Can you make a BIBLICAL argument for and against abortion?

[K9Buck]

Please don't troll. Thanks in advance.

 

[Pogo]

How would one make an argument "for abortion"? Nobody is "for abortion". It appears the question itself displays an ignorance of the entire topic.

Is there another passage in the bashing babies' heads against the rocks bit that I don't know about?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

#6 in the Talmud: "You shall not murder."

 

[BULLDOG]

God was the first RU486

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

 

[K9Buck]

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

Hosea is not a part of the traditional bible.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Life is from God.

Religion is from man.

 

[Pogo]

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

Hosea is not a part of the traditional bible.

Excellent --- the "No True Bible" fallacy.

 

[K9Buck]

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

Thank you.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell

 

[K9Buck]

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

Hosea is not a part of the traditional bible.

Excellent --- the "No True Bible" fallacy.

Whether or not Hosea should be a part of the bible is not the topic of this thread. You are trolling, in spite of my polite request that you NOT do so.

 

[Pogo]

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

Hosea is not a part of the traditional bible.

Excellent --- the "No True Bible" fallacy.

Whether or not Hosea should be a part of the bible is not the topic of this thread. You are trolling, in spite of my polite request that you NOT do so.

Dude, your title just says "biblical". Now you wanna whine because you get answers.

That's a fallacy, and I just pointed it out. DEAL with it.

Wiki: >> The Book of Hosea is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. According to the traditional order of most Hebrew Bibles, it is the first of the twelve Minor Prophets.

 

[K9Buck]

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

Hosea is not a part of the traditional bible.

Excellent --- the "No True Bible" fallacy.

Whether or not Hosea should be a part of the bible is not the topic of this thread. You are trolling, in spite of my polite request that you NOT do so.

Dude, your title just says "biblical". Now you wanna whine because you get answers.

That's a fallacy, and I just pointed it out. DEAL with it.

The book of Hosea is NOT a part of the recognized bible, therefore, its teachings are not germane to this discussion.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The recognized bibles are, for the larger part, bastardized translations of the original Greek. Six linguistics separated, I believe.

The KJV is kind of okay but even that has a lot of mistranslations. Its the closest you're gonna get.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The recognized bibles are, for the larger part, bastardized translations of the original Greek. Six linguistics separated, I believe.

The KJV is kind of okay but even that has a lot of mistranslations.

KJV is okay, and pretty.

Darby is closer to original texts, but the differences are mostly inconsequential.

 

[tyroneweaver]

God was the first RU486

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

Didn't work in my case
I went full term after the adultery and was adopted out

 

[tyroneweaver]

Life is from God.

Religion is from man.

That's not what ny bible sez

 

[K9Buck]

God was the first RU486

Hosea 9:14
Give them, LORD-- what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.

The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

Didn't work in my case
I went full term after the adultery and was adopted out

Wow. God bless you.

 

[BULLDOG]

A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

 

[Natural Citizen]

A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

In America, the unborn have legal inheritance rights. If mom and dad die in a car accident and the unborn survives, the unborn has protected rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

In America, the unborn have legal inheritance rights. If mom and dad die in a car accident and the unborn survives, the unborn has protected rights.

Not the same. Exodus isn't talking about inheritance. It's talking about compensation for a loss.

When a man and woman are caught in adultery, the old testament required them both to be put to death. Obviously any pregnancy would also be ended. Not much discussion of right to life in that situation.

Not much discussion of right to life when god ordered the the wombs of pregnant women ripped apart either. I wonder why.

 

[night_son]

Please don't troll. Thanks in advance.

No. Fool. However, I and tens of millions of others like me can make a human argument against it. Wanna hear it? That argument? It's ******* evil to murder the most innocent stage of human life. Do it enough, and there's no more humans. Duh. There's no debate. No justification. Period. But you already knew that, didn't ya?