God-ordered abortion

[DeBunkem]

Actually, there are several examples of Yahweh ordering the murder of fetuses. One that may not have been mentioned is the Torah's command to stone women for adultery. In "crimes" such as this, conception as a result is a foregone conclusion. Barbarism from the "God of Love." We rightly condemn it in Sharia Islam as well, but mark well where the practice started.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

Note the title. Your faux-scholarly supposed confusion seems to me just an attempt to derail a simple point.
. . . .

Apply Occam's Razor and cut the Krappe.

The quoted comments are uncivil and the first amounts to a personal attack.

The cartoon seems to have no other function than to be inflammatory.

I would advise less sarcastic rhetoric and more substantive debate.

[Jester]

Barbarism from the "God of Love." We rightly condemn it in Sharia Islam as well, but mark well where the practice started.

As a point of curiosity, why would one mark where the practice started?
Is there some wisdom to be gained from knowing which people group initiated such a thing (assuming that can even be determined), or is this a suggestion that there are people groups out there that are intrinsically more evil than others?

[DeBunkem]

Aside from the issue of abortion, no point at all. Those who take a religio-political stand against a woman's right to choose often claim the Bible as their moral authority. The references to it that I have made disprove this, IMO.

[Jester]

Aside from the issue of abortion, no point at all. Those who take a religio-political stand against a woman's right to choose often claim the Bible as their moral authority. The references to it that I have made disprove this, IMO.

I didn't see that (in fact, I still don't completely).
Is there any reason to believe that the stonings took place before the child was delivered, and that God approved of this?

[DeBunkem]

Aside from the issue of abortion, no point at all. Those who take a religio-political stand against a woman's right to choose often claim the Bible as their moral authority. The references to it that I have made disprove this, IMO.

I didn't see that (in fact, I still don't completely).
Is there any reason to believe that the stonings took place before the child was delivered, and that God approved of this?

There was no allowance for a stay of execution to determine whether conception had occurred. There were no jails...punishment was dealt out speedily.(Deuteronomy 22:21 ff, John 8:4,5).

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction: Blaise Pascal

[cnorman18]

Aside from the issue of abortion, no point at all. Those who take a religio-political stand against a woman's right to choose often claim the Bible as their moral authority. The references to it that I have made disprove this, IMO.

I didn't see that (in fact, I still don't completely).
Is there any reason to believe that the stonings took place before the child was delivered, and that God approved of this?

There was no allowance for a stay of execution to determine whether conception had occurred. There were no jails...punishment was dealt out speedily.(Deuteronomy 22:21 ff, John 8:4,5).

As I've said many, many times, you can't find out about Jewish law from the Bible. You have to go to the Talmud; the Mishnah and Gemara, as well as the Responsa, the Midrash, and many other sources.

Since the records show that "In the time this laws [sic] were used - approximately 400 years - there were only eight such executions" (i.e., stoning). The fact that there is no provision in the Law for the execution of pregnant women indicates only that the question never came up. If it had, we would certainly have the record of the discussions in the Talmud and other places. There are extensive discussions in the Talmud about who owns a lost chicken and how that is to be determined; who would assume that a question like this one would be ruled on without a record of it?

There is no reason whatever to conclude or assert that Jewish law imposed the death penalty on pregnant women, for the simple reason that there is no evidence whatever that it ever did, or that that was ever even proposed. It's hardly fair, objective, or academically even reasonable to assume that a practice which is not mentioned, alluded to, or discussed in any way was ever actually put into play. Since Jewish law was extraordinarily reluctant to execute even a criminal proven beyond doubt to be guilty of even a heinous crime, it's a remarkable bit of assumption to claim that the rabbis would have callously ordered the death of a pregnant woman. The records - which are extensive and detailed - show that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into ordering the death of anyone at all.

Anyone who has actually studied Jewish law and its application throughout the history of Israel would be much more likely to assume that the Law was applied with compassion rather than callousness. THAT pattern is clear over the course of millenia. Assuming that the rabbis and sages of old were cold, brutal executioners says more about the one who makes that assumption than about the rabbis, and that assumption is simply factually and historically inaccurate and unjustifiable.

As I said earlier, it can be shown from the Torah, and even more directly from the Talmud, that Jewish law did not consider a fetus a person, nor the loss of a fetus a death. That seemed, and still seems, to me to be more on-point and relevant to this issue. The execution of pregnant women by stoning isn't evidence that God is OK with abortion or even that Jewish law ever was, simply because there is no evidence whatever that it ever took place or was ever even contemplated.

My own perception of this thread is still that it was never about removing Biblical justification for extreme pro-life positions, but about showing that the Torah was the source of an evil and brutal practice. It's hard to read the initial post any other way.

[Jester]

There was no allowance for a stay of execution to determine whether conception had occurred. There were no jails...punishment was dealt out speedily.(Deuteronomy 22:21 ff, John 8:4,5).

I see nothing in either of these verses referring to the speed of the execution. Is this the argument that, because we are not directly aware of whether or not they waited, we should assume that they did not?
If it isn't, it doesn't seem to be much in the way of support that this is 'God-ordered abortion'.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when
they do it from religious conviction: Blaise Pascal

I would completely agree so long as we, like Pascal, recognize that this need not be a part of religious practice.

[chris_brown207]

Aside from the issue of abortion, no point at all. Those who take a religio-political stand against a woman's right to choose often claim the Bible as their moral authority. The references to it that I have made disprove this, IMO.

I didn't see that (in fact, I still don't completely).
Is there any reason to believe that the stonings took place before the child was delivered, and that God approved of this?

If you needed a more obvious example of God calling for the deaths of mothers AND fetuses, try:

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

If you need evidence that the bible considers the life of a fetus to be less then the life of a person, then consider:

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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

(Or in other words, hurt the women and kill the fetus - pay a penalty and be judged. But, kill the fetus AND the women - they pay life for life.)

[Jester]

If you needed a more obvious example of God calling for the deaths of mothers AND fetuses, try:

Yes, there are definitely calls to war against people groups in the Bible. I wasn't challenging claims along those lines at all. Rather, I was challenging something that comes closer to your second comment.

So, getting to that:

If you need evidence that the bible considers the life of a fetus to be less then the life of a person, then consider:

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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

(Or in other words, hurt the women and kill the fetus - pay a penalty and be judged. But, kill the fetus AND the women - they pay life for life.)

I can see your perspective, but would still have some serious reservations about your conclusion that this is support of abortion.

Among some smaller issues, it has been pointed out, that "depart" merely means that (premature birth) and that "mischief" would then seem to include the death of the fetus.
- Apologies, however, for the ending comment about "reckoning" on the linked page. Their translation is correct, but I'd empathize if you took issue with that as a closer.

[chris_brown207]

If you need evidence that the bible considers the life of a fetus to be less then the life of a person, then consider:

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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

(Or in other words, hurt the women and kill the fetus - pay a penalty and be judged. But, kill the fetus AND the women - they pay life for life.)

I can see your perspective, but would still have some serious reservations about your conclusion that this is support of abortion.

Among some smaller issues, it has been pointed out, that "depart" merely means that (premature birth) and that "mischief" would then seem to include the death of the fetus.
- Apologies, however, for the ending comment about "reckoning" on the linked page. Their translation is correct, but I'd empathize if you took issue with that as a closer.

I do not see this passage as overt biblical support for abortion - as I am not even sure if the idea of abortion had taken root yet during that time. What I do take from this passage is the biblical sense of the worth of a fetus. They had least had an idea of the gestation and growth of the fetus, and the resulting birth. However, in the context I provided, you can see that the bible does not assign the same weight of punishment to a fetus as it does to a "person" - despite the fact that this is the number one reason Pro-Lifers use to argue against abortion.... that it is "murder" (i.e. the killing of a "person").

I can see how others would translate this passage differently, although when reading other parts of the bible such as those I presented earlier, it would not be far fetched at all that the biblical writers meant exactly what I glean from their writings (no matter the fact that later versions of the bible were "re-translated" to fix this little "off-message" moment in what Pro-Lifers (who just happen to be majority Christian) thinks the bible SHOULD say).