Biblical Evidence that Abortion is Allowed

At 5/7/2012 9:36:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Kudos to Drafterman for finding this. It describes the Trial of Bitter Water.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 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"— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —"may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

Numbers 5:19-22

At 5/7/2012 9:45:44 AM, cheesedingo1 wrote:

At 5/7/2012 9:36:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Kudos to Drafterman for finding this. It describes the Trial of Bitter Water.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 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"— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —"may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

Numbers 5:19-22

this isn't abortion. It's talking about miscarraiges.

At 5/7/2012 9:45:44 AM, cheesedingo1 wrote:

At 5/7/2012 9:36:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Kudos to Drafterman for finding this. It describes the Trial of Bitter Water.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 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"— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —"may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

Numbers 5:19-22

this isn't abortion. It's talking about miscarraiges.

At 5/7/2012 10:26:18 AM, Koopin wrote:
Don't have time to argue this now, (I know if I post a responce someone will wanna say why I'm wrong.) But this is an old arguement. I had an APOL class and this was one of the subjects we covered.

But if you really are interested in learning just type the verse in on google with the word "abortion."

At 5/7/2012 12:13:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
You don't understand the passages at all. Pregnancy is not mentioned, and the whole process mentioned is about determining the loyalty of your wife.

At 5/7/2012 12:15:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:13:21 PM, Mirza wrote:
You don't understand the passages at all. Pregnancy is not mentioned, and the whole process mentioned is about determining the loyalty of your wife.

Apparently you were not taught how to read. The passage explicitly discusses causing a miscarriage. I linked to source that discusses the trial. It is only performed on pregnant women.

At 5/7/2012 12:26:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
For some reason I forgot that discussing with you means you receive nonsensical ad hominems. Nonetheless, I know very well how to read, AND interpret things. Perhaps you should read some commentaries on the verses. They have nothing (zero, null) to do with abortion, or the acceptance thereof. Nothing.

At 5/7/2012 12:29:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Please read about Sotah (the Ordeal of Bitter Water). The function of the Ordeal is to induce a miscarriage. Inducing a miscarriage is called abortion. I don't care about the excuses that some preacher said to twist the passage. I do care about what the passage actually says and how the passage was historically implemented.

At 5/7/2012 12:38:04 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:29:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Please read about Sotah (the Ordeal of Bitter Water). The function of the Ordeal is to induce a miscarriage. Inducing a miscarriage is called abortion. I don't care about the excuses that some preacher said to twist the passage. I do care about what the passage actually says and how the passage was historically implemented.

It is about determining whether or not a wife was unfaithful. The passage probably indicates that a miscarriage could result from the cursed water, but that has nothing to do with the wife already being pregnant, or inducing a miscarriage in the first place. Get it Ma'am?

At 5/7/2012 9:36:39 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Kudos to Drafterman for finding this. It describes the Trial of Bitter Water.

Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 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"— here the priest is to put the woman under this curse —"may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

Numbers 5:19-22

At 5/7/2012 12:38:04 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:29:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Please read about Sotah (the Ordeal of Bitter Water). The function of the Ordeal is to induce a miscarriage. Inducing a miscarriage is called abortion. I don't care about the excuses that some preacher said to twist the passage. I do care about what the passage actually says and how the passage was historically implemented.

It is about determining whether or not a wife was unfaithful. The passage probably indicates that a miscarriage could result from the cursed water, but that has nothing to do with the wife already being pregnant, or inducing a miscarriage in the first place. Get it Ma'am?

At 5/7/2012 12:41:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
Ok. So if you accept this, then what's the problem? Whether an abortion is the primary goal or a secondary consequence seems irrelevant regarding the issue of the fact that this ritual is not just condoned, but commanded.

At 5/7/2012 12:41:13 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:38:04 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:29:47 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Please read about Sotah (the Ordeal of Bitter Water). The function of the Ordeal is to induce a miscarriage. Inducing a miscarriage is called abortion. I don't care about the excuses that some preacher said to twist the passage. I do care about what the passage actually says and how the passage was historically implemented.

It is about determining whether or not a wife was unfaithful. The passage probably indicates that a miscarriage could result from the cursed water, but that has nothing to do with the wife already being pregnant, or inducing a miscarriage in the first place. Get it Ma'am?

Ok. So if you accept this, then what's the problem? Whether an abortion is the primary goal or a secondary consequence seems irrelevant regarding the issue of the fact that this ritual is not just condoned, but commanded.

At 5/7/2012 12:46:34 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:41:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
Ok. So if you accept this, then what's the problem? Whether an abortion is the primary goal or a secondary consequence seems irrelevant regarding the issue of the fact that this ritual is not just condoned, but commanded.

That's fundamentally different from saying that the verses permit abortion per se. They don't, and the Biblical books never suggest anything similar. What these verses suggest is that a woman who makes her husband jealous and, thus appears unfaithful, should submit to a trial, which is to drink this contaminated water. This would reveal her loyalty. However, miscarriage might result due to poison, but again, this is a side-effect and in no way a command for direct abortion anytime.

At 5/7/2012 12:45:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I understand what the purpose of the trial was. That does not negate the fact that inducing the miscarriage was an important part of the trial

and was considered not only permissible,

but was also commanded by God.

The fact of the matter is that God explicitly stated that it was permissible to use abortion against children who were created out of wedlock.

In fact, whether or not the abortion occurred determined whether or not she was innocent or guilty.

Do you get it?

At 5/7/2012 12:47:57 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:46:34 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:41:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
Ok. So if you accept this, then what's the problem? Whether an abortion is the primary goal or a secondary consequence seems irrelevant regarding the issue of the fact that this ritual is not just condoned, but commanded.

That's fundamentally different from saying that the verses permit abortion per se. They don't, and the Biblical books never suggest anything similar. What these verses suggest is that a woman who makes her husband jealous and, thus appears unfaithful, should submit to a trial, which is to drink this contaminated water. This would reveal her loyalty. However, miscarriage might result due to poison, but again, this is a side-effect and in no way a command for direct abortion anytime.

It's not a side effect.

The means through which her guilt is tested is through whether or not the abortion occurs.

At 5/7/2012 12:46:34 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:41:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
Ok. So if you accept this, then what's the problem? Whether an abortion is the primary goal or a secondary consequence seems irrelevant regarding the issue of the fact that this ritual is not just condoned, but commanded.

That's fundamentally different from saying that the verses permit abortion per se. They don't, and the Biblical books never suggest anything similar. What these verses suggest is that a woman who makes her husband jealous and, thus appears unfaithful, should submit to a trial, which is to drink this contaminated water. This would reveal her loyalty. However, miscarriage might result due to poison, but again, this is a side-effect and in no way a command for direct abortion anytime.

At 5/7/2012 12:48:51 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:45:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I understand what the purpose of the trial was. That does not negate the fact that inducing the miscarriage was an important part of the trial

It wasn't, thank you very much.

and was considered not only permissible,

No.

but was also commanded by God.

Nope.

The fact of the matter is that God explicitly stated that it was permissible to use abortion against children who were created out of wedlock.

Doesn't say that. Give the specific quote.

In fact, whether or not the abortion occurred determined whether or not she was innocent or guilty.

Not true.

Do you get it?

Yep. Try again Ma'am.

At 5/7/2012 1:00:27 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
This is actually in the Bible it's in the OT. However in the OT God, clearly sets out punishments for the wicked so they have a law which his people can abide by until the Mercy of Jesus enters the world. However in this text abortion is not stated, the priest says "If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou be not defiled by forsaking thy husband's bed, these bitter water,s on which I have heaped cures, shall not hut thee". It is quite evident the adultry most have take place in order for the waters to harm.

At 5/7/2012 12:56:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
"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 may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

If she is guilty, the curse is to abort the infant.

Therefore, innocence and guilt was determined by whether or not the child was aborted.

Lies. The very beginning of the passage deals with the Lord telling Moses to lay down this law.

Since he wanted children born out of wedlock to be aborted, the abortion was permissible.

Read the quotes instead of sticking to your nonsense.

At 5/7/2012 1:00:27 PM, SeanMichael wrote:
This is actually in the Bible it's in the OT. However in the OT God, clearly sets out punishments for the wicked so they have a law which his people can abide by until the Mercy of Jesus enters the world. However in this text abortion is not stated, the priest says "If another man hath not slept with thee, and if thou be not defiled by forsaking thy husband's bed, these bitter water,s on which I have heaped cures, shall not hut thee". It is quite evident the adultry most have take place in order for the waters to harm.

At 5/7/2012 1:01:33 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Please read the rest of the passage. It clearly states that the mechanism for determining her guilt is if the child is aborted.

At 5/7/2012 1:05:29 PM, Mirza wrote:

At 5/7/2012 12:56:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
"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 may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries."

If she is guilty, the curse is to abort the infant.

Therefore, innocence and guilt was determined by whether or not the child was aborted.

The curse mentions both swelling, and a possible miscarriage. This, again, doesn't refer to abortion being permissible.

Even if abortion were a necessary effect of this trial, then it is only in such a trial, which means that abortion per se is not allowed, and is only accepted as a lesser evil (or side-effect).

Lies. The very beginning of the passage deals with the Lord telling Moses to lay down this law.

That's not where we disagree. We disagree about what the law says in the first place. Understand?

Since he wanted children born out of wedlock to be aborted, the abortion was permissible.

Quote Ma'am. I said quote.

Read the quotes instead of sticking to your nonsense.

I did, nothing suggests abortion is permissible. It could be a side-effect of a necessary trial, but that's it.