make the choice to break law, even if they prefer you didn't, just as God lets you choose to break the law, even if God prefers you didn't.
So when I say God is pro-choice, what I mean is that God will allow you the option, but God does say that if you take the option there are consequences.
Just to round out the analogy a little more, auto manufacturers have a device that can stall a car if it reaches a certain speed. If the legislature passed a law requiring all vehicles to have that device installed and set at a maximum speed of, say 65 mph (which is the standard speed for most states, I think,) the choice to speed would be taken away. Even if you wanted to, you could not speed. Similarly, if God, and again I will be making some assumptions, really didn't want abortions to happen, I'm sure that God would have done something to ensure that the choice would have been taken away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 12:23 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 1:07 PM Izanagi has replied
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-26-2009 4:08 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5238 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 29 of 59 (528567)
10-06-2009 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Perdition
10-06-2009 11:34 AM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
quote:
According to the Bible, while God may allow and even need/want free will, he is not above punishing people for choosing something he doesn't like.
According to the Bible, God punishes people for choosing something that people don't like. According to the Bible, God does not condemn people for what their own consciences do not condemn them for. Surely, he cannot do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Perdition, posted 10-06-2009 11:34 AM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 1:56 PM ochaye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 30 of 59 (528570)
10-06-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Izanagi
10-06-2009 12:47 PM


Re: Born Early, Not Dead
So when I say God is pro-choice, what I mean is that God will allow you the option, but God does say that if you take the option there are consequences.
God doesn't make it physically impossible to choose other than he wants, but again, that doesn't mean he's pro-choice. There are quite a few pro-lifers who aren't to the rabid level of bombing Planned Parenthood and killing doctors who perform abortions. They're not trying to make it impossible to make the choice, they'd just like to see a law that will punish you from doing it.
Punishment, as an attempt to sway the choice, precludes sitting back and allowing the choice to be made either way.
Just to round out the analogy a little more, auto manufacturers have a device that can stall a car if it reaches a certain speed. If the legislature passed a law requiring all vehicles to have that device installed and set at a maximum speed of, say 65 mph (which is the standard speed for most states, I think,) the choice to speed would be taken away. Even if you wanted to, you could not speed. Similarly, if God, and again I will be making some assumptions, really didn't want abortions to happen, I'm sure that God would have done something to ensure that the choice would have been taken away.
You can put governors on a car that will stop it from exceeding a maximum speed, but this doesn't stop you from speeding, it merely limits you as to where you can speed. It does so in a very assbackwards way, too. It stops you from speeding on roads where higher speeds aren't as big a threat, since everyone is going at a high rate of speed, and there aren't as many things that can jump in front of you, requiring fast reflexes to avoid.
What they don't stop you from doing is driving 50 mph down a city street in front of a school.
Laws are, in effect, an attempt to take choices away from you, without actually altering the physical properties that make the choice possible. Laws are essentially anti-choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 12:47 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Izanagi, posted 10-06-2009 1:47 PM Perdition has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024