This was a common practice back when the bible was written, men could reject their newborn children and leave them out in the cold to starve or freeze--the rejection could be for any reason, but was usually because a daughter was born, sons were better since they could help out more, OR if the baby was born deformed or disabled. The Bible has no problem with this practice, barbaric as it seems by today's standards--GOD APPROVES. So what the HELL (literally) makes you think he gives two dry farts in a windstorm about abortions? Just because he's sexist and it's the woman making the choice?
2007-03-03 17:30:26 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm not trying to be all "women's lib" here ... but I think that's really what the problem is. Its always been acceptable, all during history, for a man to "reject" his child. Even in today's society, a man can always make the decision to disappear, and not be a part of his child's life. Women don't have such an easy choice. All abortion does is give women the same options that a man has ... to be a parent or to walk away.
Alot of people are quick to say that abortion is wrong, but how many of them are actively involved in causes that could lead to less abortions? How many christians fight against teaching kids about safe sex in schools? How many people are involved in local organizations that encourage young males to step up and take their place as men? How many people that are fundamentally pro-life take foster children into their homes or actively help find families for kids who have been turned over to social services? How many christians are willing to take an unwed, pregnant teenager into their home and provide the means for her to get pre-natal care and continue her education just so she won't have an abortion?
2007-03-03 18:23:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
You have to remember that whats so bad sbout things with the Bible ..a lot of things are misinterperted some one claims to be a christian and does not truly do the right things... this doesnt make the Bible bad or true chrisitians bad youve heard the term "wolves in sheeps clothing"?
It was a common practice when it was written you say not in the bible but way back when...
I think it is horrible and I think that leaving a child to freeze is crueler than an abortion yes a life is a life but after seeing your child holding it how could someone do that Im glad that we no longer do this.
2007-03-04 02:50:19 · answer #2 · answered by Dreamer20 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1st of all 90% of the bible is about the Jews (or Israelites) for the Jews. So just because there was a practice among some gentile culture during some period that the bible covers doesn't mean it was a relevant issue to the Jews. So please tell me what historical source you're using to identify this was a common practice among the Jewish people.
Secondly, I'm CERTAIN there is no verse in the bible that approves of this action. I might be missing a passage that discusses it but that doesn't mean it's endorsing it. So please prove me wrong and provide direct quotes so we can get past the wild generalizations. So if it wasn’t a major issue for the Jews God knew that we could figure out form commandments like “Thou Shall not Murder” would mean that leaving a completely helpless baby to die would be wrong to.
Most evangelical Christians believe a complete set of human DNA is a human life whether it's 1 cell or 1 trillion cells. Personally, the point of conception seems like the most reasonable point in the development of a human life to say it is a human life and not just a collection of cells. I haven't heard a better argument of when to draw the line.
A newborn can be "terminated" just as easily as a fetus and is just as dependent on someone to provide it nourishment and care. They also don't really resemble adult humans much more then a fetus the only difference is we can all see them because they're not in someone’s body.
Pro-choicers usually avoid the when is a fetus a human life issue and focus on whether or not it's fair or convenient for women to have to carry the baby. Frankly, that's part of parent hood from the point of conception on it's not fair or convenient but if I tried to ditch or kill my 3 year old that wouldn't be considered ok no matter how much I claimed it wasn't fair for me to have to care for her. So what's the difference with a child while it's in the mothers womb? Personally I'm not sure.
Abortion isn't the solution to the inequality that women often get stuck with carrying and raising the baby alone. The solution for that is we need to not make sex such a big deal in our society. And I don't mean not take it seriously, I mean to glorify it so much also treat it with more respect. If we kept sex to something down between to people in a life long commitment abortion wouldn't be "necessary".
2007-03-04 02:53:30 · answer #3 · answered by Dane_62 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nowhere in the bible does it say that God approves of this practice. Just because it may have been practiced in those times and God doesn't mention it, it doesn't follow logically that God approves of it. There were a zillion evil practices going on in those times as there are today. There's no way the bible could mention every one of those practices and make a value judgement. But because He doesn't mention it does not mean He approves of it.
2007-03-04 02:23:31 · answer #4 · answered by upsman 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes, that was a barbaric practice, and I doubt the mothers had much to say about it at the time--I think the misogenystic heirarcxhy of the church really objects to the fact that women have taken back control of their womb. Abortion is a very difficult decision to make for a woman, and what it does to her body is incredibly dangerous, aborting a child could ruin your body to the point where you may never concieve more--it's not "birth control" and the people who say that sicken me
2007-03-04 01:55:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I'd say it's worse to have the baby born alive, breathing air, and then put to death. Especially if that death is by exposure. A quick, seering death is much less agony than dying of cold, thirst, hunger. Being eaten by a raccoon could be a blessing in that situation.
2007-03-04 02:16:33 · answer #6 · answered by St. Toad 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think leaving an infant to die of exposure is way worse. Abortion is a surgical operation to remove a cluster of cells. Who's god approves of this? My Gods, don't.
2007-03-04 02:26:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are totally incorrect on this one.
All human life is precious and worthy of respect, because all human life comes from God.
God has never condoned any type of murder, within or without the womb.
As for your ridiculous question about choice, murder is murder. Take your pick!
2007-03-04 07:12:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
must be the sexism--if men were the ones carrying the child abortions would be legal, and an outpatient procedure that only took fifteen minutes--you'd also be able to get them in any bar
2007-03-04 01:43:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
You have exposed inconsistencies within the bible that were not to be told.
Good job!!
2007-03-04 02:15:14 · answer #10 · answered by drpsholder 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋