Why Democrats Can’t Talk Honestly About Abortion

[lilpixieofterror]

I am never surprised when I get that sort of reaction from you Pix. In fact, I don't know if there is a single post in Civics where you have not addressed me in a similar fashion.

Jim

Show me where you don’t act consending and superior to those that don’t agree with you.

[lilpixieofterror]

I know it is hard to accept pix. I couldn't believe it was saying what it was saying when I first came across it many years ago.

And here again, for you to see. This is as consending as you can get. Do you seriously believe today is the first time I ever ran across this verse? As always, you refuse to take any responsibility for your own attitude and blame others.

[Starlight]

I know it is hard to accept pix. I couldn't believe it was saying what it was saying when I first came across it many years ago. I am not looking for any sort of justification.

I am impressed. Most US anti-abortionists I have encountered either don't seem to know that bit of the bible exists, or refuse to believe what it says.

You might also want to consider Numbers 5:11-31, which appears to outline a procedure by which a pregnant woman who her husband suspects of adultery is made to drink a small dose of poison, and pray for God's judgment. If the fetus then dies, everyone can know she had been unfaithful and the fetus had been conceived through adultery, while if the fetus lives then everyone can know that she was faithful and the child is, indeed, her husband's child.

And in ancient Rome, half of all the children born died before the age of ten. Does that make them not human?

For possibly a similar reason the Bible when it explicitly outlines the monetary value of each type of human, the value of a child is only one tenth of that of an adult. Either that or it is crudely endorsing a mental-function based value scale similar to the one I outlined. I note the value it implicitly places on any baby younger than 1 month of age is zero.

Leviticus 27
2 When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, 3 the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. 4 If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5 If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. 6 If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver. 7 And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the equivalent for a male is fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

See also Num 18:16 which specifies survival to an age of 1 month as prerequisite for paying God to acknowledge his gift of a firstborn baby. See also Num 26:62 where the census only counts males who are greater than a month old.

[Sparko]

The point is that the word used for birth does not always mean live birth as Piper claims. Because of that, and the fact it is in the plural which implies multiple parts come forth as in a premature birth where the fetus is still very small, he concludes it means miscarriage. All of that is missed by Piper. This fellow is fully against abortion, so please don't try to imply that interpretation in some way opens the door to devaluing the humanity of the fetus, or that it contradicts in any way the remainder of your reasons for valuing human life from conception.

The word is plural because she might have more than one child.

You seem to be reacting to my raising this issue as if somehow I am trying to claim abortion is ok. That is the 'black/white' thinking person's response. I raised the issue because there is a difference in the scripture made between the death of the unborn baby and the mother in this passage when I was discussing with CP my thoughts on when the fetus becomes fully human. That difference must be taken into account in any discussion of abortion. Glossing over it or ignoring it leads to ignorance. It's like every other issue where Christians feel threatened by the facts. We can't be that way. God is not afraid of the truth. And if we are not afraid of the truth, then when we make mistakes, we can get set right and put on the right path. That is much better than holding onto some belief that ultimately is wrong. Case in point - through our discussion I have learned things about this passage I did not know. Isn't that a good thing? Does a difference of opinion always have to be about crushing the guy the dares think something different than you do?


Jim

I never said you think abortion is OK. I just think you are reading INTO the passage what is not there, as is shown by your added commentary to the verse that I mentioned in my first reply to you. You found someone who agreed with you and I found someone who agreed with me.

At best, IF you are correct, they are saying a child's life is worth less than the woman's life. That in no way says anything about a fetus being worth less than a baby. Or that a fetus isn't a person. Are there any passages that mention the death of an infant and the penalties? Maybe in their culture a woman was worth more because she can have more babies. All that is IF you are correct. I don't think you are.

[Sparko]

That was my first question. Is he qualified to make that assessment of the text? I see that the author also prefers the translation "yet there is no further injury" which is not consistent with the original Hebrew, so I consider the addition of the word "further" to be a translation error (the author never addresses this point), and this effectively upends the rest of the argument.

well since I am not an expert on Hebrew I have to rely on people who are. I simply think Piper is more qualified.

[Christianbookworm]

And Starlight is still clueless.

[carpedm9587]

Hey sparko, did you read the article I linked to?

Where piper says: So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

he's actually not correct there. The article I linked to goes into why.

Jim

The relevant part of the article is in and around page 139, if that helps.

[carpedm9587]

well since I am not an expert on Hebrew I have to rely on people who are. I simply think Piper is more qualified.

Out of curiosity - why?

[oxmixmudd]

The word is plural because she might have more than one child.

That is one interpretation. Did you read the article I posted, or did you dismiss it out of hand because he was a medical doctor and not a theologian?


Jim

[Starlight]

And I assume you would not dispute that it is, indeed, a human cell -- containing all the DNA information....

Are you aware that most of the ~37 trillion cells in your body are human cells containing all the DNA information?

Any of those cells has the innate capacity to grow into a copy of you if subjected to the right environment (That is how scientists can create clones - take a cell, flip a few switches on it to trigger it to create a full human, and stick it in a favorable environment).

A fertilized embryo is not a particularly unusual cell. It has all the same features in general that most of the other cells in your body do. Pretty much the only difference is that its had a few switches flipped to tell it to start creating a full human. All the other cells have the same features and capabilities, just as all other lightbulbs in your house have the capability of glowing if you flick the switch. At the biological level there's nothing particularly special or unusual about the newly fertilized embryo any more than a light bulb you happen to be currently using is innately much different to other lights in your house that you're not currently using.

This is one reason why actual scientists aren't generally that sympathetic to the anti-abortion position, because biologically speaking, the embryo is just a cell like any other of the 37 trillion your body has.

[Sparko]

I am impressed. Most US anti-abortionists I have encountered either don't seem to know that bit of the bible exists, or refuse to believe what it says.

You might also want to consider Numbers 5:11-31, which appears to outline a procedure by which a pregnant woman who her husband suspects of adultery is made to drink a small dose of poison, and pray for God's judgment. If the fetus then dies, everyone can know she had been unfaithful and the fetus had been conceived through adultery, while if the fetus lives then everyone can know that she was faithful and the child is, indeed, her husband's child.


For possibly a similar reason the Bible when it explicitly outlines the monetary value of each type of human, the value of a child is only one tenth of that of an adult. Either that or it is crudely endorsing a mental-function based value scale similar to the one I outlined. I note the value it implicitly places on any baby younger than 1 month of age is zero.

Leviticus 27
2 When a person makes an explicit vow to the Lord concerning the equivalent for a human being, 3 the equivalent for a male shall be: from twenty to sixty years of age the equivalent shall be fifty shekels of silver by the sanctuary shekel. 4 If the person is a female, the equivalent is thirty shekels. 5 If the age is from five to twenty years of age, the equivalent is twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. 6 If the age is from one month to five years, the equivalent for a male is five shekels of silver, and for a female the equivalent is three shekels of silver. 7 And if the person is sixty years old or over, then the equivalent for a male is fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.

See also Num 18:16 which specifies survival to an age of 1 month as prerequisite for paying God to acknowledge his gift of a firstborn baby. See also Num 26:62 where the census only counts males who are greater than a month old.

Jim when you have Starlight agreeing with you about the bible and killing babies, you should probably rethink your position. Just sayin'

[Starlight]

It's ironic that in a thread supposedly about democrats not talking honestly about abortion, a republican posts garbage like that.

It's projection. As we all are well aware the ones not honest about abortion are US conservatives/Republicans. It's kind of cute when they accuse others of their own faults.

[Christianbookworm]

Oh, about that passage star's referred to?

Lev 27.1ff: The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate persons to the LORD by giving equivalent values, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 and if it is a female, set her value at thirty shekels............. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, he is to present the person to the priest, who will set the value for him according to what the man making the vow can afford.

Observations: This passages concerns 'temporary slave-servants' of YHWH. A male or female could dedicate himself/herself to the LORD's service, and typically would buy themselves back. If they did NOT pay the redemption price, they were actual servants for life, dedicated to cult-related work (including servants to the priests). Thus, such a vow/dedication amounted to semi-slavery.

What is interesting about this passage is that the redemption value for women is LOWER than that for men. What this CANNOT mean, however, is that the value of female slaves is LESS THAN the value of male slaves, because the law concerning the murder/manslaughter of these indicated IDENTICAL values (cf. Ex 21.20-32 placed the exact same monetary values on both sexes). What this passage nets out at, then, is that the Law simply made it easier for women to buy their freedom than for men (or to have someone else buy it for them)! Perhaps this is a simple recognition of the lower earning power of female slaves(?), but in any case, God made provision for His daughters to have a better shot at buying their freedom than His sons! http://christianthinktank.com/fem02b.html

It's referring to giving money instead of labor. Little kids don't make good temple servants. And they didn't tax newborns, because why force a family to pay tax on a baby that might not even survive the month?

[Cow Poke]

Are you aware that most of the ~37 trillion cells in your body are human cells containing all the DNA information?

I am. But thank you so much for your concern.

[Sparko]

Out of curiosity - why?

He is a well known theologian and the chancellor at Bethlehem College & Seminary. The other guy seems to be a medical doctor who is relying on other people's translations in his paper.