tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114280402687355719..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Illogic of "Pro-Choice"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142982506032887482006-03-21T18:08:00.000-05:002006-03-21T18:08:00.000-05:00And this is what your preferred flavor of the Bibl...And this is what your preferred flavor of the Bible says:<BR/><BR/>"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life"<BR/><BR/>"1. The text specifically says that though the child came out, there was no harm."<BR/><BR/>Indeed, but no harm to whom? To the child? To the mother? It doesn't say.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"It's amazing how simply reading the passage in its context refutes Anonymous's argument. If the child is not harmed, then the person who caused the early birth should be fined according to the amount the Judge or husband determines. However, if the child dies, the one who caused it was to be killed. This absolutely supports pro-life principles."<BR/><BR/>Really? It's amazing that you can be so confident about your interpretation.<BR/><BR/>"3. The Bible elsewhere makes clear that life begins at conception. So was anonymous arguing that the Bible contradicts itself?"<BR/><BR/>This argument doesn't make much sense. Just because the Bible argues elsewhere that life begins at conception (something people couldn't even know at the time, given their state of medical knowledge), it couldn't be that kicking a fetus out of a woman was fined instead of punnished by death? It must be my illogical nature again. You assume from the start that the bible cannot contradict itself, begging the question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142981569581770272006-03-21T17:52:00.000-05:002006-03-21T17:52:00.000-05:00According to the King James version"If men strive,...According to the King James version<BR/><BR/>"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"<BR/>-Exodus 21:22-23<BR/><BR/>You can call that an ambiguous translation, but “fruit” is not an uncommon term for fetus (at least not in my native language, where fruit and fetus are synonyms). It therefore does not appear to be unreasonable to interpret fruit as fetus. Moreover, if you beat up a random pregnant woman, it seems more likely that a fruit departing her is a dead fetus rather than a live baby, since only during the very last stages of pregnancy is there any reasonable chance that whatever comes out is a live baby.<BR/><BR/>Are you sure that your decision to decide whether something is an “ambiguous” translation is not affected by your preconceived notions? Besides, who knows what the original text said?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142901344742195842006-03-20T19:35:00.000-05:002006-03-20T19:35:00.000-05:00Sorry Ido, no free lunches.You never *argued* for ...Sorry Ido, no free lunches.<BR/><BR/>You never *argued* for why the term "and her fruit departs" means "the baby dies through miscarriage." You know, you actually have to support premesis sometimes.<BR/><BR/>I gave an inductive argument, based on egegesis. What have you given?<BR/><BR/>Also, who cares what term is used? I do. I actually care if proper terms are used. I guess you refer to a Lexus as a tricicle?<BR/><BR/>ANd, if it almost "certainly" means "miscarriage" then it should be easy for you to go to the text and show it, right?<BR/><BR/>So, prove from the text that death happened top the child.<BR/><BR/>If nothing about the word yasa implies death, then how do you give it that meaning? By your "gut feeling?" Because you like where the conclusion goes? Well, that's not reasoning, ido.<BR/><BR/>So, are we going to argue by "seems to me" or are we going to present an actual argument? I'll be waiting for more illogic.<BR/><BR/>~PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142901297767090222006-03-20T19:34:00.000-05:002006-03-20T19:34:00.000-05:00I see that ido, having failed to present his own a...I see that ido, having failed to present his own arguments in a coherent manner, has chosen to defend Anonymous' statements:<BR/><BR/>1. Anonymous uses the ambiguous King James Translation here. Here is what the ESV says:<BR/><BR/><I>"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life"</I><BR/><BR/>1. The text specifically says that though the child came out, <I>there was no harm</I>.<BR/><BR/>2. The text states that <I>if</I> there was harm, then “you shall pay life for life."<BR/><BR/>It's amazing how simply reading the passage in its context refutes Anonymous's argument. If the child is not harmed, then the person who caused the early birth should be fined according to the amount the Judge or husband determines. However, if the child dies, the one who caused it was to be killed. This absolutely supports pro-life principles.<BR/><BR/>3. The Bible elsewhere makes clear that life begins at conception. So was anonymous arguing that the Bible contradicts itself? Notice how a discussion on whether or not the humanist is logically consistent when it comes to the matter of abortion got transformed into an attack on the Christian worldview.<BR/><BR/>4. <I>Even if the Bible stated otherwise</I> (which we have shown that it absolutely does not), what does this have to do with the illogic that was shown on the part of the humanist position?Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142891908261318602006-03-20T16:58:00.000-05:002006-03-20T16:58:00.000-05:00But Mr. Anonymous makes a very good point indeed. ...But Mr. Anonymous makes a very good point indeed. I would agree that “so that her fruit depart from her” almost certainly means that the woman has a miscarriage. She loses her fetus and the fetus dies. So what if Hebrew has a specific word for miscarriage? The English language also has specific technical words for that, but there are many ways to describe the same thing in more colorful language. If it doesn’t mean miscarriage, what does it mean? She dropped her apple into a deep well?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, Mr. Anonymous is not inconsistent if he does not lobby for fines. He never said that the bible should be a basis of law. This is what you say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142886554374241092006-03-20T15:29:00.000-05:002006-03-20T15:29:00.000-05:00Mr. Anonymouse,Before I respond, maybe you can ans...Mr. Anonymouse,<BR/><BR/>Before I respond, maybe you can answer three little questions:<BR/><BR/>1) Why presume the child is dead? The English word, 'miscarriage,' does imply death, but the Hebrew word, 'Yasa,' (the word translated, 'miscarriage') does not. Indeed, the vast majority of the time this word is used it is used for bringing forth <I>life</I>. <BR/><BR/>2) What in the context itself implies the death of the child? I can see nothing that would, maybe you can enlighted little ole me, though.<BR/><BR/>3) Ancient Hebrew has a specific words for 'miscarriage' - nepel and sakal- that is always used for our English understanding of 'miscarriage.' Why were those words not used?<BR/><BR/>After you answer those questions, I'll show you why this verse actually proves our point. The Bible requires death if either the mother or child are killed.<BR/><BR/>Oh, btw, imposing a fine would not imply sub-humaness. The death of a slave in v 32 imposes a fine, and we know that the slaves were people God created, thus humans. SO, the fine does not even prove that the child is not human. <BR/><BR/>Oh, one more thing, if you're gonna be consistent, are you going to start lobbying for fines to be given to doctors (and mothers) who abort their child? <BR/><BR/>~PaulErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142883641245614492006-03-20T14:40:00.000-05:002006-03-20T14:40:00.000-05:00"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so th..."If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life"<BR/>-Exodus 21:22-23<BR/><BR/>The punishment for murder, of course, was not a fine, it was death. Therefore abortion is not murder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142819542272274512006-03-19T20:52:00.000-05:002006-03-19T20:52:00.000-05:00Paul--great post. The definition of human is cent...Paul--great post. The definition of human is central to the debate, whether they want to admit it or not, if they are truly wishing to debate (which it is likely the are not). And to take it a step further, what does "survival" mean? Even a toddler, a disabled person, or quite elderly person cannot "survive" if it means living independent of anyone else. If this is the definition, then it leads to killing of more human beings out of inconvenience. (loved the inclusion of the penal code and discussion on the law)<BR/><BR/>Evan--thanks for talking of the distinction between the written civil law and the law of God (which is just). I commented on this during the first discussion on homosexual adoption; in that discussion, I stated that no-fault divorce had been widely made allowable by law, but such permissive divorce (aside from that which Christ spoke of in the NT) was certainly against God's law. <BR/><BR/>And I'll object to the his comment of "changing the law" since it was in my opinion our courts who "changed" the law by making new law instead of interpreting like Article III of the Constitution requires.Dan B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10018881780363017344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142817205613361272006-03-19T20:13:00.000-05:002006-03-19T20:13:00.000-05:00ido:As you say, the death penalty is not murder be...ido:<BR/><BR/><I>As you say, the death penalty is not murder because it is lawful killing of a human being. In the same spirit, abortion is not murder because it is lawful killing. No need to specify whether or not a fetus is a human being for this logic.</I><BR/><BR/>Paul's use of the term "lawful" was not "according the law" but as "just." If murder was merely defined as "according to the law," then if the law states that the killing of black people (just to use a random example) isn't murder, then in that sense, it isn't murder.<BR/><BR/>Rather, justice is "giving every <I>man</I> (i.e., 'human being') his due." How does abortion give the unborn humans their due? You see, the debate <I>does</I> center on the definition of human life, for the only way for you to escape the injustice of abortion is to redefine human life, so that justice no longer applies.<BR/><BR/>Your comparison of abortion to the death penalty is simply ridiculous, and shows the twisting and turning you must do to defend this injustice. Capital punishment is about punishing <I>criminals</I>, specifically those who have murdered another human. Abortion, however, is about killing the <I>innocent</I>, which is, <I>murder</I>. You see, "lawfulness" really has nothing to do with "what the written law states." Rather, "lawfulness" has to do with the <I>justice</I> that centers on innocence and guilt. Those killed by capital punishment are guilty. The unborn are innocent.<BR/><BR/><I>I understand that you want abortion to be murder, but that requires a change of the law.</I><BR/><BR/>Abortion is murder regardless of what the written "law" states. Killing innocent black people (again, just to use a random example) is murder regardless of what the written "law" states. This "lawfulness" is a matter of <I>justice</I>, and justice is about giving every <I>human</I> his due. Therefore, the debate goes back to what is a <I>human</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>Should the potential mother be prosecuted for murder (and possible face the death penalty for first degree murder)? Should the potential father or anybody else aware of the intended murder be prosecuted for being accomplices to murder?</I><BR/><BR/>This is really irrelevant. Of course, the instituted governments aren't going to prosecute <I>contrary</I> to what their written law states. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the written law is just.Evan Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287475721156396697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1142809895717433922006-03-19T18:11:00.000-05:002006-03-19T18:11:00.000-05:00As you say, the death penalty is not murder becaus...As you say, the death penalty is not murder because it is lawful killing of a human being. In the same spirit, abortion is not murder because it is lawful killing. No need to specify whether or not a fetus is a human being for this logic. I understand that you want abortion to be murder, but that requires a change of the law. I wonder how far you are willing to take this. Should the potential mother be prosecuted for murder (and possible face the death penalty for first degree murder)? Should the potential father or anybody else aware of the intended murder be prosecuted for being accomplices to murder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com