"It’s dehumanizing"

[oxmixmudd]

...

Exodus 21:22 reads,

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine."

The phrase translated as "her children come out, but there is no harm" in the original Hebrew reads as follows: "". Yeleḏ is only ever used in scripture to refer to human offspring. The word yāṣā' is used more broadly to mean "coming out" which can refer to exiting a structure, or leaving a geographical locality, but in this context is clearly referring to the act of giving birth, literally "offspring comes out". Finally, means to harm or hurt. Therefore, Exodus 21:22 unambiguously describes a situation where a woman is accidentally struck such that she goes into labor and her "offspring comes out". If there is no harm (to woman or child) then the husband will name his price, and the perpetrator will pay it, "But if there is harm then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

As I've pointed out previously, the translation you reference is a modern rendering derived under pressure to support the modern evangelical view of abortion whch is out of synch with the historical Jewish understanding of what a fetus is and when life begins as a human. Now given that the text was written in the Jewish culture and in establishment of Jewish law, ignoring that historical context is imposing modern sensibilities upon the ancient text. Translations of this text, of which I've given numerous examples, rendered before that modern bias always rendered the text to imply a miscarriage and the loss of the baby and survival of the mother.

But arguing that point much further is pointless,

Add to this other passages in the Bible that show God's high regard for unborn human life, and it is only by imposing your own politically liberal views on scripture that you're able to reach the distorted conclusion that God in anyway condones abortion.

Since you are lothe to reference the texts you use to justify the position, I can't comment much on it one way or the other, except that the fact assuming your are properly applying the texts you have in mind, there is then a tension between apparently contradictory statements in the Bible - not an uncommon situation.

Now to the situation where a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. The circumstance was forced on her, she didn't ask for it, she is emotionally distressed... but how does that make it right to then kill an innocent human life who has done nothing deserving of death?

That assumes the point being debated (that all stages of a fetus' development must be considered of equal status to a newborn child)

...

Do you really think Jesus, who showed compassion to children while his disciples tried to shoo them away, would have given his approval to a woman who wanted an abortion after being raped?

I would assume Christ would show more compassion for the raped woman in 10 seconds than you have shown this entire conversation. But you ask a good Question. Would Jesus recommend the abortion? I doubt it, but then again, neither would I. We are talking about leaving the option open for her to make the decision, not making a recommendation.

...

And now you say that a woman who had consensual sex should be denied an abortion because she made a choice, but what if she was on birth control and it failed, or the condom broke at an inopportune moment, and that it was never her intent to become pregnant? If she is experiencing the same mental and emotional anguish as a rape victim because of the impending birth then why should she be denied the chance to remedy the situation with an abortion? Which woman you are willing to show compassion to seems arbitrary.

Yes - exactly. We are talking about an exception for victims of rape or incest. The exception is given because of the extreme situation, because of the fact that to force her to carry the baby to term in that circumstance is revictimizing her. That extreme situation just doesn't exist if there was not rape or incest.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You risk calling someone a liar who is not, but merely gives opinion on your posting style, which is obvious to everyone but you.

I have never claimed that I know "everything about everything".

However, I am flattered that I have obviously so clearly impressed you, that you consider I do.

I know lot more about some subjects [primarily some areas of history] than many who post here seem to do, but I would not pretend I am a polymath.

[Sparko]

What about the Hyde Amendment?

Mossy lives in Canada.

[Mountain Man]

As I've pointed out previously, the translation you reference is a modern rendering derived under pressure to support the modern evangelical view of abortion whch is out of synch with the historical Jewish understanding of what a fetus is and when life begins as a human. Now given that the text was written in the Jewish culture and in establishment of Jewish law, ignoring that historical context is imposing modern sensibilities upon the ancient text. Translations of this text, of which I've given numerous examples, rendered before that modern bias always rendered the text to imply a miscarriage and the loss of the baby and survival of the mother.

But arguing that point much further is pointless,



Since you are lothe to reference the texts you use to justify the position, I can't comment much on it one way or the other, except that the fact assuming your are properly applying the texts you have in mind, there is then a tension between apparently contradictory statements in the Bible - not an uncommon situation.



That assumes the point being debated (that all stages of a fetus' development must be considered of equal status to a newborn child)




I would assume Christ would show more compassion for the raped woman in 10 seconds than you have shown this entire conversation. But you ask a good Question. Would Jesus recommend the abortion? I doubt it, but then again, neither would I. We are talking about leaving the option open for her to make the decision, not making a recommendation.




Yes - exactly. We are talking about an exception for victims of rape or incest. The exception is given because of the extreme situation, because of the fact that to force her to carry the baby to term in that circumstance is revictimizing her. That extreme situation just doesn't exist if there was not rape or incest.

You say, "As I've pointed out previously, the translation you reference is a modern rendering derived under pressure to support the modern evangelical view of abortion..."

By "pointed out", you mean baldly asserted without a lick of evidence to support your accusation. In fact, the English Standard Version is what's called a "literal translation" with the goal of presenting as to close to a word-for-word translation of the original text as is possible without adding anything to the language and simply letting the original words speak for themselves, and based on my own humble researches, it does exactly that. Look, man, I even showed you an analysis of the Exodus passage in Hebrew, so your debate is not with any particular translation but with the original text.

You say that Jesus would not "recommend" that a rape victim seek an abortion, which is an interesting way of answering the question about whether or not he would have approved of doing so. I suspect the reason you had to implicitly change my question is because the answer makes you uncomfortable and conflicts with your liberal values, because based on everything the Bible tells us about Jesus, it's clear that he would not have approved of abortion in any way, shape, or form. "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mossy lives in Canada.

Yes I remember now, but I had forgotten that in my initial reply. Read back through the last few posts.

[Sparko]

I have never claimed that I know "everything about everything".

However, I am flattered that I have obviously so clearly impressed you, that you consider I do.

I know lot more about some subjects [primarily some areas of history] than many who post here seem to do, but I would not pretend I am a polymath.

The DKS is strong with this one.

[MaxVel]

As I've pointed out previously, the translation you reference is a modern rendering derived under pressure to support the modern evangelical view of abortion whch is out of synch with the historical Jewish understanding of what a fetus is and when life begins as a human. Now given that the text was written in the Jewish culture and in establishment of Jewish law, ignoring that historical context is imposing modern sensibilities upon the ancient text. Translations of this text, of which I've given numerous examples, rendered before that modern bias always rendered the text to imply a miscarriage and the loss of the baby and survival of the mother.

That's clearly a fallacy. The underlined is a genetic fallacy - it matters not what the (alleged) motivation was, the question is 'Does the translation faithfully reflect the meaning of the text?'

The bolded begs the question, I think. What is the best (most accurate) translation of the passage? What words best convey to current readers the intended meaning of the original text? That's all that matters.

Right or wrong, MM has at least attempted to dig into the original text and what it might mean.

[mossrose]

I have never claimed that I know "everything about everything".

However, I am flattered that I have obviously so clearly impressed you, that you consider I do.

I know lot more about some subjects [primarily some areas of history] than many who post here seem to do, but I would not pretend I am a polymath.

That you are so ignorant about many things is what impresses me.

And not in a good way.

[rogue06]

I have acknowledged that human sperm is required but not the rest of the male individual. There is liquid nitrogen for storage of sperm and everything else can be disposed of!

And just where do you suppose that stored sperm came from? Did it just magically materialize? You're like someone who claims that the meat they get from a supermarket wasn't from a dead animal but from a wrapped package sitting on a refrigerated self.

[rogue06]

?

He's has written copiously about what he and the churches he's been affiliated have done for unwanted children. It might make you think twice before posting such sweeping, and quite frankly ignorant, statements in the future.

[rogue06]

How many here who vehemently oppose abortion would gladly see their taxes rise to provide adequate welfare programmes, housing, healthcare, education etc. for so many of those saved babies and their mothers?

I've got a few things about this and will probably later today since I've got several errands I need to run.

[rogue06]

As pointed out, this is nothing more than an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Whether or not someone would agree to have their taxes raised in this manner has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that abortion is immoral.

It's worse than that.

[oxmixmudd]

That's clearly a fallacy. The underlined is a genetic fallacy - it matters not what the (alleged) motivation was, the question is 'Does the translation faithfully reflect the meaning of the text?'

Well that is the point isn't it - It doesn't faithfully maintain the meaning of the text. I'm just explaining why otherwise good Biblical scholars would concede to the aberration.

The bolded begs the question, I think. What is the best (most accurate) translation of the passage? What words best convey to current readers the intended meaning of the original text? That's all that matters.

If you truly believe that, then you should be as offended by the modern rendering as I am. It simply doesn't convey the meaning of the text as understood by those who received it, as it would be understood by anyone in the last 3500 years or more, prior to this last 50 years or so.

Right or wrong, MM has at least attempted to dig into the original text and what it might mean.

I've done that sufficiently in other posts and other threads, all of which MM is aware of. I've also done it here ... but you haven't noticed.

[kccd]

That does not justify removing the exceptions. In fact, especially given the relatively small fraction of abortions that fit into that category, it makes a good case for saying the new law is purposefully punitive of women, in that it allows a rapist or incestuous father - in addition to the shock and trauma of the rape - to also take away the future of his victim wrt impact of becoming a mother before they are ready to do so, or at a minimum the trauma of having to bear and subsequently give away said child so as to give it and herself a chance for something other than poverty and single parenthood.

I am not by any means 'for' abortion and do believe there should be a time limit in that even in a non-religious, secular environment, the potential difference between the born child and the developing fetus that might justify abortion in a secular setting diminishes daily and at some point becomes so small abortion after that point must be considered equal to the killing of a child. Nevertheless, rape and incest do represent threats to the mother and her life and put us squarely into the 'self-defense' side of the abortion debate. In those cases, this is not 'abortion as birth control'. And given almost no-one would forbid abortion where the life of the mother is jeopardized by the pregnancy (and though the debate would hinge on how much the imposed pregnancy threatens the life and well being of the mother), there can be no other conclusion that what I stated above, that this Texas law in fact is punitive and extreme, disregarding the needs and trauma of a rape or incest victim.

I am reminded of the case in Ireland where a woman's life was threatened by a pregnancy. The doctors dithered and discussed, as abortion was illegal, and the woman died. The women of Ireland demanded the laws be changed.

[kccd]

The way I see it is that the talk about "rape/incest" is really emotional cudgels trying to argue for the whole based on the exception.

The talk about rape/incest is really to determine what exceptions are accepted by anti-abortionists.
It is very trivializing to refer to the trauma of rape and incest as "emotional cudgels". While some victims can recover and are willing to go through with the pregnancy, other victims are traumatized and can need therapy for years.

The problem is compounded in some states which give the rapists paternity and visitation rights!