OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 11:29:04 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Abortion / Rape  (Read 2625 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: March 05, 2012, 11:49:13 PM »

Recently I was engaged an argument with a fellow over aborting a child because the woman was subject to rape. I thought I made a pretty convincing argument on why still aborting the child was wrong, but he wasn't convinced enough to accept I was right.

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God? Or is it impossible? I'm having trouble fleishing out a pro-life argument without using God, and I know alot of members on this site have alot more knowledge about abortion than I do.

In regards to rape, am I correct in saying that aborting a child because of rape is wrong, based on the merits that the child did not choose how to be conceived? Or is this a much more complicated issue that goes into gray area?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2012, 11:54:04 PM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,388


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2012, 11:56:38 PM »

I'm having trouble fleishing out a pro-life argument without using God....
There's always "you reap what you sow".
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2012, 01:55:44 AM »

Some women who are raped and become pregnant (though this is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen, women rarely become pregnant from rape) do have the child.  Imagine such a woman has the child, and it is a boy, and grows up.  Imagine it looks like her attacker.  Does she have a right to kill her teenage son because he reminds her of her attacker?  That is what this really amounts to: the claim that because a woman may suffer psychological harm because of her attacker, she has a right to kill her attacker's child.  Does that sound, in any way, logical to you?  If a person is already against abortion in some cases, I don't see how they support abortion in the case of rape or incest (nor do I understand why incest should get a special category when it is either consensual incest or rape and should therefore fall either under the category of rape or consensual sex, in terms of a discussion on abortion).  In the United States of America, we do not condemn children for the crimes of their parents.

I don't believe one can really make an argument against abortion without a belief in God.  The most someone could do is say that the father must consent to the abortion, on the grounds that - under the law - he may be compelled to give financial assistance to the child if the woman chose to have it (I really do not understand how the law can require a father to pay child support when he was never married to the mother, but not require the mother to have permission of the father to get an abortion).  Because, without a belief in God, there is no legitimate reason to not kill people who complicate your life and become an obstacle to something you desire.  This is especially so when they are too weak and helpless to do anything about it.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2012, 01:55:44 AM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Why wouldn't you?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2012, 11:26:02 AM »

Abortion in the case of adultery is sanctioned in the Bible, so why not in the case of rape?   
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2012, 01:37:42 PM »

Abortion in the case of adultery is sanctioned in the Bible, so why not in the case of rape?   

Where?
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2012, 01:57:19 PM »

Numbers 5
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2012, 02:18:13 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2012, 02:22:25 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2012, 02:24:47 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?

Are you trying to be funny? It's Great Lent, you know; humor is forbidden.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2012, 02:25:41 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?
In HOTCA you mean?

Are you trying to be funny? It's Great Lent, you know; humor is forbidden.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2012, 02:26:48 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?
In HOTCA you mean?

Are you trying to be funny? It's Great Lent, you know; humor is forbidden.

Sheesh. Now you're putting words in my mouth.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2012, 03:47:28 PM »

There is also a perfectly valid scientific argument against abortion. You just have to start from the premise that murdering a person is wrong (If there is no agreement at this point, walk away). Then the question becomes whether or not abortion is murder--terminating a human life for no good reason, such as self-defense. Abortion here would be defined as terminating a pregnancy by killing the human being inside the mother's womb. It all boils down to definitions at this point. Some people have argued that the fetus is not a human person until it is viable, with viability defined as being able to live on their own after delivery/birth. However, others argue that personhood is not dependent on biological viability but on the possession of human traits, such as reasoning, etc...Indeed, I just read about two ethicists toying with the idea that babies even after being delivered should not be considered human persons until a certain stage in their development (Slippery slope here, as this argument could end up affecting persons with intellectual or emotionally deficits). In any case, the only value-free definition ends up being the biological argument. It is clear that a new biological entity comes into being at the moment of conception (that is when the egg becomes a zygote after insemination). So, it is at this earliest developmental stage of the embryo that what we have is a brand new being. If this new being is terminated willfully than it would be aborting the life of a nascent human being--that is, terminating any possibility that the embryo will develop into a fetus, be born as a baby, grow up as a child and adolescent into adulthood, possibly live a fully human existence, and even produce offspring. So, the termination of a zygote is extinguishing human life at its earliest stage; it is only a matter of timing.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2012, 03:55:23 PM »

Of course, I agree with your position, but I wonder: how can you have a "scientific" argument for or against any moral position? Science tells how things are; it doesn't tell how things ought to be. You can't reason logically from "is" to "ought". Proponents of abortion don't have "science" on their side; they've simply redefined personhood in accordance with newly popular philosophical norms. It's not as if it's news to everyone that barely formed embryos are not really conscious or self-aware. That didn't prevent the Church from treating abortion as murder from the very beginning, and not just "late-term" abortions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2012, 03:57:48 PM »

Of course, I agree with your position, but I wonder: how can you have a "scientific" argument for or against any moral position? Science tells how things are; it doesn't tell how things ought to be. You can't reason logically from "is" to "ought". Proponents of abortion don't have "science" on their side; they've simply redefined personhood in accordance with newly popular philosophical norms. It's not as if it's news to everyone that barely formed embryos are not really conscious or self-aware. That didn't prevent the Church from treating abortion as murder from the very beginning, and not just "late-term" abortions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

This argument does rest on a moral position that murder is wrong. As for the rest, the strength of the argument lies in its claim that is the most value-free argument there is.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2012, 04:11:05 PM »

Of course, I agree with your position, but I wonder: how can you have a "scientific" argument for or against any moral position? Science tells how things are; it doesn't tell how things ought to be. You can't reason logically from "is" to "ought". Proponents of abortion don't have "science" on their side; they've simply redefined personhood in accordance with newly popular philosophical norms. It's not as if it's news to everyone that barely formed embryos are not really conscious or self-aware. That didn't prevent the Church from treating abortion as murder from the very beginning, and not just "late-term" abortions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

This argument does rest on a moral position that murder is wrong. As for the rest, the strength of the argument lies in its claim that is the most value-free argument there is.

How would an ethical argument be stronger by being "value-free", given that the very topic of discussion is about values?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 04:11:27 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2012, 04:19:39 PM »

Of course, I agree with your position, but I wonder: how can you have a "scientific" argument for or against any moral position? Science tells how things are; it doesn't tell how things ought to be. You can't reason logically from "is" to "ought". Proponents of abortion don't have "science" on their side; they've simply redefined personhood in accordance with newly popular philosophical norms. It's not as if it's news to everyone that barely formed embryos are not really conscious or self-aware. That didn't prevent the Church from treating abortion as murder from the very beginning, and not just "late-term" abortions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

This argument does rest on a moral position that murder is wrong. As for the rest, the strength of the argument lies in its claim that is the most value-free argument there is.

How would an ethical argument be stronger by being "value-free", given that the very topic of discussion is about values?

It would be of value for those who want to use "religion-free" or value-free arguments, don't you think? ff the ground rules were such that ethical argumentation is prohibited, this is a good fall back argument IMHO.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2012, 04:37:25 PM »

Of course, I agree with your position, but I wonder: how can you have a "scientific" argument for or against any moral position? Science tells how things are; it doesn't tell how things ought to be. You can't reason logically from "is" to "ought". Proponents of abortion don't have "science" on their side; they've simply redefined personhood in accordance with newly popular philosophical norms. It's not as if it's news to everyone that barely formed embryos are not really conscious or self-aware. That didn't prevent the Church from treating abortion as murder from the very beginning, and not just "late-term" abortions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/

This argument does rest on a moral position that murder is wrong. As for the rest, the strength of the argument lies in its claim that is the most value-free argument there is.

How would an ethical argument be stronger by being "value-free", given that the very topic of discussion is about values?

It would be of value for those who want to use "religion-free" or value-free arguments, don't you think? ff the ground rules were such that ethical argumentation is prohibited, this is a good fall back argument IMHO.

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith. Unless you take as axiomatic that human life starts at conception, and that we not authorized to take another life into our own hands, I don't see how you can convince a non-religious believer in abortion to change his or her mind, at least not by purely logical arguments. Slippery slope arguments, like the example of those Australian ethicists who have now openly endorsed infanticide (i.e. killing the newborn children), can have an effect, but they're not really logical arguments (they're actually textbook examples of logical fallacies in freshman writing classes); they're more emotional ones. Of course, I think often our emotional response to manifest evil can save us where our coolly logical heads fail us.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2012, 05:22:37 PM »

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2012, 05:29:08 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.   
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2012, 05:33:12 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.   

I've seen that kind of argument, e.g. Russia committing demographic suicide partly because of an astronomical abortion rate. But you must admit that it's one thing to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare" and another to ban it completely. We all know that the Church doesn't think abortion is OK in small amounts; it's never OK. You could probably make a coherent argument that the government should allow a moderate amount of abortion (or infanticide or euthanasia) in order to ensure demographic health, i.e. cull the weak and sick and unproductive, in order for the rest of society to prosper. Would anyone here be OK with that? I doubt it.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2012, 05:40:18 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.   

I've seen that kind of argument, e.g. Russia committing demographic suicide partly because of an astronomical abortion rate. But you must admit that it's one thing to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare" and another to ban it completely. We all know that the Church doesn't think abortion is OK in small amounts; it's never OK. You could probably make a coherent argument that the government should allow a moderate amount of abortion (or infanticide or euthanasia) in order to ensure demographic health, i.e. cull the weak and sick and unproductive, in order for the rest of society to prosper. Would anyone here be OK with that? I doubt it.

On the other hand I think supporting measures that will lower the abortion rate is something we can support.  On a practical level it is impossible to ban euthanasia (essentially suicide).  In the same vein, we can support things that will help lower this - better mental health care, etc.  But I think you are right that especially in extreme cases it is hard to make an entirely secular argument.  In general though making an argument for lower rates of "culture of death" types of things seems straightforward. 
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2012, 05:44:54 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.   

I've seen that kind of argument, e.g. Russia committing demographic suicide partly because of an astronomical abortion rate. But you must admit that it's one thing to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare" and another to ban it completely. We all know that the Church doesn't think abortion is OK in small amounts; it's never OK. You could probably make a coherent argument that the government should allow a moderate amount of abortion (or infanticide or euthanasia) in order to ensure demographic health, i.e. cull the weak and sick and unproductive, in order for the rest of society to prosper. Would anyone here be OK with that? I doubt it.

On the other hand I think supporting measures that will lower the abortion rate is something we can support.  On a practical level it is impossible to ban euthanasia (essentially suicide).  In the same vein, we can support things that will help lower this - better mental health care, etc.  But I think you are right that especially in extreme cases it is hard to make an entirely secular argument.  In general though making an argument for lower rates of "culture of death" types of things seems straightforward. 

Perhaps. I certainly agree it can't hurt to provide means of support for people who may be tempted to have an abortion without it.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2012, 05:59:03 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.   

I've seen that kind of argument, e.g. Russia committing demographic suicide partly because of an astronomical abortion rate. But you must admit that it's one thing to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare" and another to ban it completely. We all know that the Church doesn't think abortion is OK in small amounts; it's never OK. You could probably make a coherent argument that the government should allow a moderate amount of abortion (or infanticide or euthanasia) in order to ensure demographic health, i.e. cull the weak and sick and unproductive, in order for the rest of society to prosper. Would anyone here be OK with that? I doubt it.

On the other hand I think supporting measures that will lower the abortion rate is something we can support.  On a practical level it is impossible to ban euthanasia (essentially suicide).  In the same vein, we can support things that will help lower this - better mental health care, etc.  But I think you are right that especially in extreme cases it is hard to make an entirely secular argument.  In general though making an argument for lower rates of "culture of death" types of things seems straightforward. 

Perhaps. I certainly agree it can't hurt to provide means of support for people who may be tempted to have an abortion without it.

Right.  Let the government do its part to lower the rate of abortion, and then it is the role of the Church to try and convince those who would still have an abortion to not do so. 
Logged
Protoevangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 24


« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2012, 06:09:16 PM »

Looking at abortion rationally, without invoking God.

There are two related questions, with four possible answers. Question one is: 'is abortion murder?' The second is: 'do we know for a fact whether it is, or whether it isn't murder?'

If abortion is murder, and we know it is, then there is no excuse, it is murder.

If abortion is murder, but we don't know it is, then killing the child is manslaughter.

If abortion isn't murder, and we don't know it isn't, it is like a hunter shooting into rustling bushes; where they might get their deer, or they may kill a person, too. This is essentially a form of criminal negligence.

Finally, if abortion isn't murder, and we truly know it isn't, then abortion is perfectly justified.

Without having definitive proof (scientific/legally accepted proof, that it) that the child is a person, or that it isn't, we are left with only two possibilities: manslaughter or criminal negligence.

So, it is really on the abortion advocate to scientifically prove that the pre-born children they plan on killing aren't persons.


To answer the question, 'why would we want to discuss abortion without invoking God?'

A: To save the holy innocents.
Logged

"The unholy doubt, not because they are ostensibly more rational, but because they are unholy.
The holier man is always the more rational, for in the clear mirror of his heart he sees the truth.
"
-- St. Nicholai of Ohrid
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2012, 06:35:36 PM »

I'm not convinced that opposition to abortion makes any sense apart from our faith.

On an individual level I agree that it is difficult.  On the other hand I can't think of a society with a high abortion rate that I would consider healthy.  So it isn't too hard to make the case that the abortion rate (societal) ought to be low.  

I've seen that kind of argument, e.g. Russia committing demographic suicide partly because of an astronomical abortion rate. But you must admit that it's one thing to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare" and another to ban it completely. We all know that the Church doesn't think abortion is OK in small amounts; it's never OK. You could probably make a coherent argument that the government should allow a moderate amount of abortion (or infanticide or euthanasia) in order to ensure demographic health, i.e. cull the weak and sick and unproductive, in order for the rest of society to prosper. Would anyone here be OK with that? I doubt it.

On the other hand I think supporting measures that will lower the abortion rate is something we can support.  On a practical level it is impossible to ban euthanasia (essentially suicide).  In the same vein, we can support things that will help lower this - better mental health care, etc.  But I think you are right that especially in extreme cases it is hard to make an entirely secular argument.  In general though making an argument for lower rates of "culture of death" types of things seems straightforward.  

Perhaps. I certainly agree it can't hurt to provide means of support for people who may be tempted to have an abortion without it.

Right.  Let the government do its part to lower the rate of abortion, and then it is the role of the Church to try and convince those who would still have an abortion to not do so.  

Well, I didn't say the government shouldn't at the same time outlaw abortion completely, but that the government should also address those socioeconomic problems that encourage abortion.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 06:37:41 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2012, 06:37:19 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Logged
Protoevangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 24


« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2012, 06:54:40 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Don't be silly, we do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives. It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 06:55:00 PM by Protoevangel » Logged

"The unholy doubt, not because they are ostensibly more rational, but because they are unholy.
The holier man is always the more rational, for in the clear mirror of his heart he sees the truth.
"
-- St. Nicholai of Ohrid
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

Recently I was engaged an argument with a fellow over aborting a child because the woman was subject to rape. I thought I made a pretty convincing argument on why still aborting the child was wrong, but he wasn't convinced enough to accept I was right.

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God? Or is it impossible? I'm having trouble fleishing out a pro-life argument without using God, and I know alot of members on this site have alot more knowledge about abortion than I do.

In regards to rape, am I correct in saying that aborting a child because of rape is wrong, based on the merits that the child did not choose how to be conceived? Or is this a much more complicated issue that goes into gray area?
It can be done.  I do it all the time (arguing from the basis of religion when the person doesn't realize the grounding of reality wastes time, so I just go a few levels above ultimate reality and go from philosophy, which only presupposes a minimum of awareness).  I won't do it here until it goes political, lest it be misconstrued.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

Abortion in the case of adultery is sanctioned in the Bible

where?
so why not in the case of rape?   
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?

Are you trying to be funny? It's Great Lent, you know; humor is forbidden.
LOL.  Then Augustin is forever in Great Lent.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2012, 10:56:10 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Don't be silly, we do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives. It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality.

What?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,580



« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2012, 10:58:48 PM »

Numbers 5

That's not about abortion. The woman is to take the bitter water, and if she has been unfaithful, the bitter water will curse her and she will miscarry. But it's not the priest or anyone else who kills the child; it's God who does it as a sign to the woman of her sin. God has the authority of life and death over every creature.
Does HOTCA still use this ritual, "when the spirit of jealousy cometh" upon the pious  men thereof?

Are you trying to be funny? It's Great Lent, you know; humor is forbidden.
LOL.  Then Augustin is forever in Great Lent.

LOL +1
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 12,987


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2012, 11:03:42 PM »

Question: is there an Orthodox patron saint of the victims of crime?  Undecided
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2012, 11:12:40 PM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Why wouldn't you?

It legitimatizes the idea that secularism is valid in anyway whatsoever when it is not.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 12,987


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2012, 11:26:49 PM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Why wouldn't you?

It legitimatizes the idea that secularism is valid in anyway whatsoever when it is not.

Well, secular voters aren't going to care about the religious reasons we bring forward. So I guess he's thinking of a way to convince everyone, religious or not, that abortion is wrong. Though, other things besides banning abortion can be done to help stop it: encourage adoption, for one thing, which will give the woman an extra motive to have the child. Just a thought.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2012, 11:31:41 PM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Why wouldn't you?

It legitimatizes the idea that secularism is valid in anyway whatsoever when it is not.

Well, secular voters aren't going to care about the religious reasons we bring forward. So I guess he's thinking of a way to convince everyone, religious or not, that abortion is wrong. Though, other things besides banning abortion can be done to help stop it: encourage adoption, for one thing, which will give the woman an extra motive to have the child. Just a thought.

Well, from my perspective, abortion only exists in the staggering amounts we see today because of secularism. Hence the Soviet Union being the first nation to legalize it (which should really indicated something to people). Ending abortion while preserving secularism would be destroying a particularly nasty symptom while keeping the disease, imo. It'd be kind of a hollow victory and it'd leave the door open for "intellectuals" later on to reinstate it.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 11:32:33 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2012, 12:01:11 AM »

If framed properly, some secularists will acknowledge that a "slippery slope" exists when eliminating life due to utilitarian considerations.  They may argue that the unborn will be unwanted, born into poverty, unloving homes, etc.  They may further argue that they will later be a drain on society.  These cases are both immediately present for most prisoners and mentally ill, and even the elderly. 

Many will also support euthanasia for the elderly, but only for terminally ill people who specifically request it.  As a society (some have differed), we don't decide to kill the masses of criminals, invalids, etc.  Why?

When bringing these up though, please don't conclude that if A happens, B and C will also happen; they may not, but it is a similar consideration at play.  It's a very sensitive topic, and we frequently fail to convince people our side of the issue.  Logical fallacies and hyperbolic analogies aren't usually helpful, but they are particularly damaging in debates like this.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2012, 02:22:53 AM »

Depends on the definition of a human being. We all know that murdering a human is murder, no question about it. The question is, is a zygote a human being? There is no doubt that if it is a human being, then it is murder. But this is the problem; so many people have their own definition of what a human being is. And many times, it is simply personal opinion. For example, some people do not consider a fetus to be a human being because it has not been born yet or because it is non-volitional with little to no consciousness, however, I think it is fair to mention that many people who make up these definitions are guilty of the No True Scotsman Fallacy and these reasons are not even satisfactory because, if we go by these definitions, then one could also argue that the really mentally disabled people or small children are not human beings because they are incapable of volition and total consciousness. So once again I ask, what is the true, scientific definition of human life? I would personally argue that a fetus is a human, but in a different stage. In the same way, the incomplete hunk of junk in the junkyard is still a car even though it is not entirely put together yet. I think the tricky part to abortion topics is that, even if we can prove that a fetus/zygote is human life, is it really human life worth saving? Many people would argue it is not because of the consequences of making a woman carry out the child. But I believe that all of these reasons fail because no innocent person should have to suffer or die simply because of the burden they put on their parents. Going even further, many of these reasons are not even substantial when you really examine them. For example, some people start to say well what if the baby is born into poverty or the mother is really young? Does that mean we should start conducting mercy killings? No. And I am sensitive about this because my mom got pregnant with me at fifteen but was still able to birth, raise, love and care for me even though she was just a poor Mexican living in the ghetto. And I appreciate her for that. Some people say that abortion should not be outlawed because people will just do it illegally and harm themselves. But that is like saying that murder should not be outlawed or else people will just do it behind the law's back and become more dangerous. But at least if wee outlaw it we can still punish them from it. Just some food for thought.

Question: is there an Orthodox patron saint of the victims of crime?  Undecided

St. Monica, the mother of my patron St. Augustine. She is the patron for victims of domestic abuse and women with bad husbands and sons, so in a way she is a patron for victims.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 02:31:35 AM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2012, 02:30:26 AM »

Anyway my question is, and perhaps this may become political, is how would society abolish abortion without envoking God?

Why would you want to?
Why wouldn't you?

It legitimatizes the idea that secularism is valid in anyway whatsoever when it is not.

Well, secular voters aren't going to care about the religious reasons we bring forward. So I guess he's thinking of a way to convince everyone, religious or not, that abortion is wrong. Though, other things besides banning abortion can be done to help stop it: encourage adoption, for one thing, which will give the woman an extra motive to have the child. Just a thought.

Well, from my perspective, abortion only exists in the staggering amounts we see today because of secularism. Hence the Soviet Union being the first nation to legalize it (which should really indicated something to people). Ending abortion while preserving secularism would be destroying a particularly nasty symptom while keeping the disease, imo. It'd be kind of a hollow victory and it'd leave the door open for "intellectuals" later on to reinstate it.

Don't forget that many pagans also had no problem with infanticide.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,388


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 07, 2012, 08:49:34 AM »

So once again I ask, what is the true, scientific definition of human life?
...as opposed to, say, chimpanzee life?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 07, 2012, 10:01:28 AM »

Quote
So once again I ask, what is the true, scientific definition of human life?
Life =

1. Growth
2. Consumption
3. Discernable anatomy
4. Reproductive ability
5. Response to stimuli
6. Adaptation
7. Homeostasis (I think this is one)

EDIT: I would also ask, does the genesis of a child determine his/her worth? Does a child born to a family have more value to a rape baby? Does a baby born to a woman who did not want kids have the same importance as a rape baby?

PP
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 10:02:58 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,388


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 07, 2012, 10:09:12 AM »

Quote
So once again I ask, what is the true, scientific definition of human life?
Life =

1. Growth
2. Consumption
3. Discernable anatomy
4. Reproductive ability
5. Response to stimuli
6. Adaptation
7. Homeostasis (I think this is one)

EDIT: I would also ask, does the genesis of a child determine his/her worth? Does a child born to a family have more value to a rape baby? Does a baby born to a woman who did not want kids have the same importance as a rape baby?

PP
Under that definition, every cell in my body would be an example of 'human life'.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2012, 10:12:51 AM »

Quote
So once again I ask, what is the true, scientific definition of human life?
Life =

1. Growth
2. Consumption
3. Discernable anatomy
4. Reproductive ability
5. Response to stimuli
6. Adaptation
7. Homeostasis (I think this is one)

EDIT: I would also ask, does the genesis of a child determine his/her worth? Does a child born to a family have more value to a rape baby? Does a baby born to a woman who did not want kids have the same importance as a rape baby?

PP
Under that definition, every cell in my body would be an example of 'human life'.
Hey thats not me, that 8th grade science class Smiley

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Protoevangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 24


« Reply #45 on: March 07, 2012, 12:02:46 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Don't be silly, we do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives. It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality.
What?
Very simply, you said, "I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion.", and I replied that "It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality." You see, all true rationality and reason has it's beginning and end in God, whether you, or the atheist, recognizes that fact or not.

You also said, "Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?", and I replied that "... we [as Orthodox Christians], do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives." If we do not, then we are no longer Orthodox. You see, it is downright foolish to postulate that one who thinks an issue through from multiple angles, and is able to make a rational argument from diverse points of view, does not assume or fully recognize and assent that God is concerned with how we live our lives.

This is not to say, however, that God should be excluded entirely from the discussion... Just that not every point in an argument has to explicitly reference Him. If God is truly God, then all truth ultimately points to Him, whether you name Him explicitly in every point or not, because as the Psalist has said, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork."

To put it in other words, using a well-thought-out argument to a hard-headed, hard-hearted secularist, without directly referencing God, as part of an overall approach, is not in any way, rejecting God, His law, or His love. It is not conceding anything. It is not failing to recognize Him and His concern for how we live our lives. And finally, it does not, as another poster suggested, legitimatize the idea that secularism is valid. It is instead, a sign that the person making the argument is willing to think the issue through, and best his opponent on his own "turf", so to speak.
Logged

"The unholy doubt, not because they are ostensibly more rational, but because they are unholy.
The holier man is always the more rational, for in the clear mirror of his heart he sees the truth.
"
-- St. Nicholai of Ohrid
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #46 on: March 07, 2012, 01:34:48 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Don't be silly, we do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives. It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality.
What?
Very simply, you said, "I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion.", and I replied that "It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality." You see, all true rationality and reason has it's beginning and end in God, whether you, or the atheist, recognizes that fact or not.

You also said, "Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?", and I replied that "... we [as Orthodox Christians], do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives." If we do not, then we are no longer Orthodox. You see, it is downright foolish to postulate that one who thinks an issue through from multiple angles, and is able to make a rational argument from diverse points of view, does not assume or fully recognize and assent that God is concerned with how we live our lives.

This is not to say, however, that God should be excluded entirely from the discussion... Just that not every point in an argument has to explicitly reference Him. If God is truly God, then all truth ultimately points to Him, whether you name Him explicitly in every point or not, because as the Psalist has said, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork."

To put it in other words, using a well-thought-out argument to a hard-headed, hard-hearted secularist, without directly referencing God, as part of an overall approach, is not in any way, rejecting God, His law, or His love. It is not conceding anything. It is not failing to recognize Him and His concern for how we live our lives. And finally, it does not, as another poster suggested, legitimatize the idea that secularism is valid. It is instead, a sign that the person making the argument is willing to think the issue through, and best his opponent on his own "turf", so to speak.

OK I see what you mean. I suppose it does depend on whether the secularist shares your moral assumptions, even if he doesn't share your faith. But if a secularist insists that humanity depends on self-awareness, rather than being genetically distinct, I don't see how I could contradict him without appealing to my faith. Humanity is really a philosophical concept, not a scientific one, so it's up to each individual to define the term.
Logged
Protoevangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 24


« Reply #47 on: March 07, 2012, 02:23:15 PM »

I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion. Morality is inseparable from faith for Orthodox Christians. Why should the secularists get to impose their atheistic assumptions on the terms of the debate? Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?
Don't be silly, we do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives. It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality.
What?
Very simply, you said, "I also think that it's too much to concede to the secularists that all arguments about public morality should have no reference to God or religion.", and I replied that "It isn't conceding anything to point out basic rationality." You see, all true rationality and reason has it's beginning and end in God, whether you, or the atheist, recognizes that fact or not.

You also said, "Why shouldn't we proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives?", and I replied that "... we [as Orthodox Christians], do proceed on the assumption that there is a God and that God is concerned with how we live our lives." If we do not, then we are no longer Orthodox. You see, it is downright foolish to postulate that one who thinks an issue through from multiple angles, and is able to make a rational argument from diverse points of view, does not assume or fully recognize and assent that God is concerned with how we live our lives.

This is not to say, however, that God should be excluded entirely from the discussion... Just that not every point in an argument has to explicitly reference Him. If God is truly God, then all truth ultimately points to Him, whether you name Him explicitly in every point or not, because as the Psalist has said, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork."

To put it in other words, using a well-thought-out argument to a hard-headed, hard-hearted secularist, without directly referencing God, as part of an overall approach, is not in any way, rejecting God, His law, or His love. It is not conceding anything. It is not failing to recognize Him and His concern for how we live our lives. And finally, it does not, as another poster suggested, legitimatize the idea that secularism is valid. It is instead, a sign that the person making the argument is willing to think the issue through, and best his opponent on his own "turf", so to speak.

OK I see what you mean. I suppose it does depend on whether the secularist shares your moral assumptions, even if he doesn't share your faith. But if a secularist insists that humanity depends on self-awareness, rather than being genetically distinct, I don't see how I could contradict him without appealing to my faith. Humanity is really a philosophical concept, not a scientific one, so it's up to each individual to define the term.
Agreed. That's why I approach the issue distinguishing what the secularist knows, instead of what he thinks.

Of course, that does not mean that the secularist will be able to accept the logic I presented (or even that my approach is the perfect one, which it is not), just that it is the closest that I can see us finding common ground on the issue. If they can acknowledge that they do not know definitively that the unborn child is not human, then they should be able to infer (whether they ultimately accept it or not), that killing the child is at the very least, irresponsible.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 02:27:22 PM by Protoevangel » Logged

"The unholy doubt, not because they are ostensibly more rational, but because they are unholy.
The holier man is always the more rational, for in the clear mirror of his heart he sees the truth.
"
-- St. Nicholai of Ohrid
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 590


« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2012, 02:23:50 AM »

Without invoking God? I think its impossible. Life has no meaning without God hence i think the atheist (in their world view) is justified in abortion and even infanticide (which some people to their shame are trying to justify). It was Christianity and its influence which ultimately stopped Infanticide from being a good option, in the roman empire after all because of God's law being recognised in this regard.
Logged

Thank you.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2012, 11:31:46 AM »

Without invoking God? I think its impossible. Life has no meaning without God hence i think the atheist (in their world view) is justified in abortion and even infanticide (which some people to their shame are trying to justify). It was Christianity and its influence which ultimately stopped Infanticide from being a good option, in the roman empire after all because of God's law being recognised in this regard.

Very good point about the common acceptance of infanticide in pre-Christian Rome. Infanticide is actually very common among the world's cultures.

So now infanticide is at least respectable enough to be openly advocated in a professional medical ethics journal. Remains to be seen whether it moves from there to public policy.
Logged
Protoevangel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 24


« Reply #50 on: March 08, 2012, 11:53:29 AM »

Without invoking God? I think its impossible. Life has no meaning without God hence i think the atheist (in their world view) is justified in abortion and even infanticide (which some people to their shame are trying to justify). It was Christianity and its influence which ultimately stopped Infanticide from being a good option, in the roman empire after all because of God's law being recognised in this regard.
Don't forget that (most) secularists are just as nominal as many so-called Christians. Most of the time, they still hold on to some semblance of the (bastardized/western) Christian worldview... Although the the downward path they are on does continue to get slipperier and steeper... "The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.
Logged

"The unholy doubt, not because they are ostensibly more rational, but because they are unholy.
The holier man is always the more rational, for in the clear mirror of his heart he sees the truth.
"
-- St. Nicholai of Ohrid
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #51 on: March 08, 2012, 06:02:05 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #52 on: March 08, 2012, 06:11:28 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,432


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #53 on: March 08, 2012, 06:38:24 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,619



« Reply #54 on: March 08, 2012, 06:47:51 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.

Racism is just part of tribalism on a larger scale.  I'm pretty sure that there were plenty of people in St. Anthony's day who killed others because they were from the wrong group.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 06:48:04 PM by vamrat » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #55 on: March 08, 2012, 07:37:51 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,674



« Reply #56 on: March 08, 2012, 07:55:45 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

That is an interesting way to dominate the discussion and public policy. How long do you think that this special definition of racism would apply? Also, when the kick back results in systematic discrimination against the race that had discriminated in the past, when will the definition start to apply to the race that is being discriminated against now? What about the hypocrisy of those who indulge in racially based discrimination to "kick back"? What then happens to the concept of equal justice for all? It seems to me that justice becomes a subjective concept that is defined by whoever is in control. In other words, dog-eat-dog, lawless world of failed nations. But then may be that's what you want this country to turn into.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #57 on: March 08, 2012, 08:21:36 PM »

No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

Wrong.  Only according to crude and selectively applied neo-Marxist constructs.  I presume you get to make the call on who has the upper hand and where the boundaries are in any given area? It's all so easy when you see the world through the lens of have and have nots, but in many places with multiple races, racism occurs, and there is no identifiable "upper hand."

I would direct you to a host of dictionaries to clarify the definition, but they are probably too bourgeois for you (or written by the man).   Roll Eyes
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #58 on: March 08, 2012, 08:27:11 PM »

No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

Wrong.  Only according to crude and selectively applied neo-Marxist constructs.  I presume you get to make the call on who has the upper hand and where the boundaries are in any given area? It's all so easy when you see the world through the lens of have and have nots, but in many places with multiple races, racism occurs, and there is no identifiable "upper hand."

I would direct you to a host of dictionaries to clarify the definition, but they are probably too bourgeois for you (or written by the man).   Roll Eyes

Indeed.

Does it count when affluent Chinese on the lower north shore of Sydney tell their daughters not to dare to bring home an Aboriginal boyfriend?

Yes, the Chinese have the "upper hand" in comparison to the Aboriginal, but aren't the really privileged the Anglo/Saxon/Celts on the upper north shore?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
jaroslavkourakin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 173



« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2012, 08:46:57 PM »

Why do we not consult the Law, and see that a rapist shall marry the victim.

( http://loltheists.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/rape-the-biblical-way-1023x988.jpg )

In any case, people who love abortion hate children.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,580



« Reply #60 on: March 08, 2012, 11:00:40 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

lol, no one can take you seriously. 
You describe yourself under "faith" as: 
"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"
philetist=racist. 

Is your hobby in your spare time slapping rabbis in the face with a pork chop?

Anyway, since you describe yourself as a racist/philetist, and the synod of 1872 defines you as a heretic, I now wonder why you are here other than to poison the waters with your split-tongued heresy. 
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #61 on: March 08, 2012, 11:04:13 PM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

lol, no one can take you seriously.  
You describe yourself under "faith" as:  
"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"
philetist=racist.  

Is your hobby in your spare time slapping rabbis in the face with a pork chop?

Anyway, since you describe yourself as a racist/philetist, and the synod of 1872 defines you as a heretic, I now wonder why you are here other than to poison the waters with your split-tongued heresy.  

What, no inner peace with all those prostrations or what's the problem?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 11:10:09 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,580



« Reply #62 on: March 09, 2012, 12:16:39 AM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

lol, no one can take you seriously.  
You describe yourself under "faith" as:  
"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"
philetist=racist.  

Is your hobby in your spare time slapping rabbis in the face with a pork chop?

Anyway, since you describe yourself as a racist/philetist, and the synod of 1872 defines you as a heretic, I now wonder why you are here other than to poison the waters with your split-tongued heresy.  

What, no inner peace with all those prostrations or what's the problem?

I think your priest with peace should drop-kick your hide to the outer porch so that you could do some prostrations, but since you never show up to church, I suppose he doesn't have the opportunity. 

Anyhow, with inner peace, I don't have a problem with everything, and would only take a spiritual flame-thrower to the following:

1. apathy
2. indifference
3. "communism" (which is not communism at all, but socialist totalitarianism)
4. phyletism
5. accident (if not deliberate, either become deliberate or stop polluting the Church)

As for the traditional and "Orthodox" part, I don't think so.  But you know that already.

"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"

You are a self-described hateful racist
You are a self-described accident (no further comment)
You are a self-described unrepentent heretic

You should inform your priest about all of these problems, with peace and prostrations   Smiley

 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #63 on: March 09, 2012, 12:37:01 AM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #64 on: March 09, 2012, 12:49:43 AM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,631



« Reply #65 on: March 09, 2012, 01:03:26 AM »

"The time is coming when people will be insane, and when they see someone who is not insane, they will attack that person saying — 'You are insane because you are not like us." What Anthony the Great prophesied over 1600 years ago, we see happening before our eyes.

Indeed it is. However, I am not sure if he means in terms of the secularists. I think it is a reference to racism and prejudiceness which is really a problem among minorities in America today, and a problem I highly sympathize with being Mexican.

By prejudiceness do you mean prejudice, and by sympathize do you mean associate?

Yeah I guess. I'm half Mexican and half German but I was brought up more around the Mexican side of my family and although I have not faced profiling as much and most people think I'm just White, I have seen the terrors of how some of my people are treated and discriminated against. The same goes for Black people too, and even White people in some areas. Racism affects everybody nowadays it seems.
No, racism is only when the "race" that has the upper hand socially and economically discriminates against other races. When those other races kick back, even if based on "racial" grounds that's not racism.

lol, no one can take you seriously.  
You describe yourself under "faith" as:  
"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"
philetist=racist.  

Is your hobby in your spare time slapping rabbis in the face with a pork chop?

Anyway, since you describe yourself as a racist/philetist, and the synod of 1872 defines you as a heretic, I now wonder why you are here other than to poison the waters with your split-tongued heresy.  

What, no inner peace with all those prostrations or what's the problem?

I think your priest with peace should drop-kick your hide to the outer porch so that you could do some prostrations, but since you never show up to church, I suppose he doesn't have the opportunity. 

Anyhow, with inner peace, I don't have a problem with everything, and would only take a spiritual flame-thrower to the following:

1. apathy
2. indifference
3. "communism" (which is not communism at all, but socialist totalitarianism)
4. phyletism
5. accident (if not deliberate, either become deliberate or stop polluting the Church)

As for the traditional and "Orthodox" part, I don't think so.  But you know that already.

"apathetic ecumenist indifferent traditionalist communist philetist accidental Orthodox"

You are a self-described hateful racist
You are a self-described accident (no further comment)
You are a self-described unrepentent heretic

You should inform your priest about all of these problems, with peace and prostrations   Smiley

 
Come on, don't overestimate your influence over me. You didn't make me Orthodox, you don't tell me to go either.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #66 on: March 09, 2012, 04:35:57 AM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
I don't see anything about any miscarriage.
Quote
11 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων 12 λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς ἀνδρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ παρίδῃ αὐτὸν ὑπεριδοῦσα 13 καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ' αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λάθῃ ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ κρύψῃ αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ μάρτυς μὴ ἦν μετ' αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτὴ μὴ ᾖ συνειλημμένη 14 καὶ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μεμίανται ἢ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μὴ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη 15 καὶ ἄξει ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα καὶ προσοίσει τὸ δῶρον περὶ αὐτῆς τὸ δέκατον τοῦ οιφι ἄλευρον κρίθινον οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ' αὐτὸ ἔλαιον οὐδὲ ἐπιθήσει ἐπ' αὐτὸ λίβανον ἔστιν γὰρ θυσία ζηλοτυπίας θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν 16 καὶ προσάξει αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ στήσει αὐτὴν ἔναντι κυρίου 17 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν ἐν ἀγγείῳ ὀστρακίνῳ καὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς οὔσης ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐδάφους τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐμβαλεῖ εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ 18 καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψει τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ δώσει ἐπὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ μνημοσύνου τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ἐν δὲ τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἔσται τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 19 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἐρεῖ τῇ γυναικί εἰ μὴ κεκοίμηταί τις μετὰ σοῦ εἰ μὴ παραβέβηκας μιανθῆναι ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σεαυτῆς ἀθῴα ἴσθι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 20 εἰ δὲ σὺ παραβέβηκας ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα ἢ μεμίανσαι καὶ ἔδωκέν τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοὶ πλὴν τοῦ ἀνδρός σου 21 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις τῆς ἀρᾶς ταύτης καὶ ἐρεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῇ γυναικί δῴη κύριός σε ἐν ἀρᾷ καὶ ἐνόρκιον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐν τῷ δοῦναι κύριον τὸν μηρόν σου διαπεπτωκότα καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν σου πεπρησμένην 22 καὶ εἰσελεύσεται τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦτο εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν σου πρῆσαι γαστέρα καὶ διαπεσεῖν μηρόν σου καὶ ἐρεῖ ἡ γυνή γένοιτο γένοιτο 23 καὶ γράψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὰς ἀρὰς ταύτας εἰς βιβλίον καὶ ἐξαλείψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου 24 καὶ ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ 25 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν θυσίαν ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ προσοίσει αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον 26 καὶ δράξεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θυσίας τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ 27 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον καὶ πρησθήσεται τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ διαπεσεῖται ὁ μηρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἔσται ἡ γυνὴ εἰς ἀρὰν ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτῆς 28 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ μιανθῇ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ καθαρὰ ᾖ καὶ ἀθῴα ἔσται καὶ ἐκσπερματιεῖ σπέρμα 29 οὗτος ὁ νόμος τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ᾧ ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα καὶ μιανθῇ 30 ἢ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ' αὐτὸν πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ στήσει τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ποιήσει αὐτῇ ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν νόμον τοῦτον 31 καὶ ἀθῷος ἔσται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκείνη λήμψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῆς
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #67 on: March 09, 2012, 08:20:38 PM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
Where?

I'm beginning to think it has as much to do with abortion as Genesis 38 has to do with contraception, sodomy or masturbation.  I.e. nothing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #68 on: March 13, 2012, 07:57:19 AM »

I don't see how one can make an appeal to the Christian religion to argue against abortion. To be against abortion just isn't unique to Christianity beyond, "All humans have the right to life."

The abortion debate breaks down as such:

1) Do humans have an intrinsic right to life (that is, it the intentional killing of an innocent human being wrong in all cases)?

If no, then we've lost all grounds for moral outrage on any point. We must be morally and politically ambiguous. No one alive can answer "no" to this with a straight face. What they can argue, however, is that we must earn our right to life; of course, we are then left pointing out the absurdity of such a claim. The standard will be arbitrary and can be moved at will, depending on the majority's view of what it means to "earn" a right. No one wants to live in such a world, otherwise we would all happily embrace eugenics.

2) Granted that humans have an intrinsic right to life, is the embryo/fetus human?

After looking at the science, the answer to this is absolutely yes. Science shows that from the moment of conception, we have a human being.

3) In the case of rape, will my action nullify what was done to me?

If one gets an abortion, will that nullify the rape? Will an abortion take away the experience of the rape? Likewise, can we kill an innocent human being in order to alleviate our psychological torment?

Thus, I would argue that even in a secular society, abortion should be banned because it takes the life of an innocent human being. Our right to life is the most basic of rights; if I don't have a right to my own life, then I don't have rights to anything.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,060


« Reply #69 on: March 13, 2012, 10:29:50 AM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
I don't see anything about any miscarriage.
Quote
11 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων 12 λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς ἀνδρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ παρίδῃ αὐτὸν ὑπεριδοῦσα 13 καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ' αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λάθῃ ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ κρύψῃ αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ μάρτυς μὴ ἦν μετ' αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτὴ μὴ ᾖ συνειλημμένη 14 καὶ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μεμίανται ἢ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μὴ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη 15 καὶ ἄξει ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα καὶ προσοίσει τὸ δῶρον περὶ αὐτῆς τὸ δέκατον τοῦ οιφι ἄλευρον κρίθινον οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ' αὐτὸ ἔλαιον οὐδὲ ἐπιθήσει ἐπ' αὐτὸ λίβανον ἔστιν γὰρ θυσία ζηλοτυπίας θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν 16 καὶ προσάξει αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ στήσει αὐτὴν ἔναντι κυρίου 17 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν ἐν ἀγγείῳ ὀστρακίνῳ καὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς οὔσης ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐδάφους τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐμβαλεῖ εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ 18 καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψει τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ δώσει ἐπὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ μνημοσύνου τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ἐν δὲ τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἔσται τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 19 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἐρεῖ τῇ γυναικί εἰ μὴ κεκοίμηταί τις μετὰ σοῦ εἰ μὴ παραβέβηκας μιανθῆναι ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σεαυτῆς ἀθῴα ἴσθι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 20 εἰ δὲ σὺ παραβέβηκας ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα ἢ μεμίανσαι καὶ ἔδωκέν τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοὶ πλὴν τοῦ ἀνδρός σου 21 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις τῆς ἀρᾶς ταύτης καὶ ἐρεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῇ γυναικί δῴη κύριός σε ἐν ἀρᾷ καὶ ἐνόρκιον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐν τῷ δοῦναι κύριον τὸν μηρόν σου διαπεπτωκότα καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν σου πεπρησμένην 22 καὶ εἰσελεύσεται τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦτο εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν σου πρῆσαι γαστέρα καὶ διαπεσεῖν μηρόν σου καὶ ἐρεῖ ἡ γυνή γένοιτο γένοιτο 23 καὶ γράψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὰς ἀρὰς ταύτας εἰς βιβλίον καὶ ἐξαλείψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου 24 καὶ ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ 25 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν θυσίαν ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ προσοίσει αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον 26 καὶ δράξεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θυσίας τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ 27 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον καὶ πρησθήσεται τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ διαπεσεῖται ὁ μηρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἔσται ἡ γυνὴ εἰς ἀρὰν ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτῆς 28 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ μιανθῇ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ καθαρὰ ᾖ καὶ ἀθῴα ἔσται καὶ ἐκσπερματιεῖ σπέρμα 29 οὗτος ὁ νόμος τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ᾧ ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα καὶ μιανθῇ 30 ἢ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ' αὐτὸν πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ στήσει τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ποιήσει αὐτῇ ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν νόμον τοῦτον 31 καὶ ἀθῷος ἔσται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκείνη λήμψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῆς
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,305


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 13, 2012, 10:42:11 AM »

Quote
1) Do humans have an intrinsic right to life (that is, it the intentional killing of an innocent human being wrong in all cases)?
The pro abortion folks side-step this by de-humanizing an unborn child, equating it to the same status as a woman's finger, or leg. Which is silly, but there it is....

Quote
2) Granted that humans have an intrinsic right to life, is the embryo/fetus human?
Which pro-abortion folks must answer no, or they'd be murderers.

Quote
3) In the case of rape, will my action nullify what was done to me?
Of course the means of genesis of the child means nothing. However this is used as an emotional argument. If one's beginnings matter, how far will it go? Poverty? Bad parents? What will be the qualifier to "it was not my choice"? Once you start down the bunny trail, it leads to many things.

Quote
If one gets an abortion, will that nullify the rape?
Excellent question
Quote
Thus, I would argue that even in a secular society, abortion should be banned because it takes the life of an innocent human being
Thats the thing. Abortion is inherently a self-centered act usually. So folks will try to justify it any way they can.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #71 on: March 13, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
I don't see anything about any miscarriage.
Quote
11 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων 12 λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς ἀνδρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ παρίδῃ αὐτὸν ὑπεριδοῦσα 13 καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ' αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λάθῃ ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ κρύψῃ αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ μάρτυς μὴ ἦν μετ' αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτὴ μὴ ᾖ συνειλημμένη 14 καὶ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μεμίανται ἢ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μὴ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη 15 καὶ ἄξει ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα καὶ προσοίσει τὸ δῶρον περὶ αὐτῆς τὸ δέκατον τοῦ οιφι ἄλευρον κρίθινον οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ' αὐτὸ ἔλαιον οὐδὲ ἐπιθήσει ἐπ' αὐτὸ λίβανον ἔστιν γὰρ θυσία ζηλοτυπίας θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν 16 καὶ προσάξει αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ στήσει αὐτὴν ἔναντι κυρίου 17 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν ἐν ἀγγείῳ ὀστρακίνῳ καὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς οὔσης ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐδάφους τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐμβαλεῖ εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ 18 καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψει τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ δώσει ἐπὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ μνημοσύνου τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ἐν δὲ τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἔσται τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 19 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἐρεῖ τῇ γυναικί εἰ μὴ κεκοίμηταί τις μετὰ σοῦ εἰ μὴ παραβέβηκας μιανθῆναι ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σεαυτῆς ἀθῴα ἴσθι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 20 εἰ δὲ σὺ παραβέβηκας ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα ἢ μεμίανσαι καὶ ἔδωκέν τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοὶ πλὴν τοῦ ἀνδρός σου 21 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις τῆς ἀρᾶς ταύτης καὶ ἐρεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῇ γυναικί δῴη κύριός σε ἐν ἀρᾷ καὶ ἐνόρκιον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐν τῷ δοῦναι κύριον τὸν μηρόν σου διαπεπτωκότα καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν σου πεπρησμένην 22 καὶ εἰσελεύσεται τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦτο εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν σου πρῆσαι γαστέρα καὶ διαπεσεῖν μηρόν σου καὶ ἐρεῖ ἡ γυνή γένοιτο γένοιτο 23 καὶ γράψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὰς ἀρὰς ταύτας εἰς βιβλίον καὶ ἐξαλείψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου 24 καὶ ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ 25 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν θυσίαν ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ προσοίσει αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον 26 καὶ δράξεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θυσίας τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ 27 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον καὶ πρησθήσεται τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ διαπεσεῖται ὁ μηρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἔσται ἡ γυνὴ εἰς ἀρὰν ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτῆς 28 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ μιανθῇ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ καθαρὰ ᾖ καὶ ἀθῴα ἔσται καὶ ἐκσπερματιεῖ σπέρμα 29 οὗτος ὁ νόμος τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ᾧ ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα καὶ μιανθῇ 30 ἢ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ' αὐτὸν πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ στήσει τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ποιήσει αὐτῇ ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν νόμον τοῦτον 31 καὶ ἀθῷος ἔσται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκείνη λήμψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῆς
A thigh isn't an embryo.  Bauer, Liddel & Scott and Lampe, and consequently myself, know nothing of such a usage.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,380



« Reply #72 on: March 13, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

Numbers 5
My Bible (and what I remember of the Jews') only mentions conception in the context that if she is innocent she will conceive.  If she is guilty, it only says her privy parts will swell, evidently thereby rendered unfit for entry and I guess painful.  Nothing about abortion.

It does talk about the woman miscarrying if she had sinned.
I don't see anything about any miscarriage.
Quote
11 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων 12 λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς ἀνδρὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ παρίδῃ αὐτὸν ὑπεριδοῦσα 13 καὶ κοιμηθῇ τις μετ' αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λάθῃ ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ κρύψῃ αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ μάρτυς μὴ ἦν μετ' αὐτῆς καὶ αὐτὴ μὴ ᾖ συνειλημμένη 14 καὶ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μεμίανται ἢ ἐπέλθῃ αὐτῷ πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ αὐτὴ δὲ μὴ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη 15 καὶ ἄξει ὁ ἄνθρωπος τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἱερέα καὶ προσοίσει τὸ δῶρον περὶ αὐτῆς τὸ δέκατον τοῦ οιφι ἄλευρον κρίθινον οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ' αὐτὸ ἔλαιον οὐδὲ ἐπιθήσει ἐπ' αὐτὸ λίβανον ἔστιν γὰρ θυσία ζηλοτυπίας θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν 16 καὶ προσάξει αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ στήσει αὐτὴν ἔναντι κυρίου 17 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν ἐν ἀγγείῳ ὀστρακίνῳ καὶ τῆς γῆς τῆς οὔσης ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐδάφους τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐμβαλεῖ εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ 18 καὶ στήσει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ἀποκαλύψει τὴν κεφαλὴν τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ δώσει ἐπὶ τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῆς τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ μνημοσύνου τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ἐν δὲ τῇ χειρὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἔσται τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 19 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ αὐτὴν ὁ ἱερεὺς καὶ ἐρεῖ τῇ γυναικί εἰ μὴ κεκοίμηταί τις μετὰ σοῦ εἰ μὴ παραβέβηκας μιανθῆναι ὑπὸ τὸν ἄνδρα τὸν σεαυτῆς ἀθῴα ἴσθι ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου τούτου 20 εἰ δὲ σὺ παραβέβηκας ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα ἢ μεμίανσαι καὶ ἔδωκέν τις τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ ἐν σοὶ πλὴν τοῦ ἀνδρός σου 21 καὶ ὁρκιεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τὴν γυναῖκα ἐν τοῖς ὅρκοις τῆς ἀρᾶς ταύτης καὶ ἐρεῖ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῇ γυναικί δῴη κύριός σε ἐν ἀρᾷ καὶ ἐνόρκιον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου ἐν τῷ δοῦναι κύριον τὸν μηρόν σου διαπεπτωκότα καὶ τὴν κοιλίαν σου πεπρησμένην 22 καὶ εἰσελεύσεται τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦτο εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν σου πρῆσαι γαστέρα καὶ διαπεσεῖν μηρόν σου καὶ ἐρεῖ ἡ γυνή γένοιτο γένοιτο 23 καὶ γράψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὰς ἀρὰς ταύτας εἰς βιβλίον καὶ ἐξαλείψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου 24 καὶ ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τοῦ ἐπικαταρωμένου καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ 25 καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐκ χειρὸς τῆς γυναικὸς τὴν θυσίαν τῆς ζηλοτυπίας καὶ ἐπιθήσει τὴν θυσίαν ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ προσοίσει αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον 26 καὶ δράξεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀπὸ τῆς θυσίας τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνοίσει αὐτὸ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ποτιεῖ τὴν γυναῖκα τὸ ὕδωρ 27 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη καὶ λήθῃ λάθῃ τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς καὶ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς αὐτὴν τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ ἐλεγμοῦ τὸ ἐπικαταρώμενον καὶ πρησθήσεται τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ διαπεσεῖται ὁ μηρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἔσται ἡ γυνὴ εἰς ἀρὰν ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτῆς 28 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ μιανθῇ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ καθαρὰ ᾖ καὶ ἀθῴα ἔσται καὶ ἐκσπερματιεῖ σπέρμα 29 οὗτος ὁ νόμος τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ᾧ ἐὰν παραβῇ ἡ γυνὴ ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς οὖσα καὶ μιανθῇ 30 ἢ ἄνθρωπος ᾧ ἐὰν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ' αὐτὸν πνεῦμα ζηλώσεως καὶ ζηλώσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ στήσει τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ποιήσει αὐτῇ ὁ ἱερεὺς πάντα τὸν νόμον τοῦτον 31 καὶ ἀθῷος ἔσται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐκείνη λήμψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῆς
A thigh isn't an embryo.  Bauer, Liddel & Scott and Lampe, and consequently myself, know nothing of such a usage.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.3 seconds with 100 queries.