Pro-abortion argument from the Bible itself?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-10-22 04:39pm

Today's Jesus and Mo features a very interesting argument in favor of legal abortion...essentially using the Bible against the religious argument for life at conception.

Has anyone here tried anything like that in an abortion debate? How did it go over, if you have?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-22 04:53pm

That is an absolutely brilliant angle. I'll have to steal it for future purposes.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » 2007-10-22 05:10pm

The Exodus bit is old. The Genesis definition I've not seen before.

The problem with the Exodus 21:22 passage is:

22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

It is fairly well stated that this is the punishment for causing an accidental miscarriage, not for deliberately terminating a pregnancy.

This dichotomy is reflected earlier in the chapter. For example:

12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but (I)God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.

A non-premeditated murderer may flee the tribe (self-banishment) while a murderer who "lies in wait" can be dragged even from before the altar to be put to death.

Generalizing the consequences of negligent harm to be the same as an intentional act is not really considered a valid argument. Trying to justify abortion with the Bible is a losing battle. It's an outdated book of outdated ideas. The same passage of laws says any who curse their mother or father shall be put to death, and if you hit your slave so hard he or she dies, but it takes them 2 days to die, there's no punishment.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2007-10-22 05:33pm

Though a terrible webcomic, the notion of Jesus and Mohammad sleeping in a queen together is amusing.

Sturmfalke · Post by **Sturmfalke** » 2007-10-22 08:25pm

Terralthra wrote:The Exodus bit is old. The Genesis definition I've not seen before.

The problem with the Exodus 21:22 passage is:

22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
It is fairly well stated that this is the punishment for causing an accidental miscarriage, not for deliberately terminating a pregnancy.

If I understand the passage correctly, "so that she gives birth prematurely" doesn't even mean that the child is dead, or am I mistaken here? In this light "but if there is further injury (i.e. the child died), then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (...)" would mean that it would have been murder.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-10-22 08:26pm

Terralthra wrote:The Exodus bit is old. The Genesis definition I've not seen before.

The problem with the Exodus 21:22 passage is:

22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.

23"But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
It is fairly well stated that this is the punishment for causing an accidental miscarriage, not for deliberately terminating a pregnancy.

This dichotomy is reflected earlier in the chapter. For example:

12 He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.

13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but (I)God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.
A non-premeditated murderer may flee the tribe (self-banishment) while a murderer who "lies in wait" can be dragged even from before the altar to be put to death.

Generalizing the consequences of negligent harm to be the same as an intentional act is not really considered a valid argument. Trying to justify abortion with the Bible is a losing battle. It's an outdated book of outdated ideas. The same passage of laws says any who curse their mother or father shall be put to death, and if you hit your slave so hard he or she dies, but it takes them 2 days to die, there's no punishment.

What about the life part?

TheKwas · Post by **TheKwas** » 2007-10-22 08:30pm

God breathed life into Adam, Adam didn't have to have operational lungs in order for God to do that.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » 2007-10-22 08:34pm

Sturmfalke wrote: If I understand the passage correctly, "so that she gives birth prematurely" doesn't even mean that the child is dead, or am I mistaken here? In this light "but if there is further injury (i.e. the child died), then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (...)" would mean that it would have been murder.

The same passage is translated miscarriage in the NIV and several other modern translations. The further harm refers to the mother. If she loses the child, but is otherwise unharmed, there's a fee levied. If the mother is harmed, then lextalionis applies; eye for an eye, etc.

Darth Ruinus wrote: What about the life part?

If you want to base a definition on Genesis 2:7, you can; however, I don't think it's a very good passage on which to base a definition.

7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I think the passage is just as easily interpreted to mean that the breath of life mentioned is something only God can do, as opposed to an absolute definition that breath = life. Your mileage may vary.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-10-22 08:43pm

Terralthra wrote:if you hit your slave so hard he or she dies, but it takes them 2 days to die, there's no punishment.

Nitpick. I believe that's a misinterpretation of a passage that says if the slave dies the master is punished but if he lies there for several days and gets up (i.e. recovers) the master is not punished.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » 2007-10-22 08:53pm

Junghalli wrote:
Terralthra wrote:if you hit your slave so hard he or she dies, but it takes them 2 days to die, there's no punishment.
Nitpick. I believe that's a misinterpretation of a passage that says if the slave dies the master is punished but if he lies there for several days and gets up (i.e. recovers) the master is not punished.

That depends entirely on which translation you read. The passage itself reads roughly, "If a man strikes a slave (gender indet.) and they die at his hand, s/he shall be avenged, but if the slave lives a day or two, s/he shall not be avenged, for s/he is the property of the master," in Hebrew. Some versions translate this literally, some change it to "but if s/he gets up after one or two days, s/he shall not be avenged."

*shrug* Up for interpretation, in my opinion. Even under the nicer translation, it's still a nice condemnation of the laws of the Old Testament.

Sturmfalke · Post by **Sturmfalke** » 2007-10-22 10:06pm

Terralthra wrote:
Sturmfalke wrote: If I understand the passage correctly, "so that she gives birth prematurely" doesn't even mean that the child is dead, or am I mistaken here? In this light "but if there is further injury (i.e. the child died), then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, (...)" would mean that it would have been murder.
The same passage is translated miscarriage in the NIV and several other modern translations. The further harm refers to the mother. If she loses the child, but is otherwise unharmed, there's a fee levied. If the mother is harmed, then lextalionis applies; eye for an eye, etc.

Ah, ok. I looked it up in a German bible and it says miscarriage too.
But even if the passage describes an incident without premeditation, a fine for what practically is an abortion can be used as argument. Though it should by no means be the main one, it is a nice point to make about the value of a fetus according to the bible...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-10-22 11:54pm

I can't imagine this argument having any effect whatsoever.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-23 12:03am

Darth Wong wrote:I can't imagine this argument having any effect whatsoever.

Well, thats because no logical argument ever has any real effect on fundies.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-10-23 12:07am

Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I can't imagine this argument having any effect whatsoever.
Well, thats because no logical argument ever has any real effect on fundies.

That's the problem, isn't it? There's no point targeting the fundies because they're stupid and irrational; your real target is moderates. But this argument could only theoretically work on someone who takes Old Testament law seriously, ie- a fundie.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-10-23 01:03am

Darth Wong Wrote:

That's the problem, isn't it? There's no point targeting the fundies because they're stupid and irrational; your real target is moderates. But this argument could only theoretically work on someone who takes Old Testament law seriously, ie- a fundie.

You know, that's one thing it takes a while to grasp when you first deal with religious arguments. You really have to differentiate who is an evangelical, and who is a general believer with at least half a brain.

You really CAN'T reason with a fundie. They are so fuckingly steel-trapped in their mind that you can't budge them with a landslide. If you try to hammer a contradiction home, they just slither away with some interminably idiotic excuse that doesn't refute your point one bit, yet satisfies their own belief.

I've had to suck it up in many arguments and deal with the fact that I was never going to get through. There is a special form of aggravation that comes from having to surrender even when you know you're right. I could cheerfully strangle these people during these exchanges.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-10-23 08:53am

Darth Wong wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I can't imagine this argument having any effect whatsoever.
Well, thats because no logical argument ever has any real effect on fundies.
That's the problem, isn't it? There's no point targeting the fundies because they're stupid and irrational; your real target is moderates. But this argument could only theoretically work on someone who takes Old Testament law seriously, ie- a fundie.

Well, I was at least a little hopeful that using their own book might bypass some of that thick skull of theirs...I'll give it a try next time I have the opportunity, anyway.