Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sabalseed · 02-13-2006, 05:19 PM

I knowits not part of the modern bible,but some of its info is very similar.Id think modern fundies could care less what it says about abortion since it isnt the bible so for them would be meaningless.

Tigers! · 02-13-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The idea that life begins at conception only developed in the nineteenth century, as a collusion between the Pope and the Emperor Napoleon, who needed more canon fodder to be born.

I would have thought that Ps 139:13-16 is just a wee bit older than the 19th Century.

Llyricist · 02-13-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewjmore

From your response, I'll deduce that you would not stretch your interpretation to square with mine: my 'insight' is that the quoted passage clearly differentiates between harm caused to the unborn, and harm caused to the mother-- in favor of the mother.

Actually, my response was intended to convey the fact that I did not understand what you were saying, or how it connected to the Bible verse or my comments about it.

I don't disagree with what you say here, in fact, that was what I was saying. What I didn't understand was what you said before.

Toto · 02-13-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

The idea that life begins at conception only developed in the nineteenth century, as a collusion between the Pope and the Emperor Napoleon, who needed more canon fodder to be born.

I would have thought that Ps 139:13-16 is just a wee bit older than the 19th Century.

Psalms 139:13-16 talks about a person being made in the mother's womb, but no one interpreted that verse as saying that an embryo has the legal rights of a fully formed post-born child.

Toto · 02-13-2006, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabalseed

I know its not part of the modern bible, but some of its info is very similar. I'd think modern fundies could care less what it says about abortion since it isn't the bible so for them would be meaningless.

The Didache is not part of the Bible but is a reflection of early Christian thinking and practices. "Bible believing" or sola scriptura-based Christians cannot claim that it is inerrant, and have no scriptural basis for opposing abortion. But other Christians who accept church tradition as part of their belief system might rely on this.

Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark thinks that the prohibitions against abortion and infanticide were a large part of the reasons that Christians eventually prospered in the Roman Empire, so this was a useful practice for the early church. Abortions were dangerous procedures that often led to the death of the woman (although childbirth also often led to death in those days.) So this was a practical rule as much as a moral one.

drewjmore · 02-14-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

I don't disagree with what you say here, in fact, that was what I was saying. What I didn't understand was what you said before.

Then I apologies profusely for the opaque language that my diseased mind produces.

re: the didache. First, how have I never read that before? Second, I would expect any 'true' christians, especially of the fundamentalist persuasion, who read that to cling to it quite fiercely: it confirms their own notions and has the stamp of apostolic 'doctrine.'

drewjmore · 02-14-2006, 07:00 AM

from J.Louis Guthrie:

Quote:

CHAPTER II

1 Now the second charge of teaching (is): Thou will not kill. Thou will not be an adulterer. Thou will not corrupt youth. Thou will not be a fornicator. 2. Thou will not steal. Thou will not destroy a born child in wickedness, nor slay it when it is begotten. 3. Thou will not set thy desires on the things of thy neighbor (near one). 4. Thou will not be a false witness. Thou will not slander. Thou will not remember evil things. 5. You must not be double minded, nor double tongued, for the double tongue is the trap of death. 6. The statement you make will not be false, and not empty, but full of practice. 7. You must not be greedy of gain, nor grasping, nor hypocritical, nor oppressive, nor haughty. 8. You must not take up an evil plan against your neighbor (near one). 9. You will not hate any man, but you will convict (reprove some). 10. You will pray in behalf of some, and some you will respect (love) more than your soul.

I wish I could read greek, since the words in my italics in the above translation are elsewhere rendered with the modern, loaded medical term 'abortion.' Further the context in the above translation makes reference to children born in wickedness which the OT would have one kill; not to children generally. This version reads as a reprieve for the previously doomed fetuses of improper couplings. Using it as a condemnation of modern 'abortion as birth control' seems to overstep the original intent.

Julian · 02-14-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewjmore

I wish I could read greek, since the words in my italics in the above translation are elsewhere rendered with the modern, loaded medical term 'abortion.' Further the context in the above translation makes reference to children born in wickedness which the OT would have one kill; not to children generally. This version reads as a reprieve for the previously doomed fetuses of improper couplings. Using it as a condemnation of modern 'abortion as birth control' seems to overstep the original intent.

The translation that you highlighted above is essentially correct. The Greek reads ουδε γεννηθεν αποκτενεις which I translate the same way although in less flowery language.

Julian

Reena · 02-14-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicken Girl

I assume you mean morally different, because an early first trimester embryo and a full-term baby are VERY different.

Obviously one is far more developed than the other, but as far as I know neither is a self-aware, thinking being, and both are in the process of growing to become a self-aware being.

The only way for me to justify abortion would be to say that to be human is to be self-aware, to be conscious, but this type of logic would mean that killing newborns is okay too because they aren't self aware or conscious.

Toto · 02-14-2006, 02:33 PM

A newborn has the brain connections to be conscious. He or she can feel pain, hunger, etc. It what way is the baby not self-aware, in a way that an embryo with no neural connections in its brain cannot be?

02-13-2006, 05:19 PM	#21
sabalseed Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: elberta alabama Posts: 153	how does this diadache relate to the bible? I knowits not part of the modern bible,but some of its info is very similar.Id think modern fundies could care less what it says about abortion since it isnt the bible so for them would be meaningless.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2006, 02:33 PM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A newborn has the brain connections to be conscious. He or she can feel pain, hunger, etc. It what way is the baby not self-aware, in a way that an embryo with no neural connections in its brain cannot be?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.