Abortion on Christian Grounds

[?Impact]

Unless it's rape, the woman has control of her body, Impact. She has the key to the gate.

So, you are saying that abortions are acceptable in the case of rape?

[BubberMiley]

We're talking about rights! Focus.

I am focused. She has the right to remove her kidneys and you don't have the right to stop her. MYOB!

[betsy]

So, you are saying that abortions are acceptable in the case of rape?

While there is no denying that rape is a horrible crime, and it victimizes the woman....it should be noted that the baby that resulted in rape, is as much a victim! His life now depends on his mother - whether she'll carry him or not.

Anyway.....how is that relevant to the case of abortion on demand?

Is the argument only about rape cases? Id that what pro-choice is fighting for?

Or, is it not about the woman's alleged right to her privacy? That it includes having the choice to abort the baby, regardless of how she got pregnant!

Fertilization does not occur immediately after intercourse. Pregnancy can be prevented if the woman receives medical treatment. They do this as a standard procedure with rape victims. They're "cleaned" out also to prevent stds.

Edited July 13, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Fertilization does not occur immediately after intercourse. Pregnancy can be prevented if the woman receives medical treatment. They do this as a standard procedure with rape victims. They're "cleaned" out also to prevent stds.

Given your deflection from the question, aren't you glad it's not up to you whether rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion?

What if someone was raped and made pregnant by a Muslim refugee?

Edited July 13, 2016 by BubberMiley

[The_Squid]

Given your deflection from the question, aren't you glad it's not up to you whether rape victims should be allowed to have an abortion?What if someone was raped and made pregnant by a Muslim refugee?

According to the bible, the woman would have to marry her rapist.

But of course, this was a disgusting and immoral practice that was abandoned. Another example of cherry picking.

Edited July 14, 2016 by The_Squid

[Guest]

According to the bible, the woman would have to marry her rapist.

But of course, this was a disgusting and immoral practice that was abandoned. Another example of cherry picking.

Not completely. It still happens now and then.

[betsy]

According to the bible, the woman would have to marry her rapist.

But of course, this was a disgusting and immoral practice that was abandoned. Another example of cherry picking.

If there's anyone doing some cherry-picking-merrily-along-the-way......that would be you, Squid.

You've done nothing but quote-mine and taken things out of context.....because you hardly know anything what you're own about. You're ignorant of most issues you bring up. That has been proven, several times in the other threads about Anglicans.

Edited July 16, 2016 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

That has been proven, several times in the other threads about Anglicans.

If you're going to call people ignorant, it's more convincing if you point out how they're wrong. Otherwise it just looks like you can't defend your argument or effectively counter theirs.

[sharkman]

According to the bible, the woman would have to marry her rapist.

But of course, this was a disgusting and immoral practice that was abandoned. Another example of cherry picking.

And just what scripture are you basing this nonsense on?

[BubberMiley]

And just what scripture are you basing this nonsense on?

I'm guessing Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[The_Squid]

And just what scripture are you basing this nonsense on?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29. New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

[The_Squid]

If there's anyone doing some cherry-picking-merrily-along-the-way......that would be you, Squid.

You've done nothing but quote-mine and taken things out of context.....because you hardly know anything what you're own about. You're ignorant of most issues you bring up. That has been proven, several times in the other threads about Anglicans.

How would you interpret Deuteronomy 22: 28-29?

It seems quite plain. One of the more plain and understandable passages in the bible.

[dpwozney]

How would you interpret Deuteronomy 22: 28-29?

It seems quite plain. One of the more plain and understandable passages in the bible.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The term "lay hold" in Deuteronomy 22:28 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "taphas" which is never translated as "rape" or "rapes" in the KJV Bible.

The word "humbled" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "anah" which is never translated as "violated" in the KJV Bible.

Edited July 18, 2016 by dpwozney

[The_Squid]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The term "lay hold" in Deuteronomy 22:28 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "taphas" which is never translated as "rape" or "rapes" in the KJV Bible.

The word "humbled" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "anah" which is never translated as "violated" in the KJV Bible.

Modern theologians are certainly attempting to interpret rape out of the bible, but this is simply not the case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible

[?Impact]

Modern theologians are certainly attempting to interpret rape out of the bible, but this is simply not the case.

I agree that rape is not necessarily what the quoted passages in Deuteronomy are about. The main topic is property rights, women being chattel of their fathers until married off.

[The_Squid]

I agree that rape is not necessarily what the quoted passages in Deuteronomy are about. The main topic is property rights, women being chattel of their fathers until married off.

True enough (about the chattel).

[sharkman]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29. New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The passage dealing with rape is Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Funny how you missed that one, the guilty man is to be killed.

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

[The_Squid]

The passage dealing with rape is Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Funny how you missed that one, the guilty man is to be killed.

The pertinent passage is 28-29

26-27 is if the woman is already married. If the woman is married, he dies. If she's a virgin, she has to marry him.

[msj]

Hmmm, abortion seems so much more civilized.

And a jail cell for the rapist.

[dpwozney]

The pertinent passage is 28-29

According to this article, "it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29" and "some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate" the Hebrew word tapas as "rape".

[betsy]

The pertinent passage is 28-29

26-27 is if the woman is already married. If the woman is married, he dies. If she's a virgin, she has to marry him.

A lot of laws in Deuteronomy were meant for the JEWS, at THAT TIME! Some of those laws for Jews had changed when the Messiah had come!

You cannot ignore that. To do so would be to willfully take the verse out of context to suit your proposed argument!

Edited July 19, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

A lot of laws in Deuteronomy were meant for the JEWS, at THAT TIME!

So the word of God changes with the people and the time? How convenient.

[sharkman]

The pertinent passage is 28-29

26-27 is if the woman is already married. If the woman is married, he dies. If she's a virgin, she has to marry him.

Betrothed does not mean being married. You're ignoring meanings to make a point that suits your world view.

Edited July 19, 2016 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

Doesn't it mean engaged to be married?

[jacee]

So the word of God changes with the people and the time? How convenient.

Apparently not 'the word' on homosexuality though, according to Betsy.

How does she keep it straight, which old 'words' are still in effect? Must be very confusing for her to know when to "slay" her neighbor!

?