On May 16, 11:01 pm, mark <whitr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> > Have you ever read Number 5:12-27 or are you just repeating an error
>
> Yes, I looked it up after a friend (Jewish) told me about it.
> <snip>
>
> > The passage describes a form of trial by ordeal. However, while
>
> That's not trial by ordeal, that's an abortion.
>
> > ordinary trials by ordeal require the accused person to do something
> > that normally would cause serious injury, such as picking up or
> > walking on very hot metal, on the assumption that God or the gods
> > would preserve him from harm if he were innocent, this trial requires
> > a wife accused of being unfaithful -- the text does not say she is
> > pregnant -- to drink water that has dust in it. If nothing happens
> > she is to be presumed innocent. Only if she suffers some kind of
> > physical affliction after drinking the water is she to be considered
> > guilty of adultery.
>
> And if she has an abortion, she's guilty. But it is advocated that this
be=
> done. Admittedly, it's on the demand of the husband or father, but it's
> still abortion on demand.
>
> mark
*psi*
The passage, which I quoted, says, "...'If a man's wife goes astray
and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is
hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is
no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and
if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife
and she is impure=97or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she
is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest...."
The words "husband" and "wife" appear several times. The word
"father" does not appear at all, nor does the word "daughter".
However, you wrote, "...it's on the demand of the husband or
father..." You appear to be so locked into the contem****ary debate
over abortion that you try to squeeze everything into it.
Medically, what laymen call a miscarriage also is known as a
spontaneous abortion. In ordinary speech abortion means induced
abortion, which is what the contem****ary debate over abortion is
about.
In the passage cited a husband would not be demanding, or even
requesting, an abortion. He would be requesting a trial to determine
whether or not his wife had been unfaithful. She might not even be
pregnant. And even if she were pregnant and suffered a miscarriage
that would not be an abortion. It would be an act of God, who is
sovereign over life and death. That has nothing to do with one human
being -- an abortionist -- killing another human being -- an unborn
child.
Also, the afflictions that would be suffered by a guilty woman might
not include miscarriage. The variant readings in the footnotes raise
that as a possibility, but might be barrenness. The ancient Jews
valued babies and barrenness would be considered an affliction.
Evidence of that fact can be seen in the first chapter of the Gospel
according to St. Luke:
11Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right
side of the altar of incense. 12When Zechariah saw him, he was
startled and was gripped with fear. 13But the angel said to him: "Do
not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife
Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John.
<SNIP>
18Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old
man and my wife is well along in years."
19The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God,
and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news.
20And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this
happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at
their proper time." <SNIP>
23When his time of service was completed, he returned home. 24After
this his wife Elizabeth became pregnant and for five months remained
in seclusion. 25"The Lord has done this for me," she said. "In these
days he has shown his favor and taken away my disgrace among the
people."
Note Elizabeth's words. Barrenness was considered a disgrace.
Incidentally, since many people have grown up since the two 1973
Supreme Court decisions (Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) in which the
court legalized abortion on the demand for the full nine months of
pregnancy, so some might not understand the words "abortion on demand"
in context. Before those decisions many states had laws that
permitted abortion but only under certain conditions, such as being
necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. In those
states a woman could not just go to a doctor and say, "I want an
abortion" and get it. In those days the call for abortion on demand
meant an elimination of those requirements.
----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore, this is not a syllogism.
|
