(no subject)

[semiotic_pirate]

The following is a post phanatic made a while ago. I found it quite interesting and wonder if more people know about this little tidbit. Kinda blows a wide and gaping hole in the christian-anti-abortion group doesn't it? Notice I call them anti-abortion, not pro-life, because if they were pro-life they wouldn't be trying to kill (or encouraging the deaths) of people who are pro-abortion. After all, if all life is sacred you wouldn't want to be killing anyone. Another point is this; if they are all fired up about saving "the innocent" but they are Christian... what happened to their belief in Original Sin? No one except Mary, mother of Jesus, was born without it. Supposedly. Well, it always seems that, if you make an argument claiming that the Bible backs up your opinion someone else is bound to find a counter argument within the Bible as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The pro-life crowd, or at least the Christian subset of the pro-life crowd, tends to argue its case from a Biblical perspective, as one would expect. Generally, it's claimed that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder.

But there's a Biblical passage that seems to call that assertion into question, and in a big way: Exodus 21:22-25.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

To sum up, if you beat a pregnant woman and she miscarries, it's a civil matter, punishable merely by a monetary fine. If you hurt the woman, then it's a criminal matter and you can be physically punished. If you murder the woman in the process, you yourself are to be put to death.

Kill the woman, you die. Simply kill the fetus, you're out some cash.

Isn't this a pretty substantial point of evidence that abortion and murder are not morally equivalent?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? Comments? Discussion?

Comments

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

Isn't this a pretty substantial point of evidence that abortion and murder are not morally equivalent?
:heavy sigh:
Yes and no. Yes, it's a substantial piece of evidence if you accept that the bible is the inspired etcetera- it's a quote from the bible saying "Oh btw fetus does not equal adult".
But using it in a serious debate, is like, lowering the debate to a completely crap level. It's accepting that we have to base our modern-day ethics on the opinions of bronze-age shepherds, that we have to take their opinions seriously.

And we don't weight Greek philosophers like that. Nor renaissance, or the Germans, or modern scholars like that. Nobody (except philosophy majors) seriously goes poring through the works of Hegel comparing obscure or contradictory lines, in order to try and prove this or that point in real life. It's baloney, everyone knows this intuitively.

Yet for some reason we accept arguing on the biblical terms. We're used to it. It gets thrown at us so often that we fight just like that, and then our debate, to any rational outsider, looks retarded (and is unconvincing).

So to me, there are two debates to be had, here. One is over abortion, and the other is over whether I should give a damn about what the bible says. And really, when I quote the bible to show that their views are wrong, that alone is not sufficient to shake their views- it's just enough to shake, at least until they get back to church on Sunday, the view that the bible has any damn place here.

So to me, it's not a substantial point of evidence either way regarding abortion itself, rather, it's a substantial point of evidence that the other person should shut it about the bible since it doesn't even support them, and start arguing on actual real life facts. Which is precisely how I would word it in debate.

And then we could have an argument about abortion.

[verrucaria.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess the point is that Christians follow don't even follow their own holy book (surprise, surprise!), which you can point out w/o actually subscribing to that book.

But it is all about the translation you happen to read. It's like like that "virgin"/"maiden"/"young woman" debacle (except all modern Christian Bibles say "virgin."

on the other hand...

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

wrt using the biblical basis argument.
It is a strong rhetorical technique to examine the basis that the other party claims for their argument. IIRC, this is the only significant passage in the bible that speaks to the relative importance of the mother vs the fetus. If in fact, those who argue that abortion is wrong base their argument in the main on this bit of scripture, and they can be shown to be misinterpreting the passage, it undercuts their argument. At which point, you can redirect the argument to the basis that you prefer.

That said, I'm uncertain whether the injury proscribed is to the fetus or to the woman. It would be instructive to look at the Talmud and see what is said there.

Re: on the other hand...

[puf-almighty.livejournal.com]

It is a strong rhetorical technique to examine the basis that the other party claims for their argument.
Yeah that's what I'm saying. It's a terribly weak real-life argument for abortion, because it's, you know, just a bible quote. But it's a reasonably strong argument that people should shut up using the bible to argue with.

Re: on the other hand...

[bigbrotherinlaw.livejournal.com]

I think you missed my intent. It would be a weak argument in trying to convince you. However, when arguing with someone who first claims to be arguing _against_ abortion based (at least in part) on this passage from the bible, it would always be a strong technique to address the basis of their argument.

For example I say:

Because A, then B.

It is always a strong argument to say: Well, I'm not so sure about that, but even if I were to agree with the structure of your argument I am sure that A isn't necessarily so. So get back to me when you can prove A. in the meatime, what about C, D and E, where Because C then NOT B, and
Because D then Not B, and
Because E then not B.