Thought Zone - Exercise your mind....

Thanks Kylie,

No doubt you know what propelled me to tackle this issue. I never intended to bring this subject up but with all the horrible insults flying about (which I admit I took part in and regret intensely), I just want to put forward my own opinion in clear calm way, lest my intentions were misunderstood.

Comment by dQuarters

March 27th 2008 07:23

Haha! I came expecting some controversial post. That's hilarious, Ruby. I'd honestly love someone trying to prove you wrong on it.
But you know very well murder / human rights are the issue (smart ass). Have fun arguing that BTW

Hmm... I think I'll go make me an omelet. C-ya!

Comment by RubySoho

March 27th 2008 07:29

I will go into those issues dQ....and I am looking forward to all the replies.

I'll have mine scrambled, thanks.

Comment by Winston

March 27th 2008 12:58

Ruby,

You're right, the Bible says nothing about abortion, per se.

God and the Israelites kill a whole bunch of kids, though. Here's a sample I found from a very informative website:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.

Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child. (this one is my favorite. That's about damn near as close to an abortion as you can get)

2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.

Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

I'm probably misinterpreting.

Comment by RubySoho

March 27th 2008 13:43

Actually Winston, if you want to talk about how close the Bible gets to abortion its Numbers 5. Too long and rambling a passage quote in full but in essence, if a man suspects his wife of adultery he is to take her to a priest who will give her a potion and if she is guilty she shall forever have a 'miscarrying womb". Jehovah: The First Abortionist!!!

Comment by Winston

March 27th 2008 14:28

That's a good one too. Point being, "thou shalt not kill" is very selective reading. If you read that line in Exodus, and then maybe skip ahead to the Song of Songs, you can perhaps miss a bunch of the slaughter. But it's in the book, whether someone reads it or not.

Selective reading is far too easy with the Bible. I'm not sure that there is one single viewpoint that I couldn't find support for, given a Bible, a couple hours, and interpretive freedom. It's the ultimate all-purpose tool, the Swiss Army knife of books.

Comment by Jarrah

March 27th 2008 14:56

LOL
Those quotes are taken so far out of context its not funny.

Seriously though, an interesting note is that Christians never really say themselves they're perfectly loving, everything is good and beautiful - thats hippies.

Also - there is a HUGE difference between old testament Jewish law and new testament Christian law.

I believe a fetus has a working heart at 8 weeks or similar.
Whether you are Christian or not, I think you have to agree that it is murder acording to their own law.

I don't want to fight like that other blog please, just a few facts and insights from my side of the fence okay

Comment by Winston

March 27th 2008 16:44

Jarrah, not trying to fight at all (trust me on that!), just making a point. You say those quotes are taken out of context. Other Christian denominations will say that these verses are correct, and that OTHER quotes are taken out of context. Another group says the Catholic Bible is wrong, use the King James.

You say there is a huge difference between Old Testament and New Testament Law. I agree, to an extent. Again, there are many verses that could support or attack that claim (I will find them for you if you wish, but I'd prefer not to go digging for chapter and verse if you're already familiar). However, if Old Testament law is so outdated, why is it EXPRESSLY used to condemn homosexuality? There is very little about it in the New Testament, generally Christians use the OT to back up their views on that. But, when it's quotes about stoning kids, they are "out of context". And, I have to ask, in what context is it ever OK to "dash their children, and rip up their women with child"? If some Christians approach abortion and murder as absolutes, and they do, in what manner could the above be justifiable?

I give up! When is it ever NOT out of context, other than when it is convenient?

And I agree with you, this is a FRIENDLY discussion. While I am genuinely interested in your response, let's keep in mind that we're not changing the world here on Orble one way or the other. We may end up agreeing to disagree. It's best if we recognize that first and foremost, and keep things polite

Comment by Jarrah

March 27th 2008 23:28

LOL

If I had the time....
But II don't think I'll bother.
I don't think you took anything into account I said.

This is not if 'when is it right talk, its a 'does the bible condem abortion'
Llike I said, Christians arnt hippies, they're actually waiting for Jesus to come and bring hell fire to this den of sin

And yes, I don't think many would stick up for the Catholic bible.
There would be about 15 versions I would choose before that
NKJ, NIV, New LIving etc.

But, this is like smashing my head against the wall, you can't teach who don't want to be taught.

Comment by RubySoho

March 27th 2008 23:38

Hi Jarrah,

I see what you're saying. Personally, I think that trying to understand the Old Testament today is virtually impossible.

The Jews at the time were familiar with all the laws and practices it described so they would have understood perfectly the context of the passages quoted above. We can only guess.

Comment by Winston

March 27th 2008 23:40

I'm sorry Jarrah, I seem to have missed something. I apologize if you think I'm being obtuse, but I guess I really don't see what you mean (and you're not bothering to explain it). Making a cryptic remark about my apparent thick-headedness is fine, but it does nothing to further your point. If you do not wish to elaborate, that's fine. But please remember that I did ask.

Comment by tlcorbin

March 27th 2008 23:42

That damnable dicky bird is a prime contributor to this never ending non debate; if that fair bird would refuse give little dicky unprotected play, it'd be much easier to discuss keeping abortion at bay.

Not that I have an opinion etched in stone concerning this issue Ruby, I am of the mindset that when the heart kicks in, it's to late to kick the fetus, named baby non-blob, out.

Raven

Comment by Jarrah

March 28th 2008 00:42

Who cares about the old Testament.
It says 'Do not Murder' in the old and new.

The baby has a heart beat.
Its murder.

Comment by Anonymous

March 28th 2008 00:45

My wife had a miscarriage at an early stage.
The fetus came out in the toilet, and I still see it to this day.
It was a living person.
I have no doubt in my mind now.

Abortion is murder.

Comment by Anonymous

March 28th 2008 01:00

Really Long Link

The verse above doesn't talk about abortion, but it does refer to you being YOU in the womb. If you're you in the womb, then abortion is murder (according to the Bible).

Comment by RubySoho

March 28th 2008 01:05

Jarrah, it is the Old Testament that Christians use in order to condemn abortion. However, what they are not taking into account is that the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill, refers to people. And- I am not making this up- the ancient Jews did not consider the unborn people. In fact they did not consider babies viable until one month after birth. That is why the Bible is silent on the issue of abortion. Abortion was widely practised in the time of the Old Testament and there was never any objection to it on religious grounds. To this day the Jewish religion does not consider abortion a sin or murder.

To try to use the OT to condemn abortion today is a fallacy.

Now if you still consider abortion wrong, then that is your right and I do respect your right to have your own beliefs. However, I also have mine and millions of other people have theirs.
The issue is not absolute. To try and outlaw abortion as many people are lobbying is to infringe on other people's right to make up their own mind.

Comment by RubySoho

March 28th 2008 01:08

Raven,
I have given myself two hours to to come up with a witty rhyme but to no avail.

Suffice to say, I respect your opinion. Dare I ask if you respect mine?

Comment by RubySoho

March 28th 2008 01:46

Anonymous, I am sorry for your loss and if you feel that abortion is wrong, then that is your right.

However, I still believe we all have a right to make up our own minds on the issue.

And I have read the passage in question and what it does is discuss the foreknowledge that God has. It does not place the same value on a fetus as it does on a fully fledged human. I am not trying to be callous here, simply reiterating what is said in the Bible.

Comment by Kleonaptra

March 28th 2008 02:05

(FYI I was halfway through a comment when the bird jumped on the mouse...Let me know if it shows up somewhere?)

Love this post. Oh, Ruby, did you imagine so much could come from so few words?

I loved your quotes Winston, and this -

Another group says the Catholic Bible is wrong, use the King James.

Is what I got told when I started quoting 'deuteronomy'

Not that anyone asked about my view on abortion, I dont believe this post is about our 'views' BUT....

Sure, ok, its murder, its the loss of a life. WHO CARES. From the beginning of time it has been a womans right over her body - It is her decision! Women create life and therefore have power over wether they bear it or not.

If every child ever concieved had been brought to term we would have gone crit popple a hundred years ago.

(crit popple from 'Shadows End' by Sheri S Tepper. It means - CRITICAL POPULATION!)

Comment by Winston

March 28th 2008 02:19

Who cares about the old Testament.
It says 'Do not Murder' in the old and new.

The baby has a heart beat.
Its murder.

We're talking about the Biblical stance on abortion, Jarrah, so the OT is sort of, well.......relevant to the discussion. I understand if you personally believe abortion is murder (I would argue that rudimentary consciousness is more critical to defining life than a heartbeat is, but that's just me), but your feelings aren't really at issue here. Not that they aren't valid, they just don't deal with the matter at hand.

Yes, the OT and the NT say do not kill. And in the next breath they do a whole bunch of killing. So, it sort of invalidates the whole "do not kill" rule, from a consistent Biblical perspective. That's the whole point. Not that abortion is good or bad, not that it is or isn't murder, just whether or not it can be condemned or defended Biblically. The answer? Both. Which is just as good as saying neither.

Comment by tlcorbin

March 28th 2008 02:22

Actually Ruby, I always have respected your thinking and determination to defend it until a better argument is presented: I rather like this post, it initiated great discussion. Well done.

Here's an opinion that expresses some views concerning children:

Have we really come to this?

Raven

Comment by Winston

March 28th 2008 02:27

Seriously, Raven. That picture doesn't even provide a recipe!

Comment by Jarrah

March 28th 2008 02:31

The bible says 'do not murder' not kill.
Look it up in the dictionary or something before you ask the differences.

Okay thats it for me though, this will get heated like the other.

Peace out

Comment by Winston

March 28th 2008 02:40

I am not trying to make anything heated, as you've no doubt already noticed. I do think, however, that you are splitting semantic hairs. There is little point in continuing in that case.

As I started off by saying, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Comment by RubySoho

March 28th 2008 02:53

Jarrah,

Before you go, you are correct in pointing out the difference between "kill" and "murder" in the OT.

Since 'do not murder' refers to people, and the Israelites did not see fetus's as people then that commandment does not apply to them. Thus, abortion, is not murder, according to ancient Jewish Law.

Now, Kleo is right in that this is not really a post about views. I am simply stating that the claim that abortion is an abomination before God and that the proof is in the OT is incorrect. Not only does the OT not condemn abortion, in some instances it actually appears to condone it (Numbers 5).

Thanks Kleo,

I am surprised at the amount of responses, but pleased that no tempers have frayed as yet. And I agree that a woman has a right to decide if she creates life. The abortion debate seems to focus on whether or not a fetus is a human and thus has human rights. This completely side steps the rights of the woman. Screaming out "it's not her body!" is obnoxiously ignoring the contribution the woman's body makes to the whole process. Not her body? Not her womb? Not her blood? Does a woman have a right to control of her body, or is she merely a vessel?

Raven,

Thanks and ditto. Not sure if I agree with that ad though. Low in calories? have you seen how much fat a baby carries in its upper thighs?

Comment by tlcorbin

March 28th 2008 03:17

Yup, but I'm not that fond of thighs, so, I'm safe for now Ruby.

Biologically, I'd suggest that women are a bit hard wired on a primal level to bear children, but that damnable primal hard wiring has run its course. That particular primal imperative isn't necessary to sustain the population level(s) any longer. With that being the case, most woman are rightfully demanding control over their bodies and much of society is resisting.

Particularly the men; historically men could exert control over women by keeping them pregnant and barefoot. A woman's primary value to a man was her ability to bring life into this world and still is in many cultures; well, the attitude has been tempered somewhat since televised sports casting sprang up on cable.

However physical and social evolution hasn't caught up with current events; we are a species that can finally enjoy recreational sex-most can't, e.g., salmon. Men and women have to re-invent their roles and that will probably continue to contribute to the gender chaos for a few generations until we settle things down again.

Thoughts?

Raven

Comment by Kleonaptra

March 28th 2008 10:23

JARRAH,
wether you come back or read this or not, I just said on one of Ravens posts our family bible, handed down through generations, says "thou shalt not kill" and thats it. Not murder or anything that could be interpreted - it just says,

"THOU SHALT NOT KILL"

Raven,
Part of me hurts at your words ("have we really come to this") because I see your point there. But really, we've come to much worse. Isnt that supposed to mean in the universal balance there a great thing as well?

Biologically, I'd suggest that women are a bit hard wired on a primal level to bear children, but that damnable primal hard wiring has run its course. That particular primal imperative isn't necessary to sustain the population level(s) any longer.

I loved every word of this. Perhaps, its even instinctual, or environmental, the urge to curb our spawning. Men just couldnt - different hard wiring for sure!

Its funny, Kman and I were having this gender role chat today (oboy Im about to cop it, big deep breath!) because Im against feminisim. There I said it. Id happily give up my right to vote so I didnt have to work. Im not lazy - I just hate leaving my nest. Ask any stay home mum and she'll tell you its work. But theres a big social culture that is taking the mans role away, and I believe thats a very bad thing.
Naughty Raven. You asked for my thoughts and now we are WAY off topic!

Ruby,

obnoxiously ignoring the contribution the woman's body makes to the whole process. Not her body? Not her womb? Not her blood? Does a woman have a right to control of her body, or is she merely a vessel?

WOW And thanks for that...Most people think Im so callous but really I believe this is the heart of the debate and the reason why the two sides cant hear each others arguments.

I have stayed right away from the bible's side of it because(as is supremely evident lately) you can prove anything you bloody want if you look hard enough....And forget the rest of the book.

Comment by Jarrah

March 28th 2008 14:03

I appreciate you accept it says murder Rubes (can I call you Rubes? LOL)

I suggest you need a better translation if yours says kills.
You may not think so, but translations are extremely important. I have seen many errors on this debate already, but we'll just leave it.

I won't deny anyone that says there is lots of killing in the O.T, man they be hard and horrible times no doubt, it was certainly a wrathful God.
I also won't deny the lack of direct information in the bible actually, however...

Comment by RubySoho

March 29th 2008 00:22

Raven,

I left comments on Ahmed's blog that are similar to your statements. I think humans have evolved emotionally to the point where we want more than just to pro-create and yet, there is still cultural pressure on women to drop everything if they get pregnant.

Religion holds us back with its insistence that sex is only for having babies. Thus even today, women who have sex for pleasure get called all manner of names. No abortion debate is complete without the obligatory "hoes should just keep their legs closed if they don't wanna get pregnant. It's not the babies fault its mother is a slut!".

Comment by RubySoho

March 29th 2008 00:25

Jarrah,

You can call me Rubes.

Yes, I know interpretations are important. The further we get away from the times the Bile was written in, the harder it is going to be for us to decipher it. The Bible was not meant for us Jarrah. It was meant for the ancient Jews.

Anyway, I am intrigued by your however...

Comment by tlcorbin

March 29th 2008 01:56

Ruby, may I suggest that religion is a cover, a part of a bait and switch ploy. This matter is more of a biological and social issue than it is about any moral, spiritual or religious concern; a topic that most people can't discuss without contention.

It's more of a matter of historical male dominated control and women fearful of loosing their elevated role in modern society. Woman are groomed from birth to be attractive and sexy, and have a very real primordial biological mandate to procreate, e.g., they attach emotionally at very early ages, and mature quicker than men. Often wanting to engage in a full relationship years sooner than guys. My daughter married and had two kids by 16 years of age.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what develops.

Raven

Comment by RubySoho

March 29th 2008 15:21

Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips

I'm against feminisim. There I said it. I'd happily give up my right to vote so I didn't have to work.

Oh Kleo, say it ain't so!!!!!

Comment by Louie

March 30th 2008 23:11

well there you have it.......

Comment by Kleonaptra

March 30th 2008 23:36

Ruby,
Sadly yes, it is so. Mostly because I believe feminisim has gotten out of control - it used to be about equal rights but now it seems to be about getting rid of men, getting back at men, or turning them into women!

And it really, really, burns me up when I meet a feminist who says, "women are just as strong as men too!" To that I say..."Oh, honey. Have you ever had to defend yourself against one?"

Comment by RubySoho

March 31st 2008 00:00

I think maybe it's small percentage of women who are that militant perhaps? .

But yeah, I see your point. I think, that as a woman I am equal in worth to a man, I don't want to be like a man and I certainly do not want to get rid off them...I think sometimes the pendulum just swings too far in the other direction and we need to find a middle ground.

I just fear women are forgetting the fight that the suffragettes put up in order to get women recognised as people who deserved a say in how their lives were governed.

They dedicated their lives so that we could take voting for granted.

Let's not throw that away.

Comment by Kleonaptra

March 31st 2008 00:09