You're viewing a single thread.
"leave it at protests" as if they aren't already mass murdering children
Unsure is /s, but doesn't seem like it.
Reproductive health advocates are not mass murdering children. You're thinking of guns, drugs, and cars if you are in the USA, cancer and other genetic defects if in the UK.
All of those things are mass murdering children
We get it, you don't have any scientific knowledge and only go by what religion "says"
The Bible is pro abortion anyway so they have nothing
Exactly. That's what makes their attempts to argue so ridiculous.
Scientific knowledge shows that a foetus is a life
Scientific knowledge shows that a fetus is a lump of cells with no more consciousness than an amoeba that can't exist without the host which makes it closer to a parasite. That's not a baby or a person. You need to actually be able to understand more than a one sentence statement to grasp the vast majority of scientific knowledge.
Source?
That isn't relevant, though.
The word you are looking for is 'fetuses'.
K. I'm going to get back to work for my company that is mass murdering children by lowering employee reproductive health. (/s)
Your taxes may also go towards murdering kids, whether it be state funded abortions or bombing Gaza
Those two examples are wildly different from eachother. One is a medical procedure involving theoretical children, and the other has real kids getting injured and killed.
Edit: wanted to add that the medical procedure is always to prevent a major health issue when being funded by state taxes.
Whenever the israelis bomb the buildings, they don't know for certain there are kids in there. They are just theoretical kids in the moment to them.
Got it I'll just stop paying my taxes that'll fix everything
More like, Schrodinger's kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.
A successful abortion always has at least a 100% fatality rate.
Why does that matter? If the fetus cannot survive outside the womb due to genetic defects, why would I care about that when I could care about the health of the mother?
If you are absolutely certain the foetus cannot survive, and carrying it to term will give the mother a high probability of dying after giving birth due to physical complications, then an abortion is a valid medical procedure. However, this accounts for less than one percent of abortions, so unless we are arguing against that, it's not a valid talking point.
What about when they carefully aim and shoot a child?
I prefer to go by what the Bible says. Which is that abortion is just fine and God even performs them!
Source?
But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] 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.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 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. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
That's about infertility. The NIV isn't a very good translation and focuses less on what the text actually says and easy readability. A more accurate translation is the NRSV (although the ESV or even the KJV doesn't make this mistake- although it depends on whether you want to translate "thigh" as "womb" or literally render it, as thigh is a euphemism. However, the word "miscarry" in the sense that we understand it is not there)
[27] When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. [28] But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.
Verse 28 says "be able to conceive children". It's quite clear that she wasn't already pregnant at this point.
Dude what, no, it's saying hey if you're not preggers you can still make a baby. If you've "defiled [your]self" then you're gonna have an abortion when you drink that water. Very explicitly that's what is being communicated through the text.
Dancing around translations is just some hand waving bullshit, also maybe we should consider the text isn't some infallible word of God when you're saying a different translation changes the meaning of passages. Just as an aside.
I just picked the first translation the Google search gave. Feel free to read your same thing phrased some other way in another translation.
Besides that is the only thing the Bible actually says about abortion. The anti abortion stuff is a very modern thing.
Defiled yourself via committing adultery.
You can translate anything terribly, doesn't discount the original work.
Ok well you're just being purposely obtuse if you think being made to drink a prepared water after committing adultery and then proceeding to miscarry doesn't mean you were pregnant.
They're not exactly using contraception.
Regardless of the translation, it's pretty clear these are instructions on how to treat an adulterous woman and cause a miscarriage.
The word "miscarry" isn't there. Being made infertile and having heavy periods constantly would make you an unclean curse to the people around you.
Well, you're either actively trolling me or yourself at this point because obviously the absence of that word - while describing one - isn't some gotcha.
Ok, sure it doesn't have that specific word but it sure does have a description of one. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I understand being wrapped up in biblical text and trying to defend it. Having faith and it being "attacked" can be hard and feels bad. I'm not trying to beat you up but take a step back and look at the whole picture.
It's always endlessly fascinating to me how "fundamentalists" think God speaks in metaphor only when it's convenient for them personally.
Elaborate why you're saying that and what you mean?
That's not up to you. All scripture is God breathed. Are you saying that God would allow his one and only true word to be mistranslated so poorly? Shame on you.
It is obviously both. A woman could be pregnant or not and the same thing would happen either forcing a miscarriage (aka an abortion) or become infertile. There is no where that indicates the woman's current state of pregnancy or lack thereof so it must be both.
That's not up to you. All scripture is God breathed. Are you saying that God would allow his one and only true word to be mistranslated so poorly? Shame on you.
There are several examples of mistranslations happening in major bible translations. Having this superstitious view about it being impossible to do a bad translation of the Bible is completely rubbish.
It says that she shall be free to conceive. How can you be free to conceive if you're pregnant? You cannot conceive a child when pregnant. This scripture cannot be used in any way to justify abortion. You started on a poor translation of it from a disreputable translation (The NIV, often nicknamed the "Not Inspired Version") and are now clutching at straws because I pointed out that it was clearly incorrect.
Incorrect. I'm starting from a translation which God himself allowed into the world. Since God allowed both of these translations then it must mean both things are correct. The woman in this situation could be pregnant or not. Stop questioning God's power.
The Bible is not something for you to just pick and choose what you want it to say. Just because you already have an opinion on abortion doesn't mean you can cherry pick different translations to support your pre conceived premise. Do you know Hebrew? Were you there when God gave this word to the Israelites? No? Then all we have is the Bible that God himself allowed to be put out into the world. You don't get to question what God has provided and manipulate His word for your own selfish, political talking points. It's honestly really troublesome and borderline heretical. I'm worried for your soul. Stop speaking for God and let Him speak for Himself.
The Bible that was put out into the world was in Hebrew which does not mention anything to do with a miscarriage. To say that because it exists it is permissible, is like saying that the holocaust was morally okay and correct because "God allowed it to happen"
Drama queen
it takes balls to post stuff like that on Lemmy, and I commend you for it. also, I agree with you. so there's that.
We get it. You like balls
Gargle gargle nothing gargle wrong with that
in a world where most people don't have them, yes. yes I do.
Having such a vulnerable weak point be both easily accessible and unprotected is a design flaw.
somebody thinks movies are real life. have you ever tried to kick somebody in the balls? its not actually that easy, and its not actually that vulnerable. there's a reason all the wars of human history haven't just been giant crotch-kicking competitions lmfao. If it was that simple, men would not be the warriors.
On the flip side, you could say being smaller and weaker (as all women are) is a design flaw. Oh how the tables have turned my impulsively naive friend.
Wtf? Lol
Well when they are as small as yours, it becomes really hard to hit that target with a kick.
exactly. women on the other hand have higher obesity rates than men, too. so they're much bigger targets. endless design flaws, really.
It takes 0 balls to post a criticized opinion on an anonymous forum
But yeah no go off on praising your poor little persecuted ally, they're such a martyr
you just proved why it takes balls.
Again: it doesn't take balls to post at all to an anonymous forum
Keep reaching for that victim complex you so desperately crave
it totally takes balls. and people like you are the reason why.
It doesn't take balls to comment anonymously, you're at 0 risk of anything other then getting your feelings hurt
So I mean... I guess it takes tiny, tiny, insignificant balls to ignore what people you don't care about think
of course it does, you risk people finding out who you are and doxxing you. that's why people are anonymous in the first place: because its inherently risky to post controversial stuff on the internet.
Yeah, you would pretend like that's going to happen so you can feel more like a victim
Have less trash takes, it's actually really easy