About the Abortion Controversy

[Subduction Zone]

No there aren't. There's indication that God used miscarriages to punish a sinful person. Think about that. It's not a argument for abortion.
Losing a baby in those times was considered a terrible thing. The last thing any woman wanted.

I see that you have not read your Bible. If you read the Test of an Unfaithful Wife, you will read the description of a chemical abortion. I am betting that cognitive dissonance will kick in. And how about exodus 21 22-23? Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned do you think that Bible publishing houses will undo their unethical change of the translation?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I see that you have not read your Bible. If you read the Test of an Unfaithful Wife, you will read the description of a chemical abortion. I am betting that cognitive dissonance will kick in. And how about exodus 21 22-23? Now that Roe v Wade has been overturned do you think that Bible publishing houses will undo their unethical change of the translation?

I've read the verses that you misunderstand before. There's nothing there about abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read the verses that you misunderstand before. There's nothing there about abortion.

Like I said cognitive dissonance. It is clearly a chemical abortion.

 

[Heyo]

Like I said cognitive dissonance. It is clearly a chemical abortion.

And another one not understanding cognitive dissonance.
"According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort."
I don't think @Wildswanderer is feeling any discomfort or is able to perceive the contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And another one not understanding cognitive dissonance.
"According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort."
I don't think @Wildswanderer is feeling any discomfort or is able to perceive the contradiction.

Ooh. That appears to be a bit unkind. That seems to imply that he is unable to understand how he is wrong.

I assumed that he could understand those verses. Perhaps I was being too generous.

 

[Heyo]

Ooh. That appears to be a bit unkind. That seems to imply that he is unable to understand how he is wrong.

I assumed that he could understand those verses. Perhaps I was being too generous.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by stupidity.
If @Wildswanderer understands the contradiction, he was lying. That would be malicious and dishonourable to assume.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by stupidity.
If @Wildswanderer understands the contradiction, he was lying. That would be malicious and dishonourable to assume.

Perhaps. I tend to go on the idea of cognitive dissonance as an unconscious act. In other words, one is fooling oneself but not on purpose. Lying is a deliberate attempt to mislead by telling falsehoods and I have a feeling (or hope at least) that his actions are not deliberate.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But that's not really what this is about. If it were that, alone, few would argue with the woman's right to choose what happens inside her body. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is one person's right to deny another person their right to live, because the other person is living within the first person's body. And we can't agree about it because we don't know when that becomes a 'thing'. But we do know that it does become a thing at some point n the developmental process. Because none of us would approve destroying child in the womb at 8 1/2 months.
The government has already and long ago been given the power to establish and protect our rights as citizens and human beings from incursion by ourselves and others. It's what government is for.

But that's not really what this is about. If it were that, alone, few would argue with the woman's right to choose what happens inside her body. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is one person's right to deny another person their right to live, because the other person is living within the first person's body. And we can't agree about it because we don't know when that becomes a 'thing'. But we do know that it does become a thing at some point n the developmental process. Because none of us would approve destroying child in the womb at 8 1/2 months.

The issue is who gets to decide if that collection of cells developing inside a woman’s body is just a collection of cells with the potential to become an individual human being or if they already constitute an individual human being. Is this a decision that should be made by a faceless government institution or by the individual within whom this collection of cells is developing?

Once you decide that the government is the one that should have the power to make such decisions, you need to accept that the government has the ultimate say about a woman’s reproductive rights then you have to accept that this same government could decide to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy against her will.

The government has already and long ago been given the power to establish and protect our rights as citizens and human beings from incursion by ourselves and others. It's what government is for.

This is something completely new. This is attempting to bestow individual rights and citizenship on an entity that merely has the POTENTIAL TO BECOME an individual and a citizen. That’s absolutely absurd. We may as well argue that sixteen year olds should be given the right to vote because they all have the POTENTIAL TO BECOME eighteen years old some day. This ruling is saying that the rights of an entity that has the potential to someday become an individual and a citizen takes precedence over an actual individual citizen.

 

[Heyo]

Perhaps. I tend to go on the idea of cognitive dissonance as an unconscious act. In other words, one is fooling oneself but not on purpose. Lying is a deliberate attempt to mislead by telling falsehoods and I have a feeling (or hope at least) that his actions are not deliberate.

I think I can resolve this.

I've read the verses that you misunderstand before.

Assuming that to be true, after that:
"The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort."
And with

I tend to go on the idea of cognitive dissonance as an unconscious act.

he unconsciously found a way to believe that the verse in question doesn't talk about abortion.

There's nothing there about abortion.

Conflict resolved, no discomfort any more.

So he did suffer from cognitive dissonance but has it resolved by no longer perceiving the conflict any more, at least not conscious.

 

[JIMMY12345]

I am of two minds about the legalization of abortion, mostly because I see that there is a strong logical argument that can be posed in favor of each side of the issue. And by a strong logical argument, I don't mean any arguments that have to do with conjectures like, "God says", or "God wants", or "God demands". I mean arguments that are based on the facts that we have at this time, and on our relating them to each other in such a way as to arrive at a reasonable resolution. But in looking at the issue from this kind of logical, factual perspective, I begin to notice something that I find disconcerting. And I will attempt to explain.

But first, let me lay out the real fundamental problem that we are encountering when we try to resolve the issue of legalizing abortion. And that problem is that the resolution depends upon when a human being becomes a human being, and is thereby afforded the right to life that should be afforded to all human beings, as human beings. We do not know or agree on exactly what constitutes a "human being", and so we don't know or agree on how to determine when that has occurred in the course of development. What IS a 'human being', and when does it 'happen' in the course of human gestation?

We do not know.

On the side of keeping abortion illegal, the logical argument as I see it, then, is this: because we don't know when a human being becomes a human being, we do not have the right (as we do not have the requisite knowledge) to impose that determination on the developmental process. We simply do not possess the ability to pass judgments involving the essence of humanity that are accurate enough to avoid the possible execution of a fellow human being. And we thereby do not have the right to engage in such a risky activity.

To me, this is a very sound, logical argument, against the legalization of abortion.

On the other side of the issue, in favor of legalizing abortion, we start from the same difficult premise: that we do not know when or by what measure a human being is or becomes a human being. But instead of arguing from our ignorance, we can argue in this case from what we do know. And that is that a sperm is not a human being, and neither is an egg. Such that it is not logical to presume that a newly fertilized egg is suddenly an instantaneously a 'human being'. We can logically surmise that the conditions and characteristics required to manifest as what we would recognize as a human being do not and will not manifest immediately. So there is SOME time between the fertilization of the egg and the manifestation of a human being that we could rightfully allow that the process of development be stopped, before the human being occurs.

The question then, of course, is up to what point in the development can we safely presume that we are not destroying a human being, but rather only a collection of cells and DNA that have not yet become a human being. And although that is a difficult milestone to determine, It's not impossible to do so with reasonable assurance that we have not 'overstepped' it.

Both of these arguments are logical, reasonable, and valid. Which is why I remain somewhat on the fence about the issue. But something troubling then occurs to me. And here it is.

Whenever I'm discussing this subject with folks who are against the legalization of abortion, they almost NEVER posit the single most logical argument against the legalization of abortion that I can think of (as stated above). And I wonder, why is that? Because it's the one argument that could sway me to agree with their conclusion. And probably not just me, but others as well.

Instead, they all seem to want to insist that a human life begins with the conjoining of a sperm cell and embryo 'egg' cell. Which only serves to weaken their argument significantly. As almost no one thinks a second before inception, that either of those cells was a 'human being'. Nor do most people think that the suddenly conjoined DNA within one 'egg' cell is a 'human being', yet, either. It is merely the biological 'blueprint' for a human being that will then require a period of development to become one.

So why this obsession with the sexual act as the source of what makes us a human being? It just seems weird, and a bit 'creepy'.

Also, I have noticed a tendency among those that want to keep abortion illegal to be persistently dishonest and demeaning in their characterizations of those who feel that limited access to abortion should be allowed. They insist on implying that people who favor the option of abortion in the early stages of development are "baby killers", and are "in favor of abortion" rather than their being in favor of the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. And no matter how many times it is explained to them these are inaccurate and disingenuous terms and characterizations, and that they are offensive, it never seems to stop. There is a kind of weird hyper self-righteousness that seems to infect the folks that want to keep abortion illegal that has little to do with the solid, logical argument they could be presenting, and has everything to do with their wanting to inflate their own sense of righteousness by deliberately misrepresenting and slandering their opposition. And this, too, causes me to become far more skeptical of their motive, and their agenda, than I would be had they just stuck to the facts and logic of their own argument.

And lastly, even as I currently stand in favor of the woman's right to choose (in the early stages of fetal development) I would never assert that an abortion is a good or desirable outcome for any pregnancy no matter how it was brought about or where it would end up. Abortion is not a desirable goal. Period. Even though it may sometimes have to be the sad result. And with that understanding, I think as a society we should be doing much, much more to help women find acceptable and reasonable alternatives to choosing an abortion. And even more-so, to help young men and women understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, how to avoid and diffuse those predicaments that are prone to result is an unwanted pregnancy. We need to talk about it, and educate people. The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancy. But that isn't going to happen by magic and ignorance.

And yet I am seeing almost none of this from the people that I would have thought would be the most interested in avoiding unwanted pregnancies. Instead, all I ever see from them is condemnation, and a cry for force. Instead of encouraging and helping a young woman to choose not to abort, all they ever seem to want to do is accuse the 'hussy' of loose morals and punish her by forcing her to deal with the pregnancy full term. There is an aspect of forced control and mean-spiritedness to it that I find distinctly distasteful and far more about the self-righteousness of the judges than any concern for the woman or the "baby".

All in all I see people that want to keep abortion illegal routinely squandering the strength of their own argument by succumbing to a lot of selfish moral nonsense that only serves to sabotage their own cause. Something I do not see much of on the other side of the issue. And this does effect why and where I stand in the debate.

Good analysis. Do not forget to include the unborn have rights. To basics like decent meals schooling - step up benefit programmes and length of. The Republicans have now firmly contributed to the principal the state can intervene over individuals. This would reduce the need for abortions. Some women especially single ones just can't afford children.

 

[Heyo]

I've read the verses that you misunderstand before. There's nothing there about abortion.

How do you understand those verses?

 

[Wildswanderer]

How do you understand those verses?

I already explained what the passage is about... but there's actually two possible interpretations.
In one a woman guilty of adultery would then be disfigured and unable to conceive children. In the other the disfigurement is seen as an idiom for miscarriage.
This is similar to David losing his child fur to his adultery with Bathsheba.
First, the woman was pregnant through an adulterous relationship, a sin that normally carried the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). But because no witnesses came forward, the woman was given an opportunity to clear her name and ease her husband’s suspicions by swearing before him, a priest, and God that she was innocent of adultery. If she lied in this situation, then the miscarriage is clearly a result of her sin plus swearing falsely before the Lord even though she already knew the consequences.
The priest did not abort the woman’s child. Instead, if witnesses could not be found to determine guilt or innocence, God caused her to miscarry and preventing her from ever conceiving again.
The passage shows us that God views the unborn child the same as those who have already been born. Just as in David's case, a child died because of his or her parents’ sin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already explained what the passage is about... but there's actually two possible interpretations.
In one a woman guilty of adultery would then be disfigured and unable to conceive children. In the other the disfigurement is seen as an idiom for miscarriage.
This is similar to David losing his child fur to his adultery with Bathsheba.
First, the woman was pregnant through an adulterous relationship, a sin that normally carried the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). But because no witnesses came forward, the woman was given an opportunity to clear her name and ease her husband’s suspicions by swearing before him, a priest, and God that she was innocent of adultery. If she lied in this situation, then the miscarriage is clearly a result of her sin plus swearing falsely before the Lord even though she already knew the consequences.
The priest did not abort the woman’s child. Instead, if witnesses could not be found to determine guilt or innocence, God caused her to miscarry and preventing her from ever conceiving again.
The passage shows us that God views the unborn child the same as those who have already been born. Just as in David's case, a child died because of his or her parents’ sin.

Then it appears that you did not read it or else understand it.

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.


That pretty much describes a chemical abortion.

Here is one question for you, how did the husband know that she cheated?

 

[Heyo]

I already explained what the passage is about... but there's actually two possible interpretations.
In one a woman guilty of adultery would then be disfigured and unable to conceive children. In the other the disfigurement is seen as an idiom for miscarriage.
This is similar to David losing his child fur to his adultery with Bathsheba.
First, the woman was pregnant through an adulterous relationship, a sin that normally carried the death penalty (Leviticus 20:10). But because no witnesses came forward, the woman was given an opportunity to clear her name and ease her husband’s suspicions by swearing before him, a priest, and God that she was innocent of adultery. If she lied in this situation, then the miscarriage is clearly a result of her sin plus swearing falsely before the Lord even though she already knew the consequences.
The priest did not abort the woman’s child. Instead, if witnesses could not be found to determine guilt or innocence, God caused her to miscarry and preventing her from ever conceiving again.
The passage shows us that God views the unborn child the same as those who have already been born. Just as in David's case, a child died because of his or her parents’ sin.

I notice you left out that the priest gave the woman "bitter water" to drink. You think that had nothing to do with the miscarriage?
Would you also think taking RU 486 would not cause an abortion but a "miscarriage"?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I notice you left out that the priest gave the woman "bitter water" to drink. You think that had nothing to do with the miscarriage?
Would you also think taking RU 486 would not cause an abortion but a "miscarriage"?

Bitter water doesn't cause abortions or miscarriages.

Then it appears that you did not read it or else understand it.

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.


That pretty much describes a chemical abortion.

Here is one question for you, how did the husband know that she cheated?

What interpretation are you quoting?
Neither the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, or the scrapings of the parchment roll cause anyone to miscarry, obviously.
It's a ritual, not a abortion clinic. Do you think curses cause abortions?
And her husband would know if she cheated by whether the disfigurement happens or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bitter water doesn't cause abortions or miscarriages.

What interpretation are you quoting?
Neither the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, or the scrapings of the parchment roll cause anyone to miscarry, obviously.
It's a ritual, not a abortion clinic. Do you think curses cause abortions?
And her husband would know if she cheated by whether the disfigurement happens or not.

It is an error to read the Bible too literally. If you do that you have to believe that the World is flat.

Of course curses do not cause abortions. They do not cause anything. That does not mean that priests had not figured out a simple combination that caused abortions. That has occurred in many societies. Guess what? They aren't safe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And another one not understanding cognitive dissonance.
"According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort."
I don't think @Wildswanderer is feeling any discomfort or is able to perceive the contradiction.

It's cognitive dissonance as he holds contradicting positions and changes parameters of his beliefs so they are consistent. Discomfort doesn't necessarily mean a physical feeling of uneasyness, and it's often a means of psychological defense to not acknowledge such a contradiction.

What interpretation are you quoting?
Neither the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, or the scrapings of the parchment roll cause anyone to miscarry, obviously.
It's a ritual, not a abortion clinic. Do you think curses cause abortions?
And her husband would know if she cheated by whether the disfigurement happens or not.

Yeah, the purpose of it was to cause an abortion/terminate the pregnancy in unfaithful women.
And, no, the husband wouldn't necessarily know. Silly and primitive rituals tell us nothing other than how lucky we are these dangerous rituals didn't kill us off sooner. It's impossible for such a thing to tell us if a woman was actually unfaithful or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And her husband would know if she cheated by whether the disfigurement happens or not.

Oh. I missed that. Wrongo, you forgot that somehow the husband knew ahead of time. You can't go by "the curse" because as you just admitted, they are bunk.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is an error to read the Bible too literally

So your beliefs that there's no supernatural is obviously influencing your understanding of the passage.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Oh. I missed that. Wrongo, you forgot that somehow the husband knew ahead of time. You can't go by "the curse" because as you just admitted, they are bunk.

No I asked if you believed in the curse. Of course you don't, so you can't interpret anything in the book correctly if you don't believe in the power of God to do anything.
Looks to me like the husband suspected, and was jealous and the ritual was a test to see if he was correct.

14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: