• Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    “leave it at protests” as if they aren’t already mass murdering children

    • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      10 days ago

      Unsure is /s, but doesn’t seem like it.

      Reproductive health advocates are not mass murdering children. You’re thinking of guns, drugs, and cars if you are in the USA, cancer and other genetic defects if in the UK.

        • Holyginz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 days ago

          We get it, you don’t have any scientific knowledge and only go by what religion “says”

            • Holyginz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              10 days ago

              Scientific knowledge shows that a fetus is a lump of cells with no more consciousness than an amoeba that can’t exist without the host which makes it closer to a parasite. That’s not a baby or a person. You need to actually be able to understand more than a one sentence statement to grasp the vast majority of scientific knowledge.

        • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          10 days ago

          K. I’m going to get back to work for my company that is mass murdering children by lowering employee reproductive health. (/s)

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            Your taxes may also go towards murdering kids, whether it be state funded abortions or bombing Gaza

            • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              10 days ago

              Those two examples are wildly different from eachother. One is a medical procedure involving theoretical children, and the other has real kids getting injured and killed.

              Edit: wanted to add that the medical procedure is always to prevent a major health issue when being funded by state taxes.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 days ago

                Whenever the israelis bomb the buildings, they don’t know for certain there are kids in there. They are just theoretical kids in the moment to them.

                • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  More like, Schrodinger’s kids. I genuinely hope you find peace and learn to not let being pro-birth justify letting others suffer and/or die. Red tape and bans kill when it comes to healthcare, without solving anything.

                  • Flax@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 days ago

                    A successful abortion always has at least a 100% fatality rate.

          • UrPartnerInCrime@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 days ago

            But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

            “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

            23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

            • Flax@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              That’s about infertility. The NIV isn’t a very good translation and focuses less on what the text actually says and easy readability. A more accurate translation is the NRSV (although the ESV or even the KJV doesn’t make this mistake- although it depends on whether you want to translate “thigh” as “womb” or literally render it, as thigh is a euphemism. However, the word “miscarry” in the sense that we understand it is not there)

              [27] When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. [28] But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive children.

              Verse 28 says “be able to conceive children”. It’s quite clear that she wasn’t already pregnant at this point.

              • LePoisson@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                10 days ago

                Dude what, no, it’s saying hey if you’re not preggers you can still make a baby. If you’ve “defiled [your]self” then you’re gonna have an abortion when you drink that water. Very explicitly that’s what is being communicated through the text.

                Dancing around translations is just some hand waving bullshit, also maybe we should consider the text isn’t some infallible word of God when you’re saying a different translation changes the meaning of passages. Just as an aside.

                I just picked the first translation the Google search gave. Feel free to read your same thing phrased some other way in another translation.

                Besides that is the only thing the Bible actually says about abortion. The anti abortion stuff is a very modern thing.

                • Flax@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  Defiled yourself via committing adultery.

                  You can translate anything terribly, doesn’t discount the original work.

                  • LePoisson@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    Ok well you’re just being purposely obtuse if you think being made to drink a prepared water after committing adultery and then proceeding to miscarry doesn’t mean you were pregnant.

                    They’re not exactly using contraception.

                    Regardless of the translation, it’s pretty clear these are instructions on how to treat an adulterous woman and cause a miscarriage.

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 days ago

                It’s always endlessly fascinating to me how “fundamentalists” think God speaks in metaphor only when it’s convenient for them personally.

              • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 days ago

                That’s not up to you. All scripture is God breathed. Are you saying that God would allow his one and only true word to be mistranslated so poorly? Shame on you.

                It is obviously both. A woman could be pregnant or not and the same thing would happen either forcing a miscarriage (aka an abortion) or become infertile. There is no where that indicates the woman’s current state of pregnancy or lack thereof so it must be both.

                • Flax@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  That’s not up to you. All scripture is God breathed. Are you saying that God would allow his one and only true word to be mistranslated so poorly? Shame on you.

                  There are several examples of mistranslations happening in major bible translations. Having this superstitious view about it being impossible to do a bad translation of the Bible is completely rubbish.

                  It says that she shall be free to conceive. How can you be free to conceive if you’re pregnant? You cannot conceive a child when pregnant. This scripture cannot be used in any way to justify abortion. You started on a poor translation of it from a disreputable translation (The NIV, often nicknamed the “Not Inspired Version”) and are now clutching at straws because I pointed out that it was clearly incorrect.

                  • catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    9 days ago

                    Incorrect. I’m starting from a translation which God himself allowed into the world. Since God allowed both of these translations then it must mean both things are correct. The woman in this situation could be pregnant or not. Stop questioning God’s power.

                    The Bible is not something for you to just pick and choose what you want it to say. Just because you already have an opinion on abortion doesn’t mean you can cherry pick different translations to support your pre conceived premise. Do you know Hebrew? Were you there when God gave this word to the Israelites? No? Then all we have is the Bible that God himself allowed to be put out into the world. You don’t get to question what God has provided and manipulate His word for your own selfish, political talking points. It’s honestly really troublesome and borderline heretical. I’m worried for your soul. Stop speaking for God and let Him speak for Himself.

    • Pavel Chichikov@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      it takes balls to post stuff like that on Lemmy, and I commend you for it. also, I agree with you. so there’s that.